AK-SEN 2022: A Rank Choice

[Meatball Ron]

I feel like she'd have a better shot if she switched parties, hell even become independent and caucus with neither party.

Don't you have to caucus with one party for committee assignments? I was actually hoping she'd become an Indepdendent caucusing with the Democrats. However, if January 6 didn't convince her, probably nothing will.

One way or the other, ranked choice will most likely save her.

I was of this opinion too (that RCV would save her), but I'm starting to question it.

Ranked-choice voting doesn't simply have the effect of electing the consensus candidate, in the way that approval voting (or a variant of RCV where candidates got a descending number of "points" based on how they were ranked) does.

In other words, being everyone's 2nd choice doesn't help if you don't have enough first choice votes to remain in the race. Hypothetically, let's say most partisan GOPers rank Kelly as #1 and most partisan Dems rank Gross as #1. Murkowski, in 3rd, would be eliminated and her supporters' votes transferred to their second choice.

Now, what can save Murkowski is a) if enough partisan GOPers support her b/c she's the incumbent, b) strong turnout among independents, and/or (much less likely) c) if enough partisan Dems rank her as #1 b/c they're worried about the scenario I described above

I think she is still the favorite because A and B are both reasonably likely, but don't think this race is the slam dunk for her that most people seem to think it is. Definitely a world in which we end up with a crazy Trumper Senator out of Alaska come 2023

[Meatball Ron]

Dems need to make it very clear to Murkowski that if she votes for DC statehood and voting rights, they'll back her reelection, otherwise it's 3rd place for her.

In other words, if she becomes a Democrat, the Democrats will back her re-election.

You don't need to become a Dem for supporting a few common sense policies that should be normal in a functioning democracy. That said, it would be a win-win for Dems and Murkowski. As simple as that.

DC statehood is not "common sense", nor is HR1. Both of them are unconstitutional. Their purpose is to lock in Democratic electoral and legislative majorities permanently. If any Republican votes for them, they should just switch parties and stop the charade.

Lmao - what on earth.

Re: DC statehood - please explain to me why a district with higher population than multiple US states should not have equal voting rights and the protections of other states? Is it because DC residents aren't "real Americans" (overwhelmingly black) in your view? The argument about the need for an independent federal district doesn't stand b/c the federal areas (i.e., buildings and monuments) could remain separate from the new state. Nor does the argument about retrocession, because neither Maryland or DC wants this (what's to stop one from saying, retrocede WV into VA? Merge ND and SD? Retroceding DC into MD is as arbitrary as those actions).

Re: voting rights - nobody mentioned HR1. HR1 and voting rights are not the same thing. In fact, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act is a completely separate piece of legislation from HR1. So I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Meatball Ron]

No matter what drama happens here, a Dem isn’t winning it

Even if Murkowski is the Republican nominee and a Trump enthusiast splinters off to run as a 3rd party Trump supporter (with Trump's official backing)?

There is no "Republican nominee" - this is a jungle primary where the top 4 candidates then compete in a ranked choice voting environment.