Joshua Green writes, “[D]espite the smoother reception, Kagan will probably garner fewer votes in the Senate than the 68 votes Sotomayor got. This is less a reflection on Kagan or Sotomayor than a marker of just how much Washington has changed since last August. The difference is the increased awareness among Republican senators of the energy and anger in the conservative base.” Green probably has the bottom line right: She will get fewer votes than Sotomayor. But I suspect ethnic politics is a bigger factor than the mood of conservatives. Several Republican senators didn’t want to vote against the first Latina nominee. They’re not going to have a similar reason to vote for Kagan. Moreover, they probably don’t want to explain why they voted against Obama’s liberal Latina nominee but for his liberal non-Latina nominee.

If electoral politics were all that counted here, I’d say that the nine yes votes Sotomayor got from Republican senators is a ceiling for Kagan. (Actually, make that ceiling eight: Martinez voted for her on explicitly ethnic grounds.) But it’s not all that counts, and favorable reviews from enough conservative legal heavyweights might sway a vote or two.

I think Green is also wrong about this: “Bowing to this anger is going to be awkward for a number of senators–pro and con–because the Senate voted just a year ago to confirm Kagan as Solicitor General. Seven Republicans supported her. While some, like Olympia Snowe, can probably do so again without fear of reprisal, others–especially Jon Kyl and Orrin Hatch–are going to have to execute a flip-flop or steel themselves for some serious intra-party hazing.”

Voting for Kagan for one job and then voting against her for a significantly different and more important job would not be a flip-flop, and it would not be hard for Kyl or Hatch to explain. I’ll see if I can get copies of their statements on the SG confirmation, but I wouldn’t be surprised if those statements were tied pretty closely to the job she was up for.