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

[Badger]

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?

Because this is Alaska, not Connecticut. So given the choice between an electable relative moderate like Murkowski, an unelectable sacrificial lamb Democrat, and a tea party apostle like Miller, most Alaskan Democrats and progressive independents would likely choose the former as the best alternative to Miller.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.

The consensus this morning was, it won't matter......the absentees won't go for her.

[Badger]

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

Interesting, but I doubt it's solely his decision. I'm guessing Alaskan election law leaves that choice up to the party apparatus. While Lisa's hardly the ideal representative of the Libertarian Party (especially in Alaska), the benefit of having an honest to goodness L.P. U.S. Senator, when the party can't otherwise seem to elect a single state representative nationwide, is too good an opportunity to miss. Rationally, that is. While a promise not to switch to Independent or back to Republican for her full term (even if she caucuses with the GOP) plus concessions on a few issues should be enough. But for the folks who make up the Alaska L.P.---who knows?

[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?

Because this is Alaska, not Connecticut. So given the choice between an electable relative moderate like Murkowski, an unelectable sacrificial lamb Democrat, and a tea party apostle like Miller, most Alaskan Democrats and progressive independents would likely choose the former as the best alternative to Miller.

Right, this is Alaska, a state that once gave Sarah Palin a 93% approval rating.

The guy the Democrats in Alaska actually nominated for the seat has headings on his web page for "Fiscal Responsibility" and "Individual Liberty" while attacking bank bailouts and No Child Left Behind.

Yet somehow you're claiming that the Democrats who nominated him, along with some mythical "moderate Republican" base in Alaska, would unite behind a woman who is in fact a better fit for an authoritarian state that would elect Joe Lieberman, like Connecticut.


Come to think of it, if Murkowski manages to steal this primary, I'll definitely be supporting McAdams in the general election.

[You kip if you want to...]

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?

Because this is Alaska, not Connecticut. So given the choice between an electable relative moderate like Murkowski, an unelectable sacrificial lamb Democrat, and a tea party apostle like Miller, most Alaskan Democrats and progressive independents would likely choose the former as the best alternative to Miller.

Right, this is Alaska, a state that once gave Sarah Palin a 93% approval rating.

The guy the Democrats in Alaska actually nominated for the seat has headings on his web page for "Fiscal Responsibility" and "Individual Liberty" while attacking bank bailouts and No Child Left Behind.

Yet somehow you're claiming that the Democrats who nominated him, along with some mythical "moderate Republican" base in Alaska, would unite behind a woman who is in fact a better fit for an authoritarian state that would elect Joe Lieberman, like Connecticut.


Come to think of it, if Murkowski manages to steal this primary, I'll definitely be supporting McAdams in the general election.

Is the AIP not fielding a candidate?

[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?

Because this is Alaska, not Connecticut. So given the choice between an electable relative moderate like Murkowski, an unelectable sacrificial lamb Democrat, and a tea party apostle like Miller, most Alaskan Democrats and progressive independents would likely choose the former as the best alternative to Miller.

Right, this is Alaska, a state that once gave Sarah Palin a 93% approval rating.

The guy the Democrats in Alaska actually nominated for the seat has headings on his web page for "Fiscal Responsibility" and "Individual Liberty" while attacking bank bailouts and No Child Left Behind.

Yet somehow you're claiming that the Democrats who nominated him, along with some mythical "moderate Republican" base in Alaska, would unite behind a woman who is in fact a better fit for an authoritarian state that would elect Joe Lieberman, like Connecticut.


Come to think of it, if Murkowski manages to steal this primary, I'll definitely be supporting McAdams in the general election.

Is the AIP not fielding a candidate?

I don't believe so, no. The whole reason people are talking about Murkowski running as a Libertarian is because that's the only other party that will have ballot access in November.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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.

We don't need any affirmative action in the Republican party, and I'm not going to blindly support female candidates without looking at their merits. I'm against Murkowski because she's a liberal Republican--though I understand now why you're supporting her. I also understand why you're defending her as a victim of sexism. Now, we could use some more female Republicans, but not if they're "moderates"/moderate heroes, such as Murkowski.

