AK-SEN 2022: A Rank Choice

[brucejoel99]

Well she could be an independent who caucuses with Democrats, that would be fine. Though you're right, they'd probably have to bribe her with running the energy committee or something which would be gross.

Couldn't be worse than our Ranking Member.

I've heard speculation that this might annoy Manchin by denying him the gavel, possibly precipitating a party swtich or early resignation on his part. Not sure how credible that is, but I guess it's worth thinking about.

Yeah, to be fair Manchin is probably only still caucusing with us because he's the Ranking Member.

And she's already been Committee Chair for 6 years so hopefully they could just reach an equitable compromise, i.e. Manchin as Chair & Murkowski as "senior Committee member" or something like that.

[brucejoel99]

Random fact; has anybody noticed Murkowski has never won an election with a majority? She's always won with a plurality.

Yeah, but if they'd all been 1-v.-1 races like the final round of an RCV election is guaranteed to be, it's pretty clear she would've been able to put together a majority coalition of support, at least in the past.

[brucejoel99]

I'll believe a non-incumbent Trump taking the time & energy to leave Mar-a-Lago & actually go all the way to Alaska when I see it.

[brucejoel99]

Eh, I'm not really worried for Murkowski thanks to RCV now, I just can't see her not cruising to victory on the back of pragmatic & centrist Democrats & Republicans alike thanks to pretty much every Democrat & non-Trumpist Republican in the state ranking her as either their 1 or their 2 on their ballots.

[brucejoel99]

I'm going against the conventional wisdom here, but I'm not sure if RCV will end up helping Murkowski.  She will obviously get into the general, but she is in significant danger of being the 2nd elimination by RCV. A lot of 2nd place votes don't help if you can't get into the final 2. A lot depends on who the Democrats end up running, because Murkowski is going to need 1st place votes from a significant chunk of Dems. I think people underestimate how much Murkowski's base support has collapsed since 2016, and not just because of Trump.

100%. If there's a strong dem and a strong other republican I could easily see Murkowski coming in 3rd.

This is a big if, of course, especially if a sufficient number of Democratic-leaning Alaskan voters come to the conclusion over the course of the campaign that Murkowski would have a better shot of beating Tshibaka in the final round than the hypothetical Democrat, & rank Murkowski #1 as a result.

[brucejoel99]

Is Alaska RCV not a queer variation of RCV that includes a Top-4?

If so it's virtually impossible that she would receive less than 25% of the vote, so why all the hot takes?

Yeah, it's a single nonpartisan blanket primary, but instead of the top-2 advancing to the general like in CA & WA, it's top-4 & the general utilizes RCV if necessary 'til somebody's over 50%.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

...........

Mhmm. And how exactly do you think that would've played out without at least 3 Republicans joining her in doing the same? Because it certainly wouldn't have resulted in a confirmation vote for Garland actually being held, that's for sure.