AK Congressional Races 2014

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Murkowskis didn't win in 2012, it was 2010.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Who gives a...?


In 2016, it will be her turn anyway and with somone more solid then Miller.

If Treadwell is too much of a Murkowski tool to effectively challenge Begich, then it I say one more reason to go with Sullivan.

Just being a Murkowski-ite is reason enough to not nominate him.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Against someone far more credible then Miller in a three way, I would suspect she would be at a disadvantage in my opinion.

Only if she could pull what Sanders does in Vermont, would she have the upper hand.


The Murkowski brand is discredited and only Miller's controversies saved her last time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As long as the the Democrat gets into the double digits, and the Republican is not Joe Miller she can be defeated as an Independent.

She won as a write-in in 2010 - I don't think she'll have too much difficulty in 2016 when she will be on the ballot.

Yes, they wrote in the name of someone who they have seen on the ballot for thirty years because the alternative was a joke or a Democrat. Even then she only got 42% against Joe Miller. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the wonders of Lisa Murkowski.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Oh wonderful. She won a write-in campaign. That makes her the Alaska version of Angus King. She has lucked her way into two Senate terms, but her luck will soon run out.

She has never had the following her father once had. No matter how nuts Miller is, oh how unchained Palin becomes, nothing will change that. She certainly hasn't changed and she certainly doesn't have that kind of appeal to pull a repeat of either CT or ME.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But Angus King never won a write-in campaign. Strom Thurmond in 1954 was the only other Senator who has.

Previous author simply hates Murkowski too much. He doesn't care about details - he simply wants to see her defeated, and his beloved "true conservative" - elected in her place. ANY "true conservative"

I don't care about details? Really? I have supported my fair share of moderates (Dillard, Kirk, Snowe, McCain until 2006, Collins, Simmons, Campbell, Castle, Brown, Douglas, Rell, Pataki and even Lincoln Chafee in his 2006 primary). You were saying something about details? HA!!! I expected more from you then this kind of insulting presumptuousness Smoltchanov.

My problem with Murkowski stems from her ties to the old Alaska GOP establishment and its corruption. I first started following politics because I was sick of the corruption within the GOP back in 2005 and 2006.  And I will say that it is you guys that are ignoring the details, precisely because you are hung up with the fact that she won as a write-in. She has a familiar name, sh**tloads of money, a wide circle of insider support, a quirky state campaign wise and an opponent who was nuts, all in the age of the smart phone and the internet.

I think it is clear who is considering the details and who is ignoring them to buy into a misguided media narrative.

Amazing you and sg0508 think I am tea Party nutcase and Ben Kenobi thinks I am rino sellout. Guess I must be right where I should be.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But Angus King never won a write-in campaign. Strom Thurmond in 1954 was the only other Senator who has.

Oh wonderful. She won a write-in campaign. That makes her the Alaska version of Angus King. She has lucked her way into two Senate terms, but her luck will soon run out.

She has never had the following her father once had. No matter how nuts Miller is, oh how unchained Palin becomes, nothing will change that. She certainly hasn't changed and she certainly doesn't have that kind of appeal to pull a repeat of either CT or ME.

Angus King was an independent, not a write-in.

Really? IS there where this conversation is going to go? Where did I say Angus King was a write in? I said people are using the fact that she won a write-in campaign to attach to her the kind of popularity and following that Angus King has as it relates to 2016. Not that hard to figure out and doesnt presume the person is automatically stupid, but that seems to be the going thing here tonight.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Who would Murkowski get primaried by anyway, other than Miller? If she faces a competent GOP candidate then she could lose, but who would even do that?
If she runs as an Indy she would get enough support from independents and moderates to win anyway. Although I can't see her winning another write-in campaign again.

Murkowski is as insider as they come. A competent, outsider Republican who is not nuts could very easily undercut her strength among the independents on those very grounds. If she loses the primary, she probably has to run as a write-in again. If she runs as an independnet from the start, what incentive do Republicans not have to run, unless there is some sense of media driven inevitability that dissuades them or behind the scenes corruption, either of which is possible in this state.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Guys, chill.