Also, what Dgov said:

. . .  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.

^^^^

I'm not buying into your thesis in the first place. There are plenty of female Republicans running in November.

[Badger]

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?

Because this is Alaska, not Connecticut. So given the choice between an electable relative moderate like Murkowski, an unelectable sacrificial lamb Democrat, and a tea party apostle like Miller, most Alaskan Democrats and progressive independents would likely choose the former as the best alternative to Miller.

Right, this is Alaska, a state that once gave Sarah Palin a 93% approval rating.

The guy the Democrats in Alaska actually nominated for the seat has headings on his web page for "Fiscal Responsibility" and "Individual Liberty" while attacking bank bailouts and No Child Left Behind.

Yet somehow you're claiming that the Democrats who nominated him, along with some mythical "moderate Republican" base in Alaska, would unite behind a woman who is in fact a better fit for an authoritarian state that would elect Joe Lieberman, like Connecticut.


Come to think of it, if Murkowski manages to steal this primary, I'll definitely be supporting McAdams in the general election.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Democrats would likely abandon their sacrificial lamb, McAdams, for the same reason most (white) Democrats in Florida are currently backing Crist over Meek: The moderateish exile from the GOP can win, and the Dem can't. And Meek is far better known and funded then McAdams, not to mention having a strong base among African-Americans McAdams obviously lacks.

In a one-on-one election between Murkowski and McAdams, from what little I've learned about the guy on his website I'd likely vote for McAdams too. But in a 3 way race with Murkowski and Miller, McAdams and his $4500 on-hand will readily be swept aside.

The deep split in the Alaska GOP between the Murkowski/Stevens wing and the Palinistas is hardly new news. The coalition control of the state senate and constant primary wars going back to Wally Hickel being elected Governor in 1990 shows Alaska Republicans will support personalities over the party line. Call the former faction "moderates", "old guard", "mainstream", whatever. They undeniably exist and would provide a strong base in a general election.

Don't forget Murkowski's money advantage either. Yes, Miller's fundraising will pick up when he's the official nominee, and some of Murkowski's sources will dry up. But she still has about a 20-1 cash on hand advantage, and quiet assurance to the RNC and RNSC that she'll continue caucusing with the GOP as a "Libertarian" will keep Washington from giving Miller more than bare minimum financial support as the "official" Republican nominee, so the aforementioned committees can put more money into states like Illinois, Colorado, Pennsylvania, etc.

[cinyc]

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.

Probably not many more, but it's Alaska. Mail delivery probably isn't as reliable as it is in parts of the Lower 48.   Bad weather in some bush villages can stop the planes from flying and keep the mail there for days.  11,000 was significantly up from the 7,600 on Monday.

[tpfkaw]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where the hell do they find these people?

[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?

Because this is Alaska, not Connecticut. So given the choice between an electable relative moderate like Murkowski, an unelectable sacrificial lamb Democrat, and a tea party apostle like Miller, most Alaskan Democrats and progressive independents would likely choose the former as the best alternative to Miller.

Right, this is Alaska, a state that once gave Sarah Palin a 93% approval rating.

The guy the Democrats in Alaska actually nominated for the seat has headings on his web page for "Fiscal Responsibility" and "Individual Liberty" while attacking bank bailouts and No Child Left Behind.

Yet somehow you're claiming that the Democrats who nominated him, along with some mythical "moderate Republican" base in Alaska, would unite behind a woman who is in fact a better fit for an authoritarian state that would elect Joe Lieberman, like Connecticut.


Come to think of it, if Murkowski manages to steal this primary, I'll definitely be supporting McAdams in the general election.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Democrats would likely abandon their sacrificial lamb, McAdams, for the same reason most (white) Democrats in Florida are currently backing Crist over Meek: The moderateish exile from the GOP can win, and the Dem can't. And Meek is far better known and funded then McAdams, not to mention having a strong base among African-Americans McAdams obviously lacks.

