I don't think she testified to anything that should impugn Kavanaugh. She still can't provide details, she still has no corroborating evidence, she still has no record of saying anything to anyone for decades.
Unless you are prepared to say that this level of proof -- almost nothing besides her word -- is enough to adjudge guilt in the court of public opinion, then it cannot possibly outweigh the vast weight of
1) Kavanaugh's record since then
2) The hundreds or thousands of character recommendations he's received
3) The endorsements from both sides of the political aisle as to the quality of work he's produced, his legal acumen, and his professionalism in the workplace on the job
4) His work experience and qualifications (worked for Bush administration, has been a federal appellate judge).
There's just nothing in thirty years that suggests what she said is true. So unless you assume what she said is 100% correct -- in the face of all tangible evidence to the contrary -- then even if you are "unsure" of the truth, it's just not enough to overcome.