This is an Alaska thread after all

If people would just listen and be respectful and not assume that everyone who has a different opinion is stupid, this wouldn't have been necessary. But apparently that is asking too much of people.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Republican Party of Alaska is factionalized in at least two, possibly even three different camps in the state. You have the old establishment types, the reformer-outsider wing and then the Paulites of course. Palin came from the second group, as is Sean Parnell whilst Joe Miller is a cross between two and three, but more so three now solely. In this 2014 race you have, Mead Treadwell (1), Dan Sullivan (2) and Joe Miller (3). If Sullivan wins the nomination, that would also further encourage Republicans from the second and third group to challenge Murkowski, because it will illustrate her weakness within the party, maybe even Parnell himself if he decides he wants it by then.   

I would also point out that divide between one and two is not ideological as much as it is about establishment versus outsider, though ideology will naturally arise with someone like Lisa because she is more moderate on some issues and it thus presents another vulnerability.

I think my understanding of Alaska politics is far more detailed then most of yours.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

P.S. Looking at your posts (not only here) - i would never say that you supported "a fair share of moderates". May be - in the past, like Dillard (who swung heavily to the right of late)? If i am mistaken - well, then i am pleasantly surprised and owe an apology, but i REALLY don't see it from your posts.

No offense but your approach to politics is more one dimensional then mine and ironically, yours seems to be largely based on ideology. I can understand that, but I have other concerns as well. I want candidates who fit their states to be sure, I want honesty and if I can get a rather Conservative candidate in a state, provided some professionalism and candidate quality is there, like in Alaska, I will seek that as well. I have supported numerous moderates in many states because they were best for the job. I have always supported Collins, Kirk and so forth even if I have disagrements with them or don't like some of their votes (immigration for one). I even ran a series in my signature matching up one conservative and one moderate Senate candidate to push party unity back in 2010. I have not changed in any significant way my criteria since then. Perhaps, if you don't know, why don't you please not guess such.

So what if Dillard swung to the right as of late. I was supporting him back in 2010 when he was both a moderate but also more reformist (then McKenna) and Illinois certainly needs reform. This time I am leaning towards Rutherford since he seems like a more solid candidate.

I don't owe you an almost probationary guilty until proven innocent status, smoltchanov. I support a candidate I say so when the topic arises, I have listed millions of times who I supported where in 2010, 2012 and looking to 2014. You didn't see them, fine. Then use some common courtesy and don't presume something to be a certain way when you don't know and most certainly divide reasonable posters based on a flawed and misinformed criteria. I support civil unions and I actually voted against Amendment 1 in NC as well as opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment because of that and even criticized Romney for supporting it. I oppose the war on drugs, I want to reform the House apportionment and redistricting processes, and I would like to see the minimum wage increased. Probably also mostly all recent posts of mine that you might have missed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NCY, the fact is that Murkowski fits Alaska better ideologically than any "BUILD THE DAMN FENCE" type you're supporting.

What the hell are you talking about, man? I recall saying repeatedly that the border fence was a joke and that I thought the empathsis on it and other border security measures was at best a distraction.

You people need to stop guessing.

And for the record, I don't even know what Sullivan's exact position on immigration is. Remember, even Sarah Palin supported McCain and endorsed some form of a pathway at one point. So assuming that it is the driving factor in my selection here is a mistake for Alaska is difficult territory on the subject obviously. It is a concern, but not the primary one here. It is most certainly not going to make me support Miller if thats what you think.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think my understanding of Alaska politics is far more detailed then most of yours.

You are DEEPLY mistaken))))

I disagree and here is why:

You started to follow American politics about 2005? Congratulations! I started about 1972. And i CARE about details. Alaska's Republican party is prone about running ultra-right wingers like Miller since Palin became McCain running mate in 2008, and, frankly, i don't see any normal pragmatic conservative (i don't even speak about something better) among "Murkowski alternatives". Even like Ted Stevens and Don Young. Palin? Don't make me laugh. Parnell? Not likely (and too conservative for my tastes). Treadwell? (atrocious fundraiser plus, again, social conservative). So, sorry, but you didn't convinced me (hope - you will not take that as additional "insult").