You're still missing the point. Alaska is not comparable to Florida. Alaska Democrats just nominated by a 30-point margin a guy who could probably pass for a tea party candidate in many states. I dare say that McAdams is probably more similar to Miller than to Murkowski. Lisa is the odd woman out here; the only reason she's even in power is due to the shameless nepotism of her father. Why would the people who nominated small-town anti-establishment McAdams suddenly decide they prefer elitist beltway queen Murkowski?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No matter who the GOP nominates, (s)he will start off with a a pronounced advantage in the polls, especially in a political climate like this one.

Alaska barely managed to vote out a Republican convicted felon in the middle of a Democratic wave year. The GOP doesn't need to moderate itself to win races in that state. Sharron Angle would probably be sweeping up if she were their nominee.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Palin and the tea parties have plenty of money to throw around too.

[cinyc]

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

The Alaskan questioned votes more or less followed the precinct-level breakdown in AK-AL incumbent Don Young's hotly contested 2008 Republican primary.  Young received 45.6% of the precinct vote and 45.7% of the questioned vote in a three-way race.   In fact, Young performed slightly WORSE in the Absentee+Questioned vote than he did in the Precinct+Early vote (45.3% vs. 45.5%).  But unlike Murkowski, he ran 2.5 points behind in the early vote compared to the precinct-level tally.  Murkowski is running 5 points ahead.

As you'd expect, in 2008, the absentees came in more heavily from the places that don't have easy early voting - the Bush, Southeast Alaska and especially Kenai-Kodiak.  They also came in more heavily from two HDs with huge military bases - HD-12 near Fairbanks, home to Eielson AFB, and HD-18 in Anchorage, which is dominated by Elmendorf AFB and Ft. Richardson.  They came in least heavily from the rest of Anchorage.  The questioned votes were from all over the place, but more Mat-Su, Fairbanks and Bush dominated than anywhere else, especially Anchorage.

The number of absentees in the 2008 AK-AL Republican primary was 11,506.  We might just get there yet.  

Edited to add: FWIW - we saw the same pattern in the Stevens '08 primary.  Unlike Young, Stevens performed about as well in the early vote as the precinct vote.  But like in the Young race, Stevens' absentee percentage was almost identical to the precinct tally - within a tenth of a point.

[You kip if you want to...]

Lovely.

[cinyc]

FWIW, the official Alaska numbers don't show any early votes for Murkowski's 2004 primary.  But she too actually performed a little bit worse in the absentees than precinct level vote - about half a point.  She performed about 4 points worse than the precinct vote in the questioned vote, making the overall total -1.5 points.

I also wonder where the missing early votes are supposed to come in from.  Perhaps they are from Miller-friendly areas, which would push Murkowski's early vote percentage closer to the precinct vote.

Edited to add: The 600 or so "Early Votes" not yet counted were probably cast on election day.  The Alaska elections website says that's when those votes are counted.

Why would someone cast an Early Vote on election day?  I suppose if they're away from their home precinct but in the big city that's home to the district HQ of their precinct, they can cast their vote there.  Or if they work near the election office and might not get home in time to vote.  There's no way of knowing if those early votes traditionally break differently than regular early votes.

[Badger]

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?

Because this is Alaska, not Connecticut. So given the choice between an electable relative moderate like Murkowski, an unelectable sacrificial lamb Democrat, and a tea party apostle like Miller, most Alaskan Democrats and progressive independents would likely choose the former as the best alternative to Miller.

Right, this is Alaska, a state that once gave Sarah Palin a 93% approval rating.

The guy the Democrats in Alaska actually nominated for the seat has headings on his web page for "Fiscal Responsibility" and "Individual Liberty" while attacking bank bailouts and No Child Left Behind.

Yet somehow you're claiming that the Democrats who nominated him, along with some mythical "moderate Republican" base in Alaska, would unite behind a woman who is in fact a better fit for an authoritarian state that would elect Joe Lieberman, like Connecticut.


Come to think of it, if Murkowski manages to steal this primary, I'll definitely be supporting McAdams in the general election.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Democrats would likely abandon their sacrificial lamb, McAdams, for the same reason most (white) Democrats in Florida are currently backing Crist over Meek: The moderateish exile from the GOP can win, and the Dem can't. And Meek is far better known and funded then McAdams, not to mention having a strong base among African-Americans McAdams obviously lacks.

