Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski may switch parties and become a Democrat

[squistion 2,203]

https://x.com/DisavowTrump20/status/1937219783780425993

NEW: GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski is considering switching to independent and caucusing with Democrats if they flip the Senate in 2026: “There is some openness to exploring something different than the status quo."

[squistion 2,203]

 

[Strike 5,553]

She's pretty much a Dem anyways.  She should just quit pretending.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,438]

She only gets her spot because of the dopey voting process in Alaska. 

[Strike 5,553]

6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

She only gets her spot because of the dopey voting process in Alaska. 

Good chance they get rid of ranked choice voting in the next election.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,264]

Translation, her handlers want her to switch sides to help sow chaos.

[squistion 2,203]

6 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

Translation, her handlers want her to switch sides to help sow chaos.

A ridiculous take. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350]

shes been a libtards for years

 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,859]

Good riddance to the old bag.  Fetterman might flip to GOP so it’s a wash. 

[weepaws 3,193]

4 hours ago, squistion said:

https://x.com/DisavowTrump20/status/1937219783780425993

NEW: GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski is considering switching to independent and caucusing with Democrats if they flip the Senate in 2026: “There is some openness to exploring something different than the status quo."

Wasn’t trump a liberal? 

[Cdub100 3,909]

12 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

She only gets her spot because of the dopey voting process in Alaska. 

I had to look it up. Alaska does ranked voting which is the absolute best way to vote. I wish more states did this. 

I don't understand why you would call it dopey 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

17 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

I had to look it up. Alaska does ranked voting which is the absolute best way to vote. I wish more states did this. 

I don't understand why you would call it dopey 

Just had to look it up myself.  I like it so far based on my initial, but cursory, research.

[RLLD 4,230]

To be fair, she might actually be a Democrat, not the radical version that seems to dominate that party now, but the traditional sane Democrat of years gone by

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

A Republican who flips to Democrat, was never a Republican in the first place.  A Democrat who flips to Republican, will never have my trust.

[thegeneral 3,214]

Welcome to the team, Lisa!

[squistion 2,203]

 

[seafoam1 3,031]

5 minutes ago, squistion said:

 

Oh no. Maybe soon she'll be posting on this site whining ad nauseum about life like you do. 

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

Murkowski voted to push the big beautiful bill through. If she votes for its passage tonight, it probably wont matter if she changes parties because she won’t win re-election anyhow. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

2 hours ago, seafoam1 said:

Oh no. Maybe soon she'll be posting on this site whining ad nauseum about life like you do. 

Oh nooos!!! NOT KYLE GRIFFIN!! 

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

On 6/24/2025 at 6:09 AM, Cdub100 said:

I had to look it up. Alaska does ranked voting which is the absolute best way to vote. I wish more states did this. 

I don't understand why you would call it dopey 

Ranked voting is stupid.  It requires one to vote  and to be locked into that vote without sufficient information.  

 

In ranked voting folks prioritize their pre-election preferences.  As the votes are counted some candidates are eliminated and others may rise.  At that juncture the first choices of those eliminated are tossed aside and the next preference of that voter is inserted.  here's the thing though.  That voter when he or she made their preferences known did not know thier prefferred candidate may be eliminated.  They also did not know that a candidate extremely objectionable to them may be on top or rising.  If they had that information it is entirely possible that they may not want to go with their pre-election second choice but might wish to vote for a third or even forth preference to join a coalition to block the objectionable candidate from winning.  Folks are being forced to vote into a very indefinite future.

[Cdub100 3,909]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

Ranked voting is stupid.  It requires one to vote  and to be locked into that vote without sufficient information.  

 

In ranked voting folks prioritize their pre-election preferences.  As the votes are counted some candidates are eliminated and others may rise.  At that juncture the first choices of those eliminated are tossed aside and the next preference of that voter is inserted.  here's the thing though.  That voter when he or she made their preferences known did not know thier prefferred candidate may be eliminated.  They also did not know that a candidate extremely objectionable to them may be on top or rising.  If they had that information it is entirely possible that they may not want to go with their pre-election second choice but might wish to vote for a third or even forth preference to join a coalition to block the objectionable candidate from winning.  Folks are being forced to vote into a very indefinite future.

I think you misunderstand how ranked voting works. It is the absolute best way to vote. It also helps stop a two-party system from forming. Like we have now.

This video might help you understand why you are still voting against the objectionable candidate. 

 

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

2 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

I think you misunderstand how ranked voting works. It is the absolute best way to vote. It also helps stop a two-party system from forming. Like we have now.

This video might help you understand why you are still voting against the objectionable candidate. 

 

I understand.  I believe it is you who do not.  I stand by my summary, absent the spelling errors.

[seafoam1 3,031]

I don't like ranked voting in the least. That's Bernie sanders' and Kamala harris' best chance of getting into the oval office. 

[Cdub100 3,909]

17 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I understand.  I believe it is you who do not.  I stand by my summary, absent the spelling errors.

Help me understand your reasoning. I'm not looking for a pissing match or a gotcha. I read your summary five times, and I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[Cdub100 3,909]

13 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

I don't like ranked voting in the least. That's Bernie sanders' and Kamala harris' best chance of getting into the oval office. 

