AK: PPP: Miller leads in two-way and three-way

[Lunar]

I kept being told by people like Lunar how Coleman was such a glorious moderate.

WTF

Gosh, you're quite annoying sometimes when you make up stuff about me.  Lunar loves Kirk.  Lunar still thinks Meek will win. etc.  Next time I see crazy accusations, like how I "kept telling you that Coleman was a glorious moderate," I'm going to start making up stuff in another thread about how you admitted you secretly voted for McCain or something.

I was wrong about Franken, at best I may have said Coleman had a moderate demeