“Cramer committed to an all-of-the-above energy approach and to advancing nuclear energy as a clean electricity source.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Adversarial re-check: all four sources cited by the prior rater were independently fetched and are REAL, live, and accurately quoted. (1) cramer.senate.gov/issues/energy-and-the-environment does contain verbatim 'Senator Cramer believes in an all-of-the-above energy approach that responsibly develops the natural resources North Dakota and the nation possess,' and separately 'This is complimented by nuclear, wind and hydropower generation.' (2) The Dec. 3, 2020 EPW press release is genuine and contains the quoted 'Nuclear power is a safe, reliable, emissions-free source of energy...I urge my colleagues to support it.' (3) The Nov. 3, 2021 American Energy, Jobs, and Climate Plan release is genuine and contains the quoted nuclear line. (4) Senate roll call 118-2-200 (June 18, 2024, 88-2-10) is genuine and Cramer is indeed recorded Not Voting. No invented or misquoted source found. I also independently established a fact the prior rater UNDERSTATED: per govinfo, Cramer IS a named cosponsor of S.1111, the ADVANCE Act of 2023 (sponsor Capito, introduced Mar. 30, 2023), which was enacted as Division B of Public Law 118-67, signed July 9, 2024 — so the marquee nuclear statute of the period did land with Cramer's cosponsorship, not merely his passive support. Conversely, I checked S.4897 (American Nuclear Infrastructure Act, 116th) and Cramer was NOT a cosponsor there, only an EPW committee vote plus public advocacy, so the prior rationale slightly overstated that item. Net, the two corrections offset. Standard-consistency test: cosponsorship of a landmark bill that became law, plus a committee vote advancing an earlier version, plus repeated self-initiated public advocacy, is materially more than 'a single supporting vote' — a Democrat with the identical record on a climate/energy promise would be rated CHAMPIONED under the same rubric. Not FULL, because this is an open-ended directional posture rather than a discrete deliverable, Cramer was a cosponsor rather than the lead author of ADVANCE or ANIA, and he was recorded Not Voting on final passage of the vehicle carrying the ADVANCE Act. Not PARTIAL or ATTEMPTED, because the effort actually landed in statute and his engagement was sustained and self-initiated. CHAMPIONED (+0.75) stands; confidence raised slightly from 0.75 to 0.80 on the strength of the verified ADVANCE Act cosponsorship.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.