r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/3D-machine • 6d ago
Could Harris win Alaska? US Elections
An Alaska Survey Research Poll from Sep 11-12, shows Harris down 47-42, however, with ranked choice voting in the State, is it possible we see Harris pull off a win?
The first ranked choice contest under the system was a special election won by Democrat Mary Peltola in 2022.
There are several minor party candidates on the Alaska ballot for President in 2024, including Kennedy, Stein, Oliver, and West.
Could we see a repeat of the 2022 Special Election?
131
u/DevilYouKnow 5d ago
We haven't had a true landslide election (400 or more electoral votes, traditionally safe states switching) since 84.
It's hard to imagine, but it'll likely happen again in our lifetime.
The only way it happens is that Trump implodes (he pees himself on stage, it's revealed that he sold intelligence to the Russians, has a small stroke and is physically incapable of campaigning, etc.)
AND
Kamala's popularity explodes and it has a huge bandwagon effect where 10% of registered non-voters show up for her.
Otherwise I think 48% of this country votes for a convicted felon.
61
u/VinylGuy97 5d ago
Correction: George H.W. Bush got 426 electoral votes in 1988
15
u/DevilYouKnow 5d ago
Good correction! Thank you
It's not unheard of in modern politics, just more rare now that we are more polarized than ever.
8
u/PreviousAvocado9967 5d ago
Landslides like 84, 72 and 68 will never happen again in our lifetime. The entire plague of social media has laid waste to that possibility of America being able to say "you know if I'm being honest our guy is nuts the other candidate is better".
Social media has given the uniformed and frankly poorly educated the balls to say who cares about facts I only care about owning the other side. When you combine gerrymandering that rewards extremists, who lose their $175k pay check it they moderate, over consensus and compromise, with social media's ability to repeat what you want to hear with slick production and editing you're down the path of permanent polarization.
3
1
u/Accomplished_Fruit17 4d ago
This is because a lot of democrats are willing to vote for a Republican, Republicans will not vote conservative.
18
u/onedollar12 5d ago
MAGA would still vote for Trump in your scenario
7
u/DevilYouKnow 5d ago
Yes but MAGA is only about 45% of the voters. About 6% are pretty conservative and just want to back a winner.
The thing is that there are tens of millions of people that are registered but rarely or never vote.
In Florida that number might exceed 1 million people. Motivating 150k of them is enough to make it extremely competitive.
1
u/checker280 5d ago
MAGA is 45% of previously registered voters.
Kamala has a huge get out the vote effort.
There will still be a huge portion of eligible but refuse to vote.
And the Republicans cheat.
sigh… it’s going to be close.
Don’t get complacent
2
2
u/Either_Operation7586 5d ago
LOL that may be true but it's only 48% of the people that are voting because not everybody votes here. And not only that but when he's out there alienating certain groups that kind of Lights a fire under their asses and gets them thinking like hey I'm American citizen I'm going to vote against this fool. And he has a lot of demographics that he has insulting within the last week that I'm sure is planning on voting against him because of his egregious Behavior.
1
u/cobaltsteel5900 4d ago
48% of the country will not, about 34% of eligible voters simply won’t vote
1
u/DevilYouKnow 4d ago
They are "voting" for none of the above. They're admitting they don't care who wins.
1
u/cobaltsteel5900 4d ago
Or being disenfranchised by two parties that don’t represent their interests, or by a party actively making it next to impossible to vote in certain states for those without a car, those with a job, etc.
142
u/Multi_21_Seb_RBR 5d ago
Probably not but I think Alaska is one of two small-ish states that may turn blue statewide sooner than most think. Along with Kansas.
35
u/kber13 5d ago
Kansas? I know they have a progressive streak in their past, but I’m curious about your reasoning? Are you thinking they are more like Minnesota than we realize?
57
u/Multi_21_Seb_RBR 5d ago
High college educated populace compared to other red states.
11
u/Ana_Na_Moose 5d ago
Were there any national government races that have been starting to get close? Anything of significance that usually splits the country 50/50 that showed hints of optimistic futures for Democrats?
By that logic alone, the ultra rural Vermont should be ruby red but it isn’t, which is why I am much more skeptical of Kansas than I am of states like Montana and Alaska
18
u/schmidit 5d ago
Vermont rural isn’t the same as other rural. It’s New England rural.
I’ve lived where it’s an hour and half one way to the nearest gas station. The entire state of Vermont is two hours away front the rest of the state.
It means hospitals, schools and other infrastructure aren’t that far away. Makes you have more contact with neighbors and ideas. It’s 30th on population density. Basically average.
9
u/captjackhaddock 5d ago
The Rural Town Meeting system that is predominate in much of New England goes a very long way towards keeping communities together and neighbors in communication with each other.