It's the best option to get another voice. People piss and moan about only having two options. Ranked voting gets us more options.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

3 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Help me understand your reasoning. I'm not looking for a pissing match or a gotcha. I read your summary five times, and I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Take the four candidates from your example, elk, polar bear, penguin and owl.  Say you are an owl man all the way followed by polar bear, elk and then pengin, who you hate more than life itself.  You vote as indicated above.  After first choices are tallied nobody has over 50% so the ranked choice factor will kick in.  On the first counting the totals are 41% for penguin 40% for elk, 12% for polar bear, and only 7% for your first preference, Owl.  All the Owl first preference ballots are now to be recounted leaving Owl off and instead counting the second preference.  Your pre-election second preference was for Polar bear but knowing now that new choices are to be counted can you really say you would still vote that way, having knowledge then of the likely top two person outcome? No, likely you would change your vote to Elk hoping that Elk could overcome the candidate you hate.  In essence you have voters voting their positive impression before knowing the evolving facts.  You take away thier ability, their Constitutionally given right to cast a negative ballot, a blocking ballot, the ballot they would have cast in a run off election where the facts are then known.

 

From postings on this site i would say many are more interested in casting knowing votes to   block the other side than they are even in promoting what they affirmatively support.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

Ranked choice voting solves the infrequent inconvenience of having run off elections, but it creates a new problem of speculative voting, voting not understanding the consequences of a choice in context.

[Cdub100 3,909]

10 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

Take the four candidates from your example, elk, polar bear, penguin and owl.  Say you are an owl man all the way followed by polar bear, elk and then pengin, who you hate more than life itself.  You vote as indicated above.  After first choices are tallied nobody has over 50% so the ranked choice factor will kick in.  On the first counting the totals are 41% for penguin 40% for elk, 12% for polar bear, and only 7% for your first preference, Owl.  All the Owl first preference ballots are now to be recounted leaving Owl off and instead counting the second preference.  Your pre-election second preference was for Polar bear but knowing now that new choices are to be counted can you really say you would still vote that way, having knowledge then of the likely top two person outcome? No, likely you would change your vote to Elk hoping that Elk could overcome the candidate you hate.  In essence you have voters voting their positive impression before knowing the evolving facts.  You take away thier ability, their Constitutionally given right to cast a negative ballot, a blocking ballot, the ballot they would have cast in a run off election where the facts are then known.

 

From postings on this site i would say many are more interested in casting knowing votes to   block the other side than they are even in promoting what they affirmatively support.

We don't know the outcome of votes until they are counted. If I actually liked elk I would have made him my second choice. 

I think we have a fundament difference on how we vote. I am voting for the candidate I like. You are voting against a candidate you hate.

In which case you now have 3 votes against penguin.

You really like owl. But you know he doesn't have a chance to win. In our current system you could waste your vote and vote for him. Or vote for the guy you don't like. 

A lot of people think like you but owl never has a chance because most don't want to waste their vote. 

With ranked voting owl not only has a chance but even if he doesn't win people can say wow owl got a lot of votes maybe next time he will do better. 

I would probably vote libertarian but I'm not going to waste my vote so I vote Republican. 

With ranked voting your vote will go to the person you like more and give you a better chance of beating penguin.

I also like ranked voting because it stops the bs of third party candidates stealing votes. Bush 1 would have beat Clinton if it wasn't for perot. I wasn't old enough to vote but knowing what I know now I would have voted Perot and then Bush. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

50 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

We don't know the outcome of votes until they are counted. If I actually liked elk I would have made him my second choice. 

I think we have a fundament difference on how we vote. I am voting for the candidate I like. You are voting against a candidate you hate.

In which case you now have 3 votes against penguin.

You really like owl. But you know he doesn't have a chance to win. In our current system you could waste your vote and vote for him. Or vote for the guy you don't like. 

A lot of people think like you but owl never has a chance because most don't want to waste their vote. 

With ranked voting owl not only has a chance but even if he doesn't win people can say wow owl got a lot of votes maybe next time he will do better. 

I would probably vote libertarian but I'm not going to waste my vote so I vote Republican. 

With ranked voting your vote will go to the person you like more and give you a better chance of beating penguin.

I also like ranked voting because it stops the bs of third party candidates stealing votes. Bush 1 would have beat Clinton if it wasn't for perot. I wasn't old enough to vote but knowing what I know now I would have voted Perot and then Bush. 

I don't believe that this is what he's doing.  He is voting for the candidate he likes over the rest, but he'd much rather have his 3rd choice if it means defeating the one he doesn't like, instead of his second.

I'm ok with a ranking system for primaries, but not for general elections.

[Cdub100 3,909]

On 6/30/2025 at 10:52 AM, TBayXXXVII said:

I don't believe that this is what he's doing.  He is voting for the candidate he likes over the rest, but he'd much rather have his 3rd choice if it means defeating the one he doesn't like, instead of his second.

I'm ok with a ranking system for primaries, but not for general elections.

In that scenario his 1st or 2nd choice wins. So I don't see the problem.

If the candidate he doesn't like wins that means his 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice could not get enough votes to beat the other candidate regarless if he switched them around. The candidate he doesn't like got over 50% no amount of changing or supporting will beat 50.01%

I'm trying to understand what you guys are saying. I don't say this to be mean because I want a constructive conversation here but I think you're missing the fundamental system of ranked voting.