2010 Primaries Thread (It's all over now, baby blue)

[Sam Spade]

Just FYI - early voting is not normally a big deal in Alaska (only the Democrats emphasized it in 2008 general) and I don't think the real Bush (HD 37-40) even has early voting in primaries (they didn't in 2008).  The big deal is absentees (and whatever questionable votes are out there).

[cinyc]

Just FYI - early voting is not normally a big deal in Alaska (only the Democrats emphasized it in 2008 general) and I don't think the real Bush (HD 37-40) even has early voting in primaries (they didn't in 2008).  The big deal is absentees (and whatever questionable votes are out there).

As I understand it, the real Bush has early voting, but you have to go to the Alaska elections regional office in Nome to register an early vote that's counted as an early vote.  So it works just fine if you live in Nome - but not so well if you live in the rest of the Bush.  Same thing with Southeast Alaska outside Juneau (HDs 1,2 & 5), the Kenai Peninsula (HDs 33-35) and Kodiak (HD 36) - their regional office early voting center is in Juneau - which works fine if you live in Juneau (HDs 3-4), but you have to take a boat or plane to get there if you don't.   There are no or single-digit early votes registered in almost all of those HDs.

The early votes in those areas (or at other walk-in centers that stock ballots, including some major airports) are considered in-person absentees, and will be counted as such.

The absentees are probably going to have to break at least 60-40 Murkowski for her to win.  Possible?  I guess.  Likely?  No.

[Badger]

FWIW, Murkowski needs only a 56-44 split in absentees to win. Old guard organization GOP or the Palin faction---which will make up more of the numbers?

I'm no expert on Alaska politics, but the intense Old Guard/New Guard civil war in the state GOP is absolutely true. Heck, half the GOP state senators run that chamber in a coalition with the Democrats against the rest of the Republican caucus.

And this is why Murkowski could win. I believe many of the old guard GOP plus more mainstream and moderate Republicans would likely back a "Libertarian" Murkowski over Miller. Given a choice between a de facto nominee who could win and a broke sacrificial lamb like Scott McAdams, most Alaska Dems would likely abandon their official nominee for Murkowski too. Think Republicans supporting Lieberman in 2006.

But it all assumes Murkowski can get the Libertarian Party to replace their nominee for her. Even if the Alaska Dems were willing to give her the nomination over McAdams, joining The Party Of Obama would be the one thing Murkowski could do to alienate mainstream Republicans who might back her as a "Libertarian" <wink wink>, and would be the kiss of death in this year's political climate. Running a write-in campaign on top of everything else would be a bridge too far to pull off.

[cinyc]

FWIW, Murkowski needs only a 56-44 split in absentees to win. Old guard organization GOP or the Palin faction---which will make up more of the numbers?

That 56% number assumes all 16,000 absentees come in and most were cast in the Republican primary.  The actual percentage of absentees Murkowski needs to pull even is a sliding scale from about 55-65% depending on the number of Republican absentees actually returned.  

The only thing I've heard about the absentees is that 7,600 absentees were returned by Monday out of 16,000 requested.  More can trickle in over the next two weeks.  I haven't seen any partisan or Alaska House District breakdown of the absentees yet.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

And I believe many of the old guard GOP plus more mainstream and moderate Republicans would likely back a "Libertarian" Murkowski over Miller. Given a choice between a de facto nominee who could win and a broke sacrificial lamb like Scott McAdams, most Alaska Dems would likely abandon their official nominee for Murkowski too. Think Republicans supporting Lieberman in 2006.

I though Democrats didn't like Lieberman? Why would they like a female Republican clone of Lieberman from Alaska?

Funnily enough, Wikipedia lists "Conservatism" and "Right-libertarianism" as ideologies of the Alaska Democratic Party...

[Torie]

Giving Murkowski an even 5% chance of winning at this point, would be generous. I put it a next to zero, or whatever odds there are some significant arithmetic errors. What comes in now, is just not going to be all that different than what came in before.

