Dem
51
GOP
49
As long as we're on the subject of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is not a happy camper when it comes to her party's presidential candidate. "I wish that as Republicans, we had... a nominee that I could get behind," Murkowski told CNN yesterday. "I certainly can't get behind Donald Trump." She also said there was "absolutely no way" she would ever vote for him. When the Senator was asked if she was going to remain with the Republican Party, she very pointedly refused to make any commitment to that. "Oh, I think I'm very independent-minded," she said.
Politically, a switch to independent is not surefire career suicide for Murkowski, the way it was for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ). First, Alaska has a strong libertarian streak, and though a red state, is willing to elect non-Republicans statewide (e.g., Rep. Mary Peltola, D-AK). Second, Murkowski once won election as a de facto independent, when she was denied the Republican nomination for the Senate in 2010. Third, since that 2010 election, Alaska has switched to an instant-runoff system wherein the top four primary finishers compete in the general election. Even as an independent, Murkowski is sure to finish in the top four in any primary, and then there's an excellent chance she would be the #1 or #2 choice of a majority of voters in the general.
It remains to be seen if Murkowski will take the plunge, and then, if she does, it remains to be seen what "independent" will really mean. In Sinema's case, it meant "still a Democrat in all but name," and she continued to caucus with the blue team. Murkowski could take the same course, remaining a part of the Republican conference as an independent, though that would not be especially consistent with her criticism of Trumpism. If her vote was available to the Democrats, that would be a big deal indeed, particularly if the Senate ends up with 50 Republicans, 49 Democrats and independents, and Murkowski. She could score a Denali-sized mountain of pork. (Z)