AK-SEN 2022: A Rank Choice

[brucejoel99]

If the latest RCV polling is to be believed, then Gross better not jump into this: his entry holds Murkowski to 3rd before he loses to Tshibaka in the final round, & while Murkowski may still be an R, she's not evil like Tshibaka. The devil you know...

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

If the latest RCV polling is to be believed, then Gross better not jump into this: his entry holds Murkowski to 3rd before he loses to Tshibaka in the final round, & while Murkowski may still be an R, she's not evil like Tshibaka. The devil you know...

Screw that.
I’m sick to death of Democrats conceding races in the hopes of getting a kinder gentler Republican.
If Murkowski wants Gross to drop she can switch parties.

[brucejoel99]

If the latest RCV polling is to be believed, then Gross better not jump into this: his entry holds Murkowski to 3rd before he loses to Tshibaka in the final round, & while Murkowski may still be an R, she's not evil like Tshibaka. The devil you know...

Screw that.
I’m sick to death of Democrats conceding races in the hopes of getting a kinder gentler Republican.
If Murkowski wants Gross to drop she can switch parties.

Ok, but when Gross f**ks Murkwoski over & Tshibaka - pure-evil who'll never in a million years be as good for Dems as Murkowski has managed to be - is sworn-in as a Senator, it's not on us who had the foresight to anticipate said outcome.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

If the latest RCV polling is to be believed, then Gross better not jump into this: his entry holds Murkowski to 3rd before he loses to Tshibaka in the final round, & while Murkowski may still be an R, she's not evil like Tshibaka. The devil you know...

Screw that.
I’m sick to death of Democrats conceding races in the hopes of getting a kinder gentler Republican.
If Murkowski wants Gross to drop she can switch parties.

Ok, but when Gross f**ks Murkwoski over & Tshibaka - pure-evil who'll never in a million years be as good for Dems as Murkowski has managed to be - is sworn-in as a Senator, it's not on us who had the foresight to anticipate said outcome.

Explain to me how Murkowski is good for Dems? With the proviso the one vote from 4 years ago does not count. Gross isn’t screwing Murkowski, the Democratic party’s job is to elect Democrats.

Incidentally, wasn’t going out of it’s way to protect ‘good’ Republicans and nominating party switchers a hallmark of the Florida Dems? How’s that been working out for you guys?

[7,052,770]

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.

[brucejoel99]

If the latest RCV polling is to be believed, then Gross better not jump into this: his entry holds Murkowski to 3rd before he loses to Tshibaka in the final round, & while Murkowski may still be an R, she's not evil like Tshibaka. The devil you know...

Screw that.
I’m sick to death of Democrats conceding races in the hopes of getting a kinder gentler Republican.
If Murkowski wants Gross to drop she can switch parties.

Ok, but when Gross f**ks Murkwoski over & Tshibaka - pure-evil who'll never in a million years be as good for Dems as Murkowski has managed to be - is sworn-in as a Senator, it's not on us who had the foresight to anticipate said outcome.

Explain to me how Murkowski is good for Dems? With the proviso the one vote from 4 years ago does not count. Gross isn’t screwing Murkowski, the Democratic party’s job is to elect Democrats.

Incidentally, wasn’t going out of it’s way to protect ‘good’ Republicans and nominating party switchers a hallmark of the Florida Dems? How’s that been working out for you guys?

"With the proviso that the instance in which she was literally a deciding vote to save health-care for 30 million Americans - which, once again, Tshibaka would never, ever be in a million years - doesn't count?" K, let's see then: pro-choice? Check. Pro-LGBTQ+? Check. Pro-criminal justice reform? Check. Pro-affirmative action? Check. Pro-statutorily fighting hate crimes? Check. Pro-affordable housing? Check. Pro-tax breaks for low- & middle-income households? Check. Pro-Dreamer, pro-amnesty, pro-pathway to citizenship, anti-reduce & restrict legal immigration, & anti-wall? Check, check, check, check, & check. Pro-banning Trump from federal office for literally inciting an insurrection upon the U.S. Capitol? Check. Pro-net neutrality? Check. Pro-federal marijuana reform? Check. Anti-USPS ratf**king? Check. Pro-PATRIOT Act reform? Check. Pro-Iranian de-escalation? Check. Anti-Russia? Check. Tshibaka? Nowhere near all of those, because she's just a Trumpist.

