The Democrat trick behind Senator Murkowski’s ‘present’ vote

[endicom]

American Thinker
Daniel G. Jones
Oct. 7, 2018

Yesterday the Senate confirmed Brett Kavanaugh as the 114th Justice of the Supreme Court.  The final tally was 50 to 48, with 99 Senators voting to achieve that outcome.

The mathematics are odd because Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) switched her “nay” vote to “present.” She says she did this to accommodate her colleague Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) who was attending his daughter’s wedding and unable to register his vote in favor of the nomination.

Really? If Murkowski had voted “nay,” the result would have been 50-49. Kavanaugh still would have won. Her voting “present” had no effect on the outcome. Do you suppose she didn’t think of this? Or might she have something else in mind?

More... https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/the_democrat_trick_behind_senator_murkowskis_present_vote_.html

[endicom]

Counterfactuals are hard. If Manchin was going to vote for Kavanaugh in any case then his vote could be considered the deciding vote in any case. It could be said that his assured aye vote allowed Murkowski to vote present.

A problem with what ifs is that changing one thing may have changed other things.

[mystery-ak]

October 7, 2018
The Democrat trick behind Senator Murkowski’s ‘present’ vote
By Daniel G. Jones

Under the cover of doing a favor for Senator Steve Daines, Senator Lisa Murkowski actually helped the Democrats more.

Yesterday the Senate confirmed Brett Kavanaugh as the 114th Justice of the Supreme Court.  The final tally was 50 to 48, with 99 Senators voting to achieve that outcome.

The mathematics are odd because Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) switched her “nay” vote to “present.” She says she did this to accommodate her colleague Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) who was attending his daughter’s wedding and unable to register his vote in favor of the nomination.

Really? If Murkowski had voted “nay,” the result would have been 50-49. Kavanaugh still would have won. Her voting “present” had no effect on the outcome. Do you suppose she didn’t think of this? Or might she have something else in mind?

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/the_democrat_trick_behind_senator_murkowskis_present_vote_.html

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Vote-pairing has been a fairly long-standing Senate practice that happens all the time, even when the margin is greater than one vote.  Plus, the Manchin premise is simply wrong.  Once Collins and Flake were committed, Manchin's vote became irrelevant, not the deciding vote the article claims.

[endicom]

Topics merged.

[jmyrlefuller]

Suppose Manchin and Murkowski both voted no. The GOP earns its reputation as incompetent do-nothings. The base stays home and Dems take both houses of Congress, forcing the seat to stay empty until Merrick Garland is appointed. What good would that do?

[endicom]

Suppose Manchin and Murkowski both voted no. The GOP earns its reputation as incompetent do-nothings. The base stays home and Dems take both houses of Congress, forcing the seat to stay empty until Merrick Garland is appointed. What good would that do?

Historians are said to dislike counterfactual history and this is why. Change one thing and it's up to imagination what else might have changed.

[Cyber Liberty]

Suppose Manchin and Murkowski both voted no. The GOP earns its reputation as incompetent do-nothings. The base stays home and Dems take both houses of Congress, forcing the seat to stay empty until Merrick Garland is appointed. What good would that do?

I don't think that adds up.  If those two voted "No," McConnell would have kept the vote open until the Senator at the wedding was flown back to DeeCee to make it 50/50.  A private jet was ready to take him, and Pence could have broken the tie.