Talk Elections

It does seem to be Murkowski.

I'll buck the trend and say Lugar, though Murky's a close second and Kirk's in third.

Murkowski, followed by Lugar and Kirk not necessarily in that order. The rest aren't 'moderate', they're just 'in more-or-less full possession of their mental faculties in some or many situations', which is much the same thing in the modern party.

Murkowski. After her - Kirk and Lugar

Murkowski, and this last election seems to have increased the number of times she bucks the party line. And if that's because she wants to throw some occasional middle fingers to the Republican leadership, you can't blame her, really.

Sure you can, she did a crappy enough job to lose in the primary.

Remove vote-the-district stuff and Murkowski's special situation, and the answer may well be Thad Cochran.

Lugar, but Lewis makes a good point about Cochran.

Fair enough; I should've said I personally can't really blame her. I know not everyone agrees with this, but to me, the results of the general quite justified her "sore loser" bid.

Would you say the same about Mike Castle, out of curiosity?

~~~

Relative to his state's proclivities, Cochran is actually a definite possibility.

Rand Paul

Castle was not an incumbent Senator.

He was arguably the most prominent and certainly the most senior political figure in his state other than the incumbent Vice President of the United States. Castle and Murkowski lost their primaries in the same national political environment and in similar situations relative to expectations.

It's worth noting that Castle, given his status as an At-Large Congressman, was in terms of statewide recognition and campaign staff the same as an incumbent Senator.  If anything, his seniority made him even better established than Murkowski; he was certainly more popular.

Yeah, that's exactly why I don't think Murkowski losing her primary was evidence of incompetence on her part exactly (many things, but not incompetence per se) if Castle's wasn't.

You guys are assuming voters do not understand there are differences between House and Senate races. I think the success of Tea Party candidates in House races compared to the success of Tea Party candidates in Senate races suggests otherwise.

Or, try this: do you think Castle would have lost a primary for his House seat if he had ran for reelection? I highly doubt that would have happened.

It was, though (or maybe just not caring enough - it's a bit like he lost interest in the race once he understood he'd have to work for it). Probably more so than Murkowski's, who couldn't do anything about the albatross of her nepotist appointment as that's how most people first heard of her.

I think it would have been less likely but I wouldn't really have been notably more surprised than I was in the Senate race.


Come to think of it, the 2004 Senate race was closer than is/was considered usual for Alaska as well, wasn't it?

Of course. There's a reason the Dems ran Tony Knowles again - it was considered a possible pickup. Especially as daddy was going down in flames by then.

I'm not certain I really want to know very much about Frank Murkowski considering that Sarah Palin was able to beat him in a primary.

Then again, one could easily say the same thing about Alaska in general.

Murkowski.

Cochran skews to the left of his state, but he still votes with the Republicans on pretty much everything.