The Democratic Party's job is to elect Democrats, yes, but when that's not at all likely, it should also be to stop pure-evil. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis to understand that while Gross > Murkowski > Tshibaka, Gross isn't winning, & at that point, it's just not at all unreasonable to wanna stop Tshibaka at all costs by any politically strategic means necessary.

And hallmark? Literally the only guy who did it was Crist, & while he shouldn't have been stupid enough to do what he did in 2010 (though, after having done so, Meek should've heeded the advice of Obama & Clinton to drop-out in order to stop Rubio, which Crist had a much better chance of doing in a one-on-one with Rubio than Meek did), he still managed to hold Scott to a 1% win in 2014 despite that year otherwise being a total & complete (non-Atlas) red wave before going on to amass an avg. House Democratic vote-record. It obviously didn't work out as well as it could've (i.e., Obama/Clinton actually getting Meek to help stop Rubio in 2010, a Crist win in 2014), but it's not the apocalypse that you seem to be implying it was. The FDP has been hopelessly incompetent on the basis of many, many reasons, but this isn't one of them.

[Badger]

If the latest RCV polling is to be believed, then Gross better not jump into this: his entry holds Murkowski to 3rd before he loses to Tshibaka in the final round, & while Murkowski may still be an R, she's not evil like Tshibaka. The devil you know...

Screw that.
I’m sick to death of Democrats conceding races in the hopes of getting a kinder gentler Republican.
If Murkowski wants Gross to drop she can switch parties.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

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.

AK has UBI benefits and she voted against Biden stimulus bill and Gross can win, he lost to Sullivan, if Kelly is the Nominee in a blue Tsunami, we can win this seat again a female Trump

[Pericles]

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.

Maybe not all of them since she does need to keep enough appeal to Republicans, but she should have to cast a deciding vote to help Schumer out in a big way to get Dem support.

[CookieDamage]

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

[Utah Neolib]

If the latest RCV polling is to be believed, then Gross better not jump into this: his entry holds Murkowski to 3rd before he loses to Tshibaka in the final round, & while Murkowski may still be an R, she's not evil like Tshibaka. The devil you know...

Screw that.
I’m sick to death of Democrats conceding races in the hopes of getting a kinder gentler Republican.
If Murkowski wants Gross to drop she can switch parties.

Ok, but when Gross f**ks Murkwoski over & Tshibaka - pure-evil who'll never in a million years be as good for Dems as Murkowski has managed to be - is sworn-in as a Senator, it's not on us who had the foresight to anticipate said outcome.

Explain to me how Murkowski is good for Dems? With the proviso the one vote from 4 years ago does not count. Gross isn’t screwing Murkowski, the Democratic party’s job is to elect Democrats.

Incidentally, wasn’t going out of it’s way to protect ‘good’ Republicans and nominating party switchers a hallmark of the Florida Dems? How’s that been working out for you guys?

"With the proviso that the instance in which she was literally a deciding vote to save health-care for 30 million Americans - which, once again, Tshibaka would never, ever be in a million years - doesn't count?" K, let's see then: pro-choice? Check. Pro-LGBTQ+? Check. Pro-criminal justice reform? Check. Pro-affirmative action? Check. Pro-statutorily fighting hate crimes? Check. Pro-affordable housing? Check. Pro-tax breaks for low- & middle-income households? Check. Pro-Dreamer, pro-amnesty, pro-pathway to citizenship, anti-reduce & restrict legal immigration, & anti-wall? Check, check, check, check, & check. Pro-banning Trump from federal office for literally inciting an insurrection upon the U.S. Capitol? Check. Pro-net neutrality? Check. Pro-federal marijuana reform? Check. Anti-USPS ratf**king? Check. Pro-PATRIOT Act reform? Check. Pro-Iranian de-escalation? Check. Anti-Russia? Check. Tshibaka? Nowhere near all of those, because she's just a Trumpist.

