The Kavanaugh Vote Is Still 51-49, But That Can Change

These are the potential swing votes on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination: Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Susan Collins, R-Maine, Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.Tom Williams/Congressional Quarterly/Newscom via ZUMA

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Brett Kavanaugh won a procedural vote this morning to cut off debate on his nomination and move toward a final vote on Saturday. The vote was 51-49 along party lines with two exceptions:

  • Joe Manchin (D–WV) voted yes
  • Lisa Murkowski (R–Alaska) voted no

Sen. Susan Collins (R–Maine) voted yes on the procedural vote but didn’t commit to how she’d vote on the final confirmation vote.

If Murkowski votes no, the vote would be 50-50 and Vice President Mike Pence would break the tie. If Collins or Manchin also vote no, the vote would be 49-51 and the Kavanaugh nonimation would fail

This makes Collins and Manchin the people to watch, along with Jeff Flake, I suppose, who just might change his final vote on Kavanaugh to no. He provided no indication of whether he was thinking of doing this.

So that’s that. That’s the state of play. If you care about this, it’s time to make a phone call, especially if you live in the same state any of these senators. As always, be polite. Yelling and screaming at Senate staff doesn’t do any good.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest