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.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Dshhh · M

The problem is the overwhelming power of electoral votes in sparsely populated states

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@Dshhh

I'm living in the real world. That is not a problem that can be solved for 2025.

Dshhh · M

@beckyromero no it is not
this year solution is *sigh*. get every one out to vote
not just for president, but state gov, and congress races
we have to win on BOTH counts

2000 Bush v Gore? Gore won the popular vote
2016 Trump Vs Clinton Clinton one the popular vote

but there IS a solution, many states are quietly working on makine electoral college votes, go to the winners of the national popular vote

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/sites/default/files/202404/1-pager-npv-v235-2024-4-15.pdf

or this process
https://wolf-pac.com/the_solution/

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@Dshhh

🙄

Same old pie-in-the sky theories that waste efforts on trying to change the rules instead of focusing on winning the game now!

There's a SCOTUS that rules Trump can break the law as president, perhaps even allowing him to assassinate his politcal opponents. Yet you somehow believe that same Court will allow a change to the Electoral College. 🤔

I'm well aware of the NPVIC.

Perhaps you can answer this? How many red states are part of the Compact?

If you don't know, the answer is ZERO!

How many swing states are part of the Compact?

Again, the answer is ZERO!

And I wish people would stop trying to sell the NPVIC by saying Gore and Hillary would have won.

If those elections were held under different rules then, the campaigning and spending allocations would have surely been different.

Too many leftists seem to be born with the mental disease of wanting to unilaterally disarm, such as with laws in blues states restricting gerrymandering. Probably stems from the desire to restict firearms.

If California gerrymandered like Florida and Texas do instead passing a so-called "California Citizens Redistricting Commission", the House would have remained in Dems hands at the midterms.

Dumbass Californians who passed that measure years ago is why Mike Johnson is Speaker of the House and why the border bill couldn't get passed.

I want to govern! And one can't govern unless you win! And so I'm more interesting in winning with the existing rules that are in place than whining and crying and blaming losses on the rules.

Dshhh · M

@beckyromero I love how informed you are
good points

the electoral college bit, does not require "red states" just enought to make the 277 majority

[media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&t=46s&pp=ygUYY2dwIGdyZXkgZ2VycnltYW5kZXJpbmcg]

[media=https://youtu.be/Mky11UJb9AY]

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@Dshhh

270 is the minimum number for election by the Electoral College.

And the Compact won't get to that number without red or swing 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.