The Democratic Party's job is to elect Democrats, yes, but when that's not at all likely, it should also be to stop pure-evil. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis to understand that while Gross > Murkowski > Tshibaka, Gross isn't winning, & at that point, it's just not at all unreasonable to wanna stop Tshibaka at all costs by any politically strategic means necessary.

And hallmark? Literally the only guy who did it was Crist, & while he shouldn't have been stupid enough to do what he did in 2010 (though, after having done so, Meek should've heeded the advice of Obama & Clinton to drop-out in order to stop Rubio, which Crist had a much better chance of doing in a one-on-one with Rubio than Meek did), he still managed to hold Scott to a 1% win in 2014 despite that year otherwise being a total & complete (non-Atlas) red wave before going on to amass an avg. House Democratic vote-record. It obviously didn't work out as well as it could've (i.e., Obama/Clinton actually getting Meek to help stop Rubio in 2010, a Crist win in 2014), but it's not the apocalypse that you seem to be implying it was. The FDP has been hopelessly incompetent on the basis of many, many reasons, but this isn't one of them.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

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

Murkowski father lives in Seattle still has influence on Lisa life, she already said she won't be a Dem

Why doesn't Collins become a D, she is gone in 2026 against Troy Jackson she is 70 yrs old

[Inmate Trump]

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.

I'm on board with this.

I would rather have Murkowski than Tshibaka, obviously any sane person would...but if she wants to add Dem support and keep Gross out of the race, then she needs to back something major like DC statehood.  Otherwise, screw her.

[If my soul was made of stone]

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.

I'm on board with this.

I would rather have Murkowski than Tshibaka, obviously any sane person would...but if she wants to add Dem support and keep Gross out of the race, then she needs to back something major like DC statehood.  Otherwise, screw her.

This would probably be lose-lose for her, since she'd go against her own principles and also jeopardize her re-election further by galvanizing opposition in what's still a largely Republican state. With the top-four system she probably wouldn't get nearly as much support from Democrats as she did in 2010 and 2016 when the only viable option was far more conservative, and that support might also harm her image as it did for Al Gross. As much as I'd love to see her forced to back down on her loathsome energy policy, it would be suicidal.

[7,052,770]

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.

Maybe not all of them since she does need to keep enough appeal to Republicans, but she should have to cast a deciding vote to help Schumer out in a big way to get Dem support.

She can negotiate it down to just DC statehood. That seems fair to both sides. She's already spoken out quasi-in favor of it, relating it to the struggle for statehood Alaskans went through.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I show no interest in saving Murkowski, I have already endorsed Gross whom makes the runoff against Kelly

[President Johnson]

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.

[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

[Progressive Pessimist]

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.

Nah. Let's just pull a Manchin and abandon any leverage we could have had.

[ElectionsGuy]

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.

[Sir Mohamed]

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.

[ElectionsGuy]

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.

[Sir Mohamed]

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.

The orgininal posts said voting rights in general, not HR1. This would in all likelyhood be Manchin's proposal that even Stacey Abrams is supporting.

If not granting DC residents full representation in congress isn't common sense, I dunno what is.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

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.

If D's hold the H and get 52/48 Senate D's can pass HR 1 and DC Statehood

If we lose 6 seats out of TX and FL we can make up for it in Cali, NY and IL


Rs aren't gonna win 20 seats out of TX and FL forget it, Cox polls and R polls have gone down in Cali due to McCarthy blocking the Commission, we can win the 4 seats back in Cali we lost in 2020

We already have a 6 seat Majority

R packed the Crts by stealing the Scalia seat from Obama and Trump Jr got Kennedy to retire, the hypocrisy of Rs

SCOTUS still gonna rule on those two cases HR 1 and DC Statehood, Crts have Judicial Review over cases if they're not passed thru Amendment and Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are Nos due to Citizens United, we don't know what ACB will do

[GALeftist]

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.

Unconstitutional is when I don't like something, and the less I like it, the more unconstitutional it is