[Beet]

It isn't happening, among other things, because she would lose anyway. I mean, what is her base?  Are the Dems all going to vote for her (and abandon their nominee?), because they will need to - all of them effectively. It is not as if Miller is not a competent candidate. He is

As I said, it isn't happening. I don't view Murkowski as a kamikaze type, nor one totally oblivious to any sense of dignity.


Miller I hope can get used to the heat in DC in the summer.

Dignity, Torie, would be going down fighting.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The ADL Senate primary brought in 30,855 voters, while the Republican primary had 92,386. Conveniently, that's exactly a 1:3 ratio. Assuming that the absentees broke down equally to the election-day turnout, only 5,700 of the 7,600 absentees currently outstanding will be Republican. So Murkowski would have to win 3,700 or so of them, or about 65%. If you assume that all 16,000 come in, 12,000 would be Republican, and she'd have to win 6,900 of them, or 57.5%. That's just my half-assed statistical analysis, but it seems highly unlikely that she could make up the deficit.

[Niemeyerite]

Believe or not, but my GREAT CRAZY friend, joao queiroz moneteiro (a crazy communist from manaus, amazonas) predicted that there would be a libertarian senator after 2010 elections, and probably from a state like vermont, alaska or utah (could bennett run as a libertarian?). I answered that it woul NEVER happen hahahahahaha...

[SvenssonRS]

Believe or not, but my GREAT CRAZY friend, joao queiroz moneteiro (a crazy communist from manaus, amazonas) predicted that there would be a libertarian senator after 2010 elections, and probably from a state like vermont, alaska or utah (could bennett run as a libertarian?). I answered that it woul NEVER happen hahahahahaha...

And it still won't. Alaska voted Murkowski out fair and square; if she runs as a third party candidate, she'll just look like another Lieberman, and I can tell you the country's had enough of those.

[redcommander]

Murkowski's possible loss in the Republican primary just shows a trend for Republicans to not being willing to nominating more women for political office. They had a real chance of breaking the gender barrier this year with the most number of women ever running in Republican primaries. Now what? The Democrats have maintained a stable number of female nominees, whereas the Republicans have seen to blow their chance for bringing a more gender equal congress this year. High profile candidates like Bledsoe, Lightner, Gorman, Emken, and Norton couldn't win their primaries. If Murkowski is out of senate in 2011, the Republican caucus will be guaranteed a paltry 3 women in senate, and at most will only have about 7 if they are lucky. Perhaps it is time they established quotas requiring a certain amount of women to win primaries. The Tea Party take over is creating a step backward and not forward for racial and gender equality in Republican politics.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You know Murkowski's defeat is not really all that surprising considering what happened to her father.

[tpfkaw]

I think the GOP should nominate Imelda Marcos for the Senate.  You know, so they have more gender and racial equality.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Murkowski's possible loss in the Republican primary just shows a trend for Republicans to not being willing to nominating more women for political office. They had a real chance of breaking the gender barrier this year with the most number of women ever running in Republican primaries. Now what? The Democrats have maintained a stable number of female nominees, whereas the Republicans have seen to blow their chance for bringing a more gender equal congress this year. High profile candidates like Bledsoe, Lightner, Gorman, Emken, and Norton couldn't win their primaries. If Murkowski is out of senate in 2011, the Republican caucus will be guaranteed a paltry 3 women in senate, and at most will only have about 7 if they are lucky. Perhaps it is time they established quotas requiring a certain amount of women to win primaries. The Tea Party take over is creating a step backward and not forward for racial and gender equality in Republican politics.

What? The GOP has been nominating an unprecedented number of women for many different races. The party claims to be for individual achievement and against affirmative action, so why would they establish quotas to force the nomination of more sub-par female candidates over better qualified males, such as Lisa Murkowski, Linda McMahon, Carly Fiorina, etc.?