Since 2008 huh? You should go back a few more years, perhaps to 2004 and the outrage over the appointment of Lisa by her father, the subsequent implosion of her father's stint as Governor and the reveleation of corruption by the AK GOP chairman, Senator Stevens and even Representative Don Young. It seems you are tunnel visioned down to ideology as a consideration.  

You also missed the fact that Alaska has been rejecting its ruling political elites, whether it be Frank in 2006, Young nearly losing twice, Stevens getting beat by Begich and then Lisa losing her primary. This is because of all the corruption surrounding them has caused Alaskans to lose faith in them and thus break any kind of attachments that would exist in any other state with such political families. Lisa especially, never had that to begin with, anyway.

As I said earlier, ideology factors in when you have a race between people like Miller and Murko because that is a difference that can be leveraged by the challenger considering the differences between the two are so marked.

However, the primary between Palin and Frank was not so. If ideology had factored in, it was to the extent that Frank had become corrupted by power and thus deviated as a result of such. The same was true of the Parnell-Young Primary in 2008 where Parnell came within a hair of ousting a sitting Congressman, since about the same time you say you started following politics. Once again to the extent that ideology factor in, it concerned either spending or that which was induced by alleged corruption.

Surprised you didn't know this, but Treadwell is a Murkowski ally, the whole point of the original post that I was responding to that started this whole exchange. Murko's votes providing cover to Begich and thus the GOP nominee being unable to hit Begich, without also hitting Murko and of all of them Treadwell probably is unwilling to do that. Strange you would list him as part of a dicussion concerning who would take on Murko.

The Alaska GOP is not divided by ideology primarily (save for the Paulites probably), it is divided based around whose social circle you are in. Are you with the families (Young, Stevens and Murkowski) and the good ole boys, or are you not. There are numerous Conservatives in the former, Treadwell amongst them along with several others. I would also point out that there is, aside from pork and spending, a certain Paulite affinity for Young that further muddies the waters of the divides ideologically speaking, though Cox will probably win most of that group in the primary this time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, thanks for info, but here i disagree at least somewhat. Treadwell may be formerly in Stevens-Young-Murkowski (Sr.) camp, but, IMHO, not now.  Too close association with Palin-Parnell camp. And, while i agree, that Alaska's "establishment" contain a fair share of conservatives, they were mostly, "pragmatic conservatives" - Stevens, Young and other were NOT conservative on economy (and were great "porkers"), while being more conservative socially (in Young case, Stevens was more "murky" on social issues). And i wouldn't call Palin's group "a reformers", and, surely, would not consider Miller a "reformer" - from my point of view he is a "pure tea-party extremist", and i can't characterize most of the "tea-party" otherwise then an "strongly extremist wing" of Republican party. Paulists - well, Alaska always had strong libertarian current (to some extent even among Democrats), so - not surprising they exist as a rather string faction of state party.

BTW - is Sullivan member of "reformer" group? Where he stands on economy and social issues? (i know that Treadwell is a "standard solid conservative" and Miller - well, i already spoke about him)

Treadwell said himself that he considered himself to be a Murkowski ally, maybe even said protege but I won't presume such when I cannot remember. I beleive he also said that Parnell was a more professional version of Sarah Palin. Ironcially, Mead Treadwell divided the Alaska GOP along pretty much the same lines as I have just done so. He is Lieutenant Governor for Parnell, but that means nothing. Frank supported Palin after she beat him as did all the other bigwigs in the party including Stevens and Young. It was posted earlier that Lisa doesn't endose in primaries and will likely support any non-Miller nominee. The Alaska GOP has a tendency to unify to stop the Democrats.