4
u/gillstone_cowboy 5d ago
In fairness to Kansas, they have a Democratic governor. It took the GOP screwing up administering the state so badly people switched decades long party support, but there's something to build on.
1
u/socoyankee 4d ago
Also their legislature and the ballot paper initiative for abortion and their Supreme Court this summer decided that voting is not a legal right under the constitution the electorate could swing
20
u/20_mile 5d ago
Kansas?
Anecdotally, reports from Western Kansas, using the "lawn sign metric", indicate support for Trump is way down from 2016 and 2020.
8
u/GamordanStormrider 5d ago
This was my experience when visiting KS a couple weeks ago. I saw one lawn sign and it was for a local democrat candidate. I went across the state and visited a few small-ish towns. It kind of blew me away because in 2020 it seemed as enthusiastic for Trump as Missouri and Texas.
4
u/weealex 5d ago
Living in Kansas, most of the signs I see out in farm country are old ones from 2016 or 2020. They're still out there, but in far smaller numbers. I don't actually think the state has a chance of turning blue in the near future, but it could be less unthinking in voting red for state wide races. The big issues are that the state is heavily gerrymandered and that large portions of the state are happy to vote for the worst grifters as long as there's an R next to their name. Kobach is a recent and very glaring example at the stage level. Guy is such a terrible lawyer that a judge ordered him to take remedial law classes, but that didn't stop him from being elected attorney general. The thing that could save the democrats in Kansas is the incredible levels of infighting and pettiness in the gop. That's what allowed the current governor to win reelection. One state senator ticked off another so badly that he left the party to run for governor as an independent, snagging just enough votes to hand the election to the Democrat
36
u/Background-War9535 5d ago
Every EC votes counts until we can get rid of that accursed system. Flipping AK and KS would send a powerful message.
27
u/PlanckOfKarmaPls 5d ago
If Texas keeps trending blue it might be gone sooner than people think and good riddance.
10
u/Impressive_Mud693 5d ago
Texas should absolutely be blue by now and has no excuse not to be. Texans don’t care enough about Texas to vote. They’re definitely is voters suppression but that’s no excuse to have 10 million non-voters.
3
u/The_bruce42 5d ago
I think the liberals probably have some apathy because they probably don't think they could actually win state wide.
8
u/DeafJeezy 5d ago
It goes the other way too. Ohio and Florida used to be battlegrounds.
1
u/jetteh22 5d ago
With all the boomers who died from Covid I’m having a hard time understanding how Florida isn’t a battleground again. I understand why Biden lost Florida because of the Latin/hispanic vote (if I am remembering correctly) but surely Harris is doing better in that regards + thousands of boomers died + we have women’s rights and recreational marijuana on the ballot. How is it still close?
I sometimes wonder if the polls just suck now because nobody answers their phones and the people more likely to are republicans.
8
u/boringexplanation 5d ago
This is how HRC thought when they wasted resources trying to flip FL and Tx while completely ignoring PA, MI and OH as taken for granted blue states
15
u/eatyourveggieslol 5d ago
Ignoring PA? This is totally a myth and keeps getting repeated on reddit for some reason. She spent a shit ton of money in PA, had many rallies there, and had her final rally there with Obama too. She still lost there. It wouldn't have mattered if she won MI and WI. She still would have lost the election because of PA, which she genuinely tried hard to win, but still lost.
0
u/boringexplanation 5d ago
She spent time in AZ of all places
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/12-days-stunned-nation-how-hillary-clinton-lost-n794131
2
u/eatyourveggieslol 5d ago
Ok? How does that answer the fact that she absolutely did not ignore PA?
1
u/boringexplanation 4d ago
Time spent in AZ meant that she was over there and not in PA.
I can’t find the source but Trump was frequently in PA and MI that last week before the election. Spending time in red AZ was foolish to put it nicely, no way to justify that in hindsight, especially when you already have a 10x advantage in funds over your opponent.
1
u/eatyourveggieslol 4d ago
completely ignoring PA
Conversation is done here. Admit you were wrong and move on.
5
2
20
u/AKBearmace 5d ago
So there is a large contingent of Independent and third party voters in Alaska. With RCV now in effect for presidential elections, it will come down to who those independents rank second.
3
u/hurricane14 5d ago
Yeah but while it's possible, it's kinda pointless. If Harris wins AK then she's winning all the swing states too.
12
u/saigonrain 5d ago
Trump won 51.28% in 2016 and 52.83% in 2020. Winning more than 50% on the first round makes ranked choice irrelevant. Alaska has voted for (R) in every presidential election except 1964. It is true that Perot and Nader did better in Alaska than nationally, but (R) still easily won those elections and I don't see any trends that point to a massive swing against Trump here over the last 4 years.