[Dgov]

Murkowski's possible loss in the Republican primary just shows a trend for Republicans to not being willing to nominating more women for political office. They had a real chance of breaking the gender barrier this year with the most number of women ever running in Republican primaries. Now what? The Democrats have maintained a stable number of female nominees, whereas the Republicans have seen to blow their chance for bringing a more gender equal congress this year. High profile candidates like Bledsoe, Lightner, Gorman, Emken, and Norton couldn't win their primaries. If Murkowski is out of senate in 2011, the Republican caucus will be guaranteed a paltry 3 women in senate, and at most will only have about 7 if they are lucky. Perhaps it is time they established quotas requiring a certain amount of women to win primaries. The Tea Party take over is creating a step backward and not forward for racial and gender equality in Republican politics.

. . .  You do realize that the vast majority of Conservatives don't give a rats ass about what a candidate's gender, race, etc. are?  The Same voters that took out Murkowski two days ago helped vote in a little someone called Sarah Palin in 2006.  They are also similar to the ones who nominated Sharron Angle in Nevada, Niki Haley in South Carolina, Susannah Martinez in New Mexico, among others, against white Men.  Conservatives will support any candidate if they are Conservative and promise to support Conservative ideals.

Focus on candidate's genetics rather than their ideas is one of the biggest things wrong with this country.

[redcommander]

Murkowski's possible loss in the Republican primary just shows a trend for Republicans to not being willing to nominating more women for political office. They had a real chance of breaking the gender barrier this year with the most number of women ever running in Republican primaries. Now what? The Democrats have maintained a stable number of female nominees, whereas the Republicans have seen to blow their chance for bringing a more gender equal congress this year. High profile candidates like Bledsoe, Lightner, Gorman, Emken, and Norton couldn't win their primaries. If Murkowski is out of senate in 2011, the Republican caucus will be guaranteed a paltry 3 women in senate, and at most will only have about 7 if they are lucky. Perhaps it is time they established quotas requiring a certain amount of women to win primaries. The Tea Party take over is creating a step backward and not forward for racial and gender equality in Republican politics.

. . .  You do realize that the vast majority of Conservatives don't give a rats ass about what a candidate's gender, race, etc. are?  The Same voters that took out Murkowski two days ago helped vote in a little someone called Sarah Palin in 2006.  They are also similar to the ones who nominated Sharron Angle in Nevada, Niki Haley in South Carolina, Susannah Martinez in New Mexico, among others, against white Men.  Conservatives will support any candidate if they are Conservative and promise to support Conservative ideals.

Focus on candidate's genetics rather than their ideas is one of the biggest things wrong with this country.

And the women I listed were perfectly acceptable conservatives, but were past over. Look at the numbers. The numbers of women being nominated by Republicans is stagnantly low. It is important for Republican success to have more women win their primaries. I'm not focused on genetics, but with dozens of women whose conservatism fit the districts and states they were running in losing this season, it just seems like many primary voters are unwilling to vote for women. Take Pamela Gorman for example who was by far the most conservative candidate running for her race.

[tpfkaw]

And the Libertarian candidate, who is apparently borderline retarded, is willing to give the ballot line to Murkowski.  Sweet Jesus.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You know Murkowski's defeat is not really all that surprising considering what happened to her father.

Indeed.

Murkowski's possible loss in the Republican primary just shows a trend for Republicans to not being willing to nominating more women for political office. They had a real chance of breaking the gender barrier this year with the most number of women ever running in Republican primaries. Now what? The Democrats have maintained a stable number of female nominees, whereas the Republicans have seen to blow their chance for bringing a more gender equal congress this year. High profile candidates like Bledsoe, Lightner, Gorman, Emken, and Norton couldn't win their primaries. If Murkowski is out of senate in 2011, the Republican caucus will be guaranteed a paltry 3 women in senate, and at most will only have about 7 if they are lucky. Perhaps it is time they established quotas requiring a certain amount of women to win primaries. The Tea Party take over is creating a step backward and not forward for racial and gender equality in Republican politics.