I wouldn't say Palin was a perfect reformer but she did say no to an oil pipeline heavily desired by the oil companies and instead pursued a natural gas line and passed an ethics reform, as well as go after Reudrich and Frank in the first place. She dropped the ball on the police scandal and then resigning when the pressure got to much. Since then she has come unchained and ruined herself completely in the process.

I would say that Sullivan is more of an outsider and more like Parnell I would say. Whether he pursues reforms or not is up to him going forward as his site is rather bare at present, but my preference is to go with the one more likely then the one least likely. I initially called it the Sarah Palin types, but that would have implied candidate train wrecks and that wasn't the point I was going for, so I switched it to the outsider-reformer wing.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

P.S. I didn't guessed. I remember many your posts, and (well, i don't look at signatures) it always seemed to me - they were written from precisely clear ideological position of "very solid conservative". I never hid that while i see a need for conservatives in conservative states (the same position - candidates must reflect their states and  districts), i don't have too much love for very strong conservatives (IMHO - there is overabundance of them in Republican party, just as there is overabundance of radical left-wingers in Democratic), especially - in moderate states (North-East for example). " The Big tent" is still important from my point of views (otherwise, when i can predict 95% of positions of candidate simply looking on letter after his name - it becomes utterly boring), and i don't like present days political polarization and "purity". May be - i am becoming old, but it was much more interesting to me then, in 1970th, when you could still see, say, Jacob Javits and Charles Mathias among Republicans, and James Eastland and James Allen - among Democrats))))

I get rather militant about certain issues and thus the posts on immigration or the bad side of the GOP establishment problably outnumber and out intensify those which would in sum balance it out.

Ideological polarization is unavoidable, the result of instant communication anf the gravitation of like minded people to the same pole. I had hopped that the elections since 2008, the rise of outsiders even in conjunction with the tea party, that greater diversity could be restored. It was not that long ago that the GOP was run by an establishment-socon alliance under Bush for instance and fiscal conservatives and libertarians were bleeding away so this was not an unreasonable possiblity. I feared a Huckabee nomination would destroy the Party's sole connection to its roots and thus was glad when he didn't run. However, even with Romney, it didn't change much. The tea Party became too monolithic and quit supporting Scott Browns and instead sought Alabama Republicans in every state. It was also the case that it was hijacked by self centered people both in and out of the political world from Todd Akin to Christine O'Donnel and Dan Maes who put themselves first and even their own objectives second.

The one consolation is that the party is firmly ensconced on the small gov't side and hopefully generational change will force a more libertarian stance on certain issues that would also appeal to moderates like yourself.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would say that Sullivan is more of an outsider and more like Parnell I would say. Whether he pursues reforms or not is up to him going forward as his site is rather bare at present, but my preference is to go with the one more likely then the one least likely. I initially called it the Sarah Palin types, but that would have implied candidate train wrecks and that wasn't the point I was going for, so I switched it to the outsider-reformer wing.

Well, never thought about Treadwell as Murkowski "stalwart". Frank - may be, but, surely, not Lisa's. But i may be wrong... And - thanks!


P.S. Sullivan on social issues? (you can see from my ratings, that i am more liberal on social issues, while being basically centrist on economy). I would like to have a possibility to support at least some Republican candidates, but moderate position on social issues is a "must" for me..

You have to base it on your priorities. If a little corruption is acceptable, then probably Lisa is a better bet so you have the moderate on social issues. I would assume any other would be pro-life and against gay marriage.

I want to wipe the old school AK GOP insiders that are similarly corrupted (typically found in big oil and agra states) and similar such people across the country out. I am pro-life but it is lower on my list and I thus I wanted both Inhofe and Vitter to be primaried as well someone other then Blunt to run in MO, so I don't play favorites on the issue of opposing corrupted porkers based on them being a social conservative or not.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Guys, chill.

This is an Alaska thread after all

Not to mention this is about 2014 but we're all discussing 2016 anyway.

Well I did make a legitimate connection between the two. Its burried somewhere in all those posts.

But Angus King never won a write-in campaign. Strom Thurmond in 1954 was the only other Senator who has.

