What number of votes were needed to keep government open

1. What “number” matters — two different vote thresholds

There are two different answers because Congress uses different rules: in the Senate a 60‑vote threshold is generally required to overcome a filibuster and move a bill to a final vote (the news coverage of the funding deal records a key 60–40 vote to advance the package), whereas in the House most legislation only needs a simple majority of those voting — in this case the House passed the funding measure 222–209 ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The Senate breakout that made reopening possible

Reporting describes a pivotal Senate vote of 60 for and 40 against to take the first procedural step toward ending the shutdown; that 60–40 margin reflected a bipartisan coalition including eight centrist Senate Democrats who agreed to advance the package in exchange for a commitment to a future vote on ACA subsidies ^{[1] [3]}.

3. The House vote that finished the job

After the Senate cleared the way, the House — after returning from recess — voted to pass the funding legislation by a 222 “yea” to 209 “nay” tally, which then went to the President and was signed into law, ending the shutdown ^{[2] [4]}.

4. Why the Senate’s 60 mattered politically and procedurally

The 60‑vote threshold mattered because it was the procedural barrier that had blocked action: without roughly 60 senators willing to advance the measure, the chamber could not move to final passage. Coverage emphasizes that a small group of centrist Democrats striking a deal with Republicans supplied the votes needed to clear that filibuster‑style hurdle ^{[1] [3]}.

5. Competing perspectives in the reporting

Conservative House Republicans framed the outcome as restoring order and blamed Democrats for the shutdown despite the Senate deal ^[5]. Some Democrats and progressives criticized colleagues who voted to advance the deal as conceding on their priorities — but they also secured a commitment to a future vote on extending enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits as part of the bargain ^{[6] [3]}. Both narratives appear in the coverage and explain why both the 60 and the 222 vote totals were politically significant ^{[6] [5] [3]}.

6. Limits of the available reporting

Available sources document the 60–40 Senate procedural vote and the 222–209 House passage that reopened the government, but they do not supply a single, universal “number of votes needed” absent the specific procedural context — e.g., cloture in the Senate versus a House majority ^{[1] [2]}. The coverage also does not provide a transcript showing every senator’s motivation beyond reported deal terms and party statements ^{[3] [1]}.

7. What to watch next — the tradeoffs baked into the votes

Reporting highlights that the Senate centrist deal traded immediate reopening for a promise of a future vote on ACA subsidies, and the House passage extended funding through a specific date (January 30 in some descriptions), creating another potential showdown — so the numerical thresholds achieved (60 and 222) solved the immediate crisis but set up future leverage points and political fights ^{[1] [7]}.

Sources cited: Senate procedural 60–40 vote to advance the funding package ^[1]; House passage of the funding measure 222–209 and related coverage of final signature and reopening ^{[2] [4]}; reporting on centrist Democrats’ role and the ACA‑subsidy trade ^{[3] [6]}; analysis of political messaging and aftermath ^{[5] [7]}.