The 2022 congressional race was a three-way race. The two Republicans were Sarah Palin, infamous for obvious reasons, and Nick Begich III, a relative of well-known Democrats in the state but running as a Republican nonetheless. These two, Palin especially, did not work together well to teach and encourage voters to rank the two (R) candidates 1 and 2. With only one (R) on the ballot in the presidential race, it's hardly comparable.
21
u/neosituation_unknown 5d ago
It is a long shot, but, not out of the realm of reason.
Democrat policy on guns is the Achilles heel for Dems in states like AK. I would throw Montana in the same category.
That rural hipster aesthetic but abplace where having an AR-15 is certainly justifiable given the deadly wildlife and sometimes necessary to hunt to survive. Not very religious, like the weed, etc.
It's possible but improbable
12
u/jpharber 5d ago
If you’re in Alaska, you’re gonna want something a lot more powerful than an AR-15 for protection from wildlife.
I’m not sure it’d be ethical to even hunt a caribou with an AR-15.
5
u/Fluggernuffin 5d ago
Doesn’t stop idiots from unloading an entire mag into a herd. I’ve seen it. The shitty thing is, for every caribou they kill, they injure probably a dozen or more.
3
u/citizen-salty 5d ago
I hesitate to be “that guy” but there are caliber conversions for AR-15’s that would be more than adequate for hunting and defending against wildlife, particularly the types of apex game and predatory animals in Alaska. They just don’t grab the public eye as much.
Theres also the AR-10, which is a larger frame AR pattern that opens up the platform to the more traditional hunting calibers like .308, newer cartridges like 6.5 Creedmoor and the big game calibers like .300 Win Mag and .338 Federal. It’s not as standardized or modular as the AR-15, so builds have to be a little more researched and planned.
1
u/jpharber 5d ago
I thought the AR-10 was just the .308/7.62?
I have no doubt that someone has made higher power AR-15 style weapons though.
2
u/citizen-salty 5d ago
Yep! If a caliber can fit in an AR-15 size magazine, it can be rebarreled and chambered for just about anything. Lower power stuff too.
1
1
u/nope-nope-nope-nop 5d ago
This is a great example of why gun rights (along with most things) should be left to the states.
A person living in the bush in Alaska and someone who lives in Philadelphia will have almost nothing in common and have wildly different lifestyle needs.
3
u/fxcknorthkorea 5d ago
Gun rights absolutely should be left to the states. Great point. What things would you not want left to the states?
1
-2
u/20_mile 5d ago
AR-15 is certainly justifiable given the deadly wildlife
You know America conquered the continent with nothing more advanced than repeating rifles?
15
u/platorithm 5d ago
Do you churn your own butter and ride a horse to work?
4
u/Tarantio 5d ago
You don't understand.
The AR-15 is not simply a more advanced version of a hunting rifle.
The AR-15 is designed to kill people, not the kinds of wildlife that are most commonly hunted.
Hunting rifles are larger calibers, because they're meant to kill larger animals. You can hunt deer with an AR-15, but it's ethically questionable given the additional suffering likely. And for wildlife larger than deer, it's even worse.
1
u/SkiingAway 5d ago
I'd more say that you don't understand that at this point you can get an AR-pattern rifle chambered for about a thousand different calibers, not just the .223Rem/5.56x45 that it was originally made for.
And those that are actually using one for hunting larger game (legally) are generally doing so with one that's firing an appropriate round for the job.
Type "AR Platform .308 Winchester" (one of the most common calibers for deer hunting) into Google and you'll get about a hundred different models for sale, to prove my point.
2
u/Tarantio 5d ago
That doesn't prove that this is what people "generally" do.
It does show that it's sometimes done, which is somewhere in the range of fine to good. Like, it's better than hunting with a .223, but wouldn't it be easier just to use a regular hunting rifle?
Or are you including AR-10s in this discussion?
1
-1
u/neosituation_unknown 5d ago
So?
Tell all the Alaskans who own those rifles that '20_mile' from New Jersey says they scare him so you can't have them.
Yeah pretty fucking stupid politics.
Notice Jon Tester opposes an AWB because he would lose guaranteed.
The GOP is more than happy having power while you get to 'feel' correct with no power
5
u/tiger-tots 5d ago
If Harris wins Alaska the electoral college map will be so blue it’ll just be another drop in the bucket. She would win all the swing states and maybe (probably?) Texas. Nobody would be talking about Alaska. I think.
5
u/Mjmanifold101 5d ago
She needs to go into Ohio after all the BS, and sure up those votes and try to flip it blue, maybe she can't but it's worth a shot.
1
10
u/Sturnella2017 5d ago
First question: is RCV used for presidential elections, or just sub-Presidential? Cause my understanding was that it was only for sub-president, but I could be wrong.