Oh wonderful. She won a write-in campaign. That makes her the Alaska version of Angus King. She has lucked her way into two Senate terms, but her luck will soon run out.

She has never had the following her father once had. No matter how nuts Miller is, oh how unchained Palin becomes, nothing will change that. She certainly hasn't changed and she certainly doesn't have that kind of appeal to pull a repeat of either CT or ME.

Angus King was an independent, not a write-in.

Really? IS there where this conversation is going to go? Where did I say Angus King was a write in? I said people are using the fact that she won a write-in campaign to attach to her the kind of popularity and following that Angus King has as it relates to 2016. Not that hard to figure out and doesnt presume the person is automatically stupid, but that seems to be the going thing here tonight.

My point was that you're diminishing the impressiveness of winning a write-in campaign just because you dislike Murkowski. Her winning that was a million times more impressive than Angus King winning as an independent, considering he was actually on the ballot...

I am not diminishing anything. If anything you guys are projecting from that a degree of popularity that isn't there. The name is well known in the state with a well established circle of supporters spread all over the place. Add in the internet revolution nad such forth, it is not as unrealistic as it was before. Throw in the competition and devil you know sounds appealing.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Agreed with everything until he said "appropriators".

Naturally, such could reduce the dependence of the state on such federal spending. AK needs to diversify its economy lest it run out of oil and be left high and dry.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The PPP poll has Sullivan within 4 41-37 of Begich whilst Treadwell is down 43-37. Miller is down 20, 45-25.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Oh wonderful. She won a write-in campaign. That makes her the Alaska version of Angus King. She has lucked her way into two Senate terms, but her luck will soon run out.

She has never had the following her father once had. No matter how nuts Miller is, oh how unchained Palin becomes, nothing will change that. She certainly hasn't changed and she certainly doesn't have that kind of appeal to pull a repeat of either CT or ME.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is the result of all the hype she has received from beating Miller, basically her surviving victim status, as a result of the tea party going after her, by the establishment and media.

It also indicates with me that she is still very vulernable to a primary challenge and even if she goes third party, whether she wins as such will depend on thep resence of the Democrat and how much they get and the quality of the Republican. Nothing stated refutes anything I said and in fact validates quite a lot of it greatly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Oh wonderful. She won a write-in campaign. That makes her the Alaska version of Angus King. She has lucked her way into two Senate terms, but her luck will soon run out.

She has never had the following her father once had. No matter how nuts Miller is, oh how unchained Palin becomes, nothing will change that. She certainly hasn't changed and she certainly doesn't have that kind of appeal to pull a repeat of either CT or ME.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is the result of all the hype she has received from beating Miller, basically her surviving victim status, as a result of the tea party going after her, by the establishment and media.

It also indicates with me that she is still very vulernable to a primary challenge and even if she goes third party, whether she wins as such will depend on thep resence of the Democrat and how much they get and the quality of the Republican. Nothing stated refutes anything I said and in fact validates quite a lot of it greatly.

Well, being the most popular elected official in the state with a majority of voters approving of her certainly shows that "she has the appeal to pull a repeat of CT/ME".

Besides, those numbers make two things very clear: She's not going to run in a Republican primary, and Democrats will vote for her en masse.

If the Republican is someone of quality, most of those Repub and Repub leaning indies who are favorable to Murko will rally to that person. Also, she won't unify the Democrats unless they clear their ballot line Sanders style and I don't know if that is legal in AK. Someone will run to the left and get a good number of votes. 45-45-10 for instance.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sullivan is turning into one hell of a good candidate. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sullivan is turning into one hell of a good candidate. 

D.C. Dan's not nearly a strong enough to unseat Begich though.

We'll see about that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If AFP follows suit, that is close to saturation for Alaska. I do hope they do a good job defining Begich and likewise with Pryor in Arkansas. I don't see these presently D by 3 to 5 races slipping out of reach, but it could very well happen.

Sullivan needs to have a good on the ground presence and he needs to make nice with Palin. If Miller goes third party, he will need Palin's support to counteract the vote drain.