You're still missing the point. Alaska is not comparable to Florida. Alaska Democrats just nominated by a 30-point margin a guy who could probably pass for a tea party candidate in many states. I dare say that McAdams is probably more similar to Miller than to Murkowski. Lisa is the odd woman out here; the only reason she's even in power is due to the shameless nepotism of her father. Why would the people who nominated small-town anti-establishment McAdams suddenly decide they prefer elitist beltway queen Murkowski?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No matter who the GOP nominates, (s)he will start off with a a pronounced advantage in the polls, especially in a political climate like this one.

Alaska barely managed to vote out a Republican convicted felon in the middle of a Democratic wave year. The GOP doesn't need to moderate itself to win races in that state. Sharron Angle would probably be sweeping up if she were their nominee.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Palin and the tea parties have plenty of money to throw around too.

Alaska Democrats gave McAdams less than 50% of the vote against this guy, this guy, and the Libertarian Party candidate. (Some quirk of Alaska election law where Democrats, Libertarians and Independence Party members apparently all appear on the same primary ballot? ). I would dispute his description as "a tea partier" in any other state. His statements and website reflect a basically progressive Alaska Democrat. But even IF you were accurate, doesn't the supposed similarity between Murkowski and McAdams support my point that Murkowski would have a gap to exploit?

The money resources of Palin's organization and the tea party is true, but looking at their current bank accounts even then Miller will at best be only competitive (and still likely outspent) with Murkowski.

Your point about Sharon Angle likely winning up there is also true---which also reinforces my point. Scott McAdams can't win. Any Alaska Democrat running for Congress this year couldn't, least of all a grossly underfunded sacrificial lamb like McAdams. Democrats and progrssive independents up there will realize this and support Murkowski if she maintains at least half a chance of beating Miller.

I realize you dislike Murkowski intensely, but don't let that blind you to the reality that the combination of: money, incumbency, support from the Stevens wing of the Alaska GOP organization, and competing only with an unknown small town mayor with less than $5k in the bank to become the de facto Democratic candidate, MONEY, all combined could give Murkowski a viable (albeit less than even) chance of reelection.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The official canvass of the votes in Vermont got done early; it's Shumlin by 197 votes. Racine is requesting a recount.

[Niemeyerite]

Well, murkowsi could run as a democrat. that would be funny =)

[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.

We don't need any affirmative action in the Republican party, and I'm not going to blindly support female candidates without looking at their merits. I'm against Murkowski because she's a liberal Republican--though I understand now why you're supporting her. I also understand why you're defending her as a victim of sexism. Now, we could use some more female Republicans, but not if they're "moderates"/moderate heroes, such as Murkowski.

Also, what Dgov said:

. . .  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.

^^^^

I'm not buying into your thesis in the first place. There are plenty of female Republicans running in November.

I'm supporting her because she is a productive senator, not because she is a woman.

[tpfkaw]

I reiterate my position that Imelda Marcos would no doubt be a very productive senator - and she's an Asian woman!  In fact, she was born when the Philippines were US territory - the GOP should nominate her for President!

[redcommander]

I reiterate my position that Imelda Marcos would no doubt be a very productive senator - and she's an Asian woman!  In fact, she was born when the Philippines were US territory - the GOP should nominate her for President!

That's not what I meant and you know it.

[Хahar 🤔]

Libertarian Party

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You don't support Crist but would vote for Murkowski? I doubt even I would vote for her.

[redcommander]

You don't support Crist but would vote for Murkowski? I doubt even I would vote for her.

Crist doesn't have the experience with energy issues that Murkowski has. Plus he is a little too cuddly with Obama. At least Murkowski has kept her distance from him somewhat.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Tonight, we have exciting primaries in Louisiana and West Virginia. Polls close at 7:30 eastern in WV, 9 eastern in LA.

Results pages: LA (SOS) | LA (AP) | WV

[Eraserhead]

Exciting (?)