Thread by @lxeagle17

THREAD: Simulating an RCV election in Alaska, we see that running a Democrat probably helps Kelly Tshibaka more than anything. But the value Lisa Murkowski provides to a Democratic majority is minimal, and the expected value of running a Democrat is still higher, IMO

Let’s construct a grossly simplified scenario where we have Tshibaka (R) at 40%, Galvin (D) at 30%, Murkowski (R) at 30%, and Murkowski loses the second spot by a hair to Alyse Galvin. Now you go to the H2H...

Does Galvin get 66% of Murkowski’s voters to back her as the second choice? Possible...but a tall order...so you’ve just given Tshibaka a huge boost here.

Conversely, would 66% of Galvin’s voters rank Murkowski as a second choice? That’s much easier to imagine.

The picture gets worse for Democrats when you toss in ballot exhaustion. For the example, let’s construct a scenario where you have 20% of Murkowski’s ballots not ranking another candidate. Galvin needs to win ~71% of the rest. The higher the exhaustion rate, the higher this % is

So Galvin needs a high % of votes to begin with before Murkowski’s theoretical elimination. And it can be done (maybe an easier lift than, say, Iowa), but it is not easy by any means.

And now comes the key question: is a < 15% chance of a Democratic Senator worth more than a 40% chance of a “better Republican”? I’d say yes, quite clearly, and it’s not really up for debate. When has Murkowski actually been critical to anything for a Democratic majority?

Murkowski will never be the 50th or 60th vote on legislation. Her election does nothing in terms of helping Democratic priorities. Her only value would be for a Democratic minority, and that’s fine if you’re convinced you’ll lose the Senate in ‘22 and need that friendly vote.

But if you’re playing for a majority, funding her makes no sense, especially when you have a chance at getting a safe D vote. You could argue that she helps you if Trump wins in 2024, but that’s not something to plan around if your goal is to pass legislation these next two years

And lastly, with how rapidly Anchorage is trending Democratic, Tshibaka would be a hell of a lot more vulnerable in 2028 than Murkowski would be, so it’s a better long-term play too.

TL;DR: RCV opens up a lane for a Democrat to win, but that lane spikes the Trump candidate odds as well, and that’s fine because the value over replacement that Murkowski gives is minimal in terms of policy progress for Democrats.

(If I had to hazard a guess, I actually think it’s like ~10% chance *max* that the Democrat wins even in a scenario like this, so I really put in a wider bucket than I needed to)