Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The Senate Doesn't Come Down to Montana. A Party-Switch by Lisa Murkowski Should Not Be Ruled Out and Dems Would Be Foolish Not to Welcome Her.

If the Kamala Harris wins the presidency but the Democrats lose the Senate on election night, 51-49, it should not be ruled out that Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska might leave the Republican Party and caucus with Democrats.

That would bring the Senate back to 50-50 and give the Dems control with Vice President Tim Walz.

Murkowski called for Trump's resignation after the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, stating "if the Republican Party has become nothing more than the party of Trump, I sincerely question whether this is the party for me."

She would then vote to convict Donald Trump in the January 2021 impeachment vote and refused to support him in the 2024 GOP presidential primary. Presidential polling is scant in Alaska because it is taken for granted that the Republicans will win the state, but Trump is not popular in the state and a recent poll had Harris within the margin of error.

Murkowski is Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. She would no doubt push for more oil drilling in Alaska if the deal for giving the Dems the majority is giving her Chair of the committee, something the environmentalists won't like. She would be targeted by the MAGAs for defeat if she choses to run for re-election in 2028 when she will be 71. But if Harris were to win re-election a Cabinet post could be in consideration.

The other possible Senate party-switch could be Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. But whereas Murkowski voted "present" for the Brett Kavanugh Supreme Court confirmation vote, Collins voted "yeah."

Once the election results are in, if Harris wins and control of the Senate rests with Murkowski, the Dems would be foolish not to reach out a hand and welcome her into the caucus.
Dshhh · M
The problem is the overwhelming power of electoral votes in sparsely populated states
AngelJade · 22-25, F
@Dshhh States that believe the popular vote matters can change how their own votes are allocated to match the popular vote within their borders, much like how Nebraska currently does it. There is no reason that they cannot do that.

As popular vote does not matter, nor should it. I live in one of those very rural low population states that would be ignored by the majority who thinks laws and rules for big cities work great in the country, when they have never even been here nor understand how different we are.

What works in big cities does not work here and reverse.

As such we need to be protected from the tyranny of the majority and the EC is working the way the founding fathers intended it to.

If you believe popular vote should matter, then petition your own state to allocate them to match the popular vote in your state. No doubt some others may follow suit. California likes to lead the way and others often follow so perhaps it should do it to lead.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@AngelJade
California likes to lead the way and others often follow so perhaps it should do it to lead.

Any state that is solid blue or solid red would be out of their minds to do something so foolish.

Nebraska, a solid red state, just failed to switch to a winner take all but for ONE Republican vote in their legislature.
Dshhh · M
@AngelJade
And yet the states like the one you live in, who have very low population, have a disproportionate advantage and electoral college votes. When you divide the number of voters, by the number of electoral college votes, you see a significant discrepancy.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment

 
Post Comment