Just a Quarter of Republican Senators Voted for Rick Scott
Politico is one of the outlets that is focusing most productively on areas of tension between Article I Republicans and Trump. Their very good House journalists have this piece on objections to impoundment (which would strip the House of its most basic function, the power to appropriate), use of military for mass deportation (from Rand Paul), and tariffs (from John Thune). Josh Gerstein noted Chuck Grassley’s opposition to Trump’s plan to replace all the current Inspectors General. And they did an uneven post on which Senators might be most likely to oppose Trump (which was perhaps too early to note that Utah’s Senator-elect John Curtis was among the first to go on the record with concerns about Matt Gaetz). Mike Rounds gave a hawkish interview in support of Ukraine. And after Lisa Murkowski said (in a little-noticed Alaska interview) that she won’t vote to confirm any Trump nominee who has not undergone an FBI background check, four more Senators — Susan Collins, Kevin Cramer, Rounds, as well as Joni Ernst — joined Murkowski in expressing support for background checks (though without making them a litmus test), with Bill Hagerty scoffing at the entire idea that they’re necessary.
There are far too many Democrats dismissing the possibility that there can be meaningful opposition to Trump from Congress. The Senate, especially, held up some of Trump’s plans the first go-around, even before he sicced an armed mob on them. And if nothing else, these people love their own prerogatives, and so will — at least selectively — defend those (as the bid to insist on FBI background checks would be a means to do).
More importantly, we don’t have the luxury of assuming Republicans will routinely capitulate to Trump: It is the job of the Democratic party, at this point, to give them cause to do so. Yes, Mitch McConnell failed in 2021 when he had an opportunity to disqualify Trump. He will have further opportunities to amend his own failure, and it’s simply not an option not to fight to get him to do so. Not least, because the mere act of doing so effectively may have an effect in 2026, if elections are really held.
And that’s why I’ve been trying to identify what I’m calling the Scott Caucus: The (just) 13 Republicans who voted for Rick Scott in the first round of the election for Majority leader. There was a good deal of pressure, including from online influencers who can elicit mob and also Elon Musk, the mobster incarnate, to vote for Trump’s pick for Majority Leader, Scott. But he lost in the first round of voting, with a reported outcome of:
- Thune 23
- Cornyn 15
- Scott 13
- Not voting 2
Thune won the second round between him and Cornyn 29-24.
To repeat: Just 13 members of the Senate voted, on a secret ballot, for Trump’s preferred candidate for Majority Leader. There’s undoubtedly a lot that went into that vote, but the 38 Senators who affirmatively voted against Scott are people who voted, at least partly, against capitulating to Trump.
We don’t know who all is included in that list, but these people publicly endorsed Scott:
- Marsha Blackburn
- Ted Cruz
- Hagerty
- Ron Johnson
- Mike Lee
- Rand Paul
- Marco Rubio
- Tommy Tuberville
I suggested that this vote, of the people who voted against Charles Q. Brown to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, might be a proxy for other Senators who prefer gross politicization against basic competence — though according to his public statements, Josh Hawley voted for Thune.
Whoever the other five people are (Rubio, of course, will be replaced once he is confirmed as Secretary of State), they’re just a small fraction of the GOP Senate.
Republicans will enjoy their time in the majority, and most of the time most Republican Senators will gleefully support what Trump will do.
But when given a choice to capitulate immediately or to uphold their own prerogatives, an overwhelming majority of Republican Senators voted to defend their own privilege.
As a US Senator, you occupy rarefied air. You’re one of only 100 in a population of 340,000,000 ish. You can’t help but feel the (nagging) pull of the oath you took; the history, the gravitas of your role as 1/3 of the government.
No one could accuse a US Senator of false modesty. These are ambitious, transactional, political animals with an eye on power and legacy. Perhaps many will support destruction of their own agency, but my layperson’s guess is that their egos will slow or inadvertently gum up the capitulation.
The most interesting one to watch may be with RFK, Jr. and the FDA. In an administration and political party that is eager to surrender oversight to the corporate world, he is proposing the exact opposite. I suspect he will be met with stiff resistance from Republicans, Democrats, and industry.
I understand your point to be that as long as the focus remains on what Trump says a nominee will do, some GOP senators will fold, but with a nominee in front of them for confirmation, their corporate overlords will notice what the nominee is promising to do.
I hope so!
Trump’s raiding of MOC for his Cabinet will also gum up the works. GOP majorities will be slim until those MOC are replaced with reliable Republicans. That will delay the usual Do It in the First 100 Days rush. All good, especially when it comes to gumming up approval of some of Trump’s more outrageous Cabinet picks. Tough Democratic stances now, necessary as they are, should also be seen as teeing up their positions for the 2026 election.
Public voting and secret voting are entirely different.
Plan on every Republican voting in public exactly as the felon Trump directs.
We are in the same boat as Italians with Mussolini. Or would Berlusconi be more accurate?
Oh goody! Only 13 Republican Senators are irredeemably corrupt! The rest are only “transactionally” corrupt!
This is the first article I have seen that notes senators love of their position, presige and power. They have jealously protected their importance for decades . Old habits die hard.
Supreme Court judges love their ability to have the final say. Roberts is afraid his legacy is threatened and Alito wants his every whim to be obeyed.
9. Banks (IN)
10. Britt (AL)
11. Scott (FL)
12. Scott (SC)
Interesting to think of the names that this would exclude, especially given how many act as mouthpieces, co-conspirators or seem thirsty for administration roles:
Ernst
Cotton
Graham
Grassley
Kennedy
Mullin
Schmitt (MO)
or are from Idaho, where their voters have gone Trump-cray relative to other red states (though it also has one of the faster-growing populations.)
Those are confirmed?
No, I’m just filling out a list, based on their close association & geography, to your list of those who publicly endorsed.
Bannon was recently screeching/advocating these secret votes be made public. For obvious target prioritization needs.
Hawley announced he was voting for Cornyn, not Thune. From Fox News on Nov 9:
That said, I can see the possibility that someone might say they would vote for Thune or Cornyn in public but then cast a secret ballot for Scott. They didn’t want to piss off the person they thought would end up being the Majority Leader, but they really didn’t want to vote for them either. And if so, they likely told Scott and/or Trump exactly what they were doing.
Might Hawley have done that? I don’t know. But I he has visions of higher office, I suspect not just for himself but also for his wife Erin (first female SCOTUS Chief Justice?), and wouldn’t want to piss off folks who could help with that.
Ugg…of course he might.
One word: TENEO
https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/03/10/conclusion-to-series-on-the-dawn-of-everything/#comment-984263
And that last sentence just nearly gave me a heart attack.
Now I’m going back to bed. :-/
Yet it seems that most of the Cornyn voters switched to Scott rather than Thune.
This is such an interesting development! It really highlights the divisions within the Republican Party and how challenging it can be to unite on key issues. Rick Scott’s approach and leadership style clearly aren’t resonating with a significant portion of the Senate GOP, despite his attempts to rally support. The fact that only a quarter of Republican senators voted for him speaks volumes about the internal disagreements within the party.
I’m curious to see how this will affect the party’s strategy going forward. Will they continue to be divided, or is this just a temporary setback for Scott? It also makes me wonder what kind of leadership the GOP will settle on in the coming months as they prepare for upcoming elections. Thanks for breaking down the numbers and providing such a detailed analysis!