AK-SEN 2022: A Rank Choice

[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.

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 statehood bill for the Douglass Commonwealth is unquestionably constitutional and it's a lock that the Supreme Court would approve it 9-0 if they have to take the case.

[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.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

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.

Yeah, that’s typically how political parties work.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

She already said she isn't changing parties

[brucejoel99]

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

4 days later & ElectionsGuy has still been unable to answer for their erroneous assertion that D.C. statehood & H.R. 1 are unconstitutional. They're not, of course, given the manner in which said pieces of legislation have been structured to comport with the New States Clause, the District Clause, the 23rd Amendment, & the Elections Clauses. But it's not like those inconvenient facts actually matter when "every piece of legislation with which I disagree is unconstitutional" instead.

Simple question, ElectionsGuy: do you or do you not actually know what the meaning of the word "unconstitutional" is?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Users don't like to admit that Rs stole the 3 judgeships, Scalia was Obama pick, ACB should of waited til Biden gotten in office and Kennedy was forced to retire, but they are that D's want power due to Statehood.

Then, Hillary Clinton was cleared of Benghazi and the Rs stole 2016 with cyber help from Russia, I listened to Cruz floor speech after HR 1 due to Sinema not Manchin and he lies again and said Rs never did anything to keep power, hypocrisy

[Ron DeSantis enthusiast]

Users don't like to admit that Rs stole the 3 judgeships, Scalia was Obama pick, ACB should of waited til Biden gotten in office and Kennedy was forced to retire, but they are that D's want power due to Statehood.

Then, Hillary Clinton was cleared of Benghazi and the Rs stole 2016 with cyber help from Russia, I listened to Cruz floor speech after HR 1 due to Sinema not Manchin and he lies again and said Rs never did anything to keep power, hypocrisy

If Scalia was Obama's pick, then RBG was Trump's pick, other interpretation is political hackiness

[Karenthecomputer]

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

[Non Swing Voter]

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)?

[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.

[Хahar 🤔]

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

Alaskan voters can and do see the same polls that we see, and voters generally are more sophisticated in their ability to vote tactically than we tend to give them credit for on this site. It's still over a year out, but barring a major change in the dynamics of the race, the narrative that the Democrat can't win will be spread widely. In that case, I expect to see mass tactical voting for Murkowski by Democrats just like in 2010; here the objective will be to get her into the final round, which she will win if she gets there. I personally don't see a Murkowski victory as a particularly worthwhile outcome, but if you think that she'd be a lot better than the alternative Republican then I don't think there's any reason for doom right now.

[NewYorkExpress]

The Alaska Republican Party endorsed Kelly Tshibaka.

The Alaska Republican Party endorsed GOP Senate candidate Kelly Tshibaka on Saturday, breaking from longtime incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).

The state party confirmed to The Hill that members approved the endorsement in a 58-17 vote.

Tshibaka said in a statement shared by her campaign team that she was “grateful and thrilled to have the strong support of the Alaska Republican Party,” which she said “voted overwhelmingly to endorse” her.

https://twitter.com/KellyForAlaska/status/1413930668590092289

[SnowLabrador]

Yeah, Murkowski has no chance. She might as well just retire.

[Lognog]

Yeah, Murkowski has no chance. She might as well just retire.

Not with RCV

[MillennialModerate]

I’m somewhat confused at how Alaska’s system works (is it the same as Maine?)

I’m not sure I’m getting this right because wouldn’t it make sense for the DNC to say - give us your vote on item A, item B and we we’ll back off in a big way. Maybe even wink wink support you?

Which would be enough for her to win... (or wrong?)

(real) Republicans + Democrats > Trumpers

Right?....

[Roll Roons]

I’m somewhat confused at how Alaska’s system works (is it the same as Maine?)

I’m not sure I’m getting this right because wouldn’t it make sense for the DNC to say - give us your vote on item A, item B and we we’ll back off in a big way. Maybe even wink wink support you?

Which would be enough for her to win... (or wrong?)

(real) Republicans + Democrats > Trumpers

Right?....

The general is similar to Maine, but the primary isn’t. It's a jungle primary (like California/Washington), but the top four candidates advance rather than just the top two. From there, the general is RCV.

[politicallefty]

Murkowski has a home in the Democratic Party if she wants it.

[Lognog]

I really doubt that Murkowski caucuses with the Democrats, but she could easily become an indy and run to caucus with the Republican's.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

(real) Republicans + Democrats > Trumpers

Right?....

Is this a joke? "Real Republicans" (to the extent they exist - they still approve of Trump but may not be obsessed) would want a conservative and are still turned off by an attention whore craving the media spotlight to the detriment of their interests. Would it just be the Bernie wing that would be rallied against a hypothetical Joe Manchin in Rhode Island (or Maine if you insist on an IRV state)? Absolutely not.

[politicallefty]

I really doubt that Murkowski caucuses with the Democrats, but she could easily become an indy and run to caucus with the Republican's.

Probably. She's not a Democrat at heart, but she would be accepted into the party. I'm not sure being an Independent Republican can save her. Her numbers are horrific amongst Republicans. Her best bet is probably to go Indy and promise to be an Alaska Independent or something like that. That could mean caucusing with the Democrats for the current Congress. There is no path for her to win through Republican voters. She needs independents and Democrats.

[brucejoel99]

I don't think anybody can say anything definitive at this stage. After all, not only can anything happen over the next 16 months, but we don't even know if we're getting a real Democratic candidate here or that, even if we do, a sufficient number of Democratic-leaning Alaskan voters come to the conclusion over the course of the campaign that Murkowski has a better shot at beating Tshibaka in the final round than the hypothetical Democrat &, thus, choose to rank Murkowski #1 in order to ensure that the likelihood of Murkowski getting locked out in 3rd-place of the penultimate round is decreased.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I think Gross steals this race at the end of the night, this is like the Joe Miller race of 2016 Kelly is untested, and knocks out the Rs strongest opponent in Murkowski

[Progressive Pessimist]

Murkowski has a home in the Democratic Party if she wants it.

This would be the most begrudging welcoming possible. Let's not forget how useless she's been on judicial appointments (remember how she went along with McConnell blocking Garland), the voting rights bill, and more.

[brucejoel99]

Murkowski has a home in the Democratic Party if she wants it.

This would be the most begrudging welcoming possible. Let's not forget how useless she's been on judicial appointments (remember how she went along with McConnell blocking Garland), the voting rights bill, and more.

IIRC, didn't she meet with Garland & call for a hearing & vote? It's not her fault that Senate discharge petitions don't exist.

[SnowLabrador]

Murkowski has a home in the Democratic Party if she wants it.

This would be the most begrudging welcoming possible. Let's not forget how useless she's been on judicial appointments (remember how she went along with McConnell blocking Garland), the voting rights bill, and more.

IIRC, didn't she meet with Garland & call for a hearing & vote? It's not her fault that Senate discharge petitions don't exist.

If she really wanted a vote on Garland, she could have switched parties then.