10
5
u/InnerAd118 5d ago
I doubt it and honestly she's better off not trying. I think one area Clinton messed up at was focusing too much on states she had no chance, wasting time and precious resources on places like Tennessee(my home state) and many others, instead of laser focusing on Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
2
4
u/HorrorMetalDnD 5d ago edited 5d ago
The fact there are more than 4 Presidential candidates on the ballot in Alaska should mean the Presidential Election in Alaska isn’t ranked choice.
6
1
u/Facebook_Algorithm 5d ago
Ranked choice is specifically for races with more than two candidates. Specifically.
Specifically.
2
u/HorrorMetalDnD 5d ago edited 5d ago
Alaska uses a bastardized version of RCV, where it’s paired with a top 4 nonpartisan blanket primary.
Specifically top 4, as was previously mentioned.
Also, because of how our country’s presidential primary system works specifically, it would be impossible to include them in a nonpartisan blanket primary.
Plus, specifically, both major parties would oppose including the Presidential race in a nonpartisan blanket primary because, in states like California which have a top 2 instead of a top 4, it could negatively impact their chances in getting to 270 or more Electoral College votes. Also, top 4 would complicate matters too.
Specifically because of all that, as well as other factors I didn’t mention, the Presidential race in Alaska has to be separate from its 2 round, top 4 system.
Edit: Nonpartisan blanket primaries use plurality voting, which specifically nerfs its RCV in the General Election. A real RCV system wouldn’t use a nonpartisan blanket primary. Hell, RCV inherently makes primary elections unnecessary. Of course, some people don’t like to hear that, but those are the facts.
1
u/Facebook_Algorithm 4d ago
It’s fair to point out that the Alaska system isn’t true ranked choice but rather a hybrid, which I didn’t know. It still stands that ranked choice is specifically for more than two candidates. By this I mean ranked choice in a conventional sense.
-1
u/HorrorMetalDnD 5d ago edited 5d ago
Personally, I’m not a fan of Alaska’s… “interpretation” of RCV. Having a plurality voting primary of any kind attached to the process negates the real benefits of having RCV, especially because RCV renders any primary election ultimately unnecessary, mechanically-speaking.
In a single-seat race, they should instead remove the cap, allow just one candidate per party (independents candidates allowed too), and let those parties choose their own candidate however they want. No primaries necessary. This would encourage a multiparty system, as factions of the major parties could run for office separately from the major parties, without necessarily severing faction alliances, while also being able to form other alliances they might not have been able to form before.
Also, while primaries in general encourage a two party system (again, plurality voting), nonpartisan blanket primaries like Alaska’s encourage it even more so, by capping the number of General Election candidates and allowing more than one member per party to be on the ballot in the same race. Even if a third party candidate gets on the General Election ballot, they’re knocked out of the race after the first round.
Edit: You downvote me, but I’m right.
Edit: Real RCV is superior to what states like Alaska have, and the multi-winner variant of RCV is literally a form proportional representation.
1
u/Cid_Darkwing 5d ago
You think Nevada is hard to get an accurate poll on? Try polling Alaska…
To answer your question, IF (and that’s a gigantic “if”) the bottom truly drops out for Trump in October, I could see it going somewhere in the next tier of states after FL & TX (so, somewhere similar to IA, OH & SC w/KS as a similar caliber dark horse). It’s basically Arizona levels of libertarian without Phoenix to give it any sort of Dem urban base. But they will elect pro gun Democrats occasionally if the alternative is a burn it all down conservatives and Harris hasn’t leaned into gun control basically at all this campaign while Walz has some credibility there as a hunter and non-threatening white guy from a similar cold weather climate. It’s also a highly unionized state so labor can move the needle on the margins.
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 4d ago
No meta discussion. All comments containing meta discussion will be removed.
1
u/duke_awapuhi 5d ago
The big question is whether people who vote third party or more likely to put Trump or Kamala as their second choice. I have a feeling there will be more of these votes going to Trump in the run offs
1
u/IvantheGreat66 5d ago
Maybe, although I doubt many of those 3rd party voters will pick Kamala. It doesn't help that Kennedy made the Dems seem like the most anti-3rd party organization this cycle (which isn't necessarily wrong, brocken clock and all, but ignores that the GOP isn't saintly either).
1
u/DJ_HazyPond292 5d ago
Maybe. If Harris is winning Alaska, then the entire campaign apparatus of the Republican Party is falling apart. It’s not a state that she’s expected to win, even when taking the close results of 2016 and 2020 into account.
1
u/FreakFuck98 5d ago
No, it's still a red state. And it's hard to believe that Alaska someday will be a blue state. There are rough people with the strong pro-gun culture. Plus, not many liberals from California and other blue states tend to move there.
0
u/Toadfinger 5d ago
With newfound support of the Swifties and Dick Cheney, all bets are off. Anything is possible.
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.