Look up Alaska 2004 Senate GOP primary, 2006 GOP Gubernatorial primary, and Frank Murkowski's appointment of Lisa to the Senate. And it will all make sense. It ain't gender or ideological extremism. Its elitism, losing touch with the base (hence their anger and sometimes overreaction), lack of ethics, and nepotism. Nothing anyone should want to associate with. Miller shows promise a "fresh" face, limited record in elective politics, but his short record has produced some record of strength of character and campaign skills. What does Murkowski really offer except being the next in line in a corrupt, power hungry dynasty?

[redcommander]

You know Murkowski's defeat is not really all that surprising considering what happened to her father.

Indeed.

Murkowski's possible loss in the Republican primary just shows a trend for Republicans to not being willing to nominating more women for political office. They had a real chance of breaking the gender barrier this year with the most number of women ever running in Republican primaries. Now what? The Democrats have maintained a stable number of female nominees, whereas the Republicans have seen to blow their chance for bringing a more gender equal congress this year. High profile candidates like Bledsoe, Lightner, Gorman, Emken, and Norton couldn't win their primaries. If Murkowski is out of senate in 2011, the Republican caucus will be guaranteed a paltry 3 women in senate, and at most will only have about 7 if they are lucky. Perhaps it is time they established quotas requiring a certain amount of women to win primaries. The Tea Party take over is creating a step backward and not forward for racial and gender equality in Republican politics.

Look up Alaska 2004 Senate GOP primary, 2006 GOP Gubernatorial primary, and Frank Murkowski's appointment of Lisa to the Senate. And it will all make sense. It ain't gender or ideological extremism. Its elitism, losing touch with the base (hence their anger and sometimes overreaction), lack of ethics, and nepotism. Nothing anyone should want to associate with. Miller shows promise a "fresh" face, limited record in elective politics, but his short record has produced some record of strength of character and campaign skills. What does Murkowski really offer except being the next in line in a corrupt, power hungry dynasty?

She offers a willingness to work for the best interests of her state without being obsessed with ideological purity.

[cinyc]

Update on Absentees:

The Anchorage Daily News reports:

-11,266 out of the over 16,000 requested have been returned;
-8,972 questioned ballots have not yet been counted or thrown out; and
-658 early votes have not yet been counted.

That's 20,896 votes - in both primaries.  It probably doesn't include the missing Anchorage precinct.

-The first batch of absentees received by August 31 will be counted on Tuesday, August 31.
-Valid Questioned ballots will likely be added to the tally on Friday, September 3.
-A final count of absentees and remaining ballots will occur on Wednesday, September 8.

If 75% of the 20,896 votes were cast in the Republican primary, Murkowski would need to take almost 56% of them.   If all 16,000 absentees come in, that number falls to around 54% - which was her early vote percentage.

Murkowski's path to victory is still remote, but looking a bit more possible.

[redcommander]

Update on Absentees:

The Anchorage Daily News reports:

-11,266 out of the over 16,000 requested have been returned;
-8,972 questioned ballots have not yet been counted or thrown out; and
-658 early votes have not yet been counted.

That's 20,896 votes - in both primaries.  It probably doesn't include the missing Anchorage precinct.

-The first batch of absentees received by August 31 will be counted on Tuesday, August 31.
-Valid Questioned ballots will likely be added to the tally on Friday, September 3.
-A final count of absentees and remaining ballots will occur on Wednesday, September 8.

If 75% of the 20,896 votes were cast in the Republican primary, Murkowski would need to take almost 56% of them.   If all 16,000 absentees come in, that number falls to around 54% - which was her early vote percentage.

Murkowski's path to victory is still remote, but looking a bit more possible.

[Sam Spade]

Historically, at least, questioned votes tend to lean more Democratic and more pro-incumbent, fwiw.

[Sam Spade]

And the Libertarian candidate, who is apparently borderline retarded, is willing to give the ballot line to Murkowski.  Sweet Jesus.

Isn't borderline retarded the general rule for most Libertarian candidates?

[Holmes]

I'd love to see Murkowski traveling around Alaska, bitching about The Peoples Bail Out.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Almost no additional absentee ballots will come in at this late date. So the number is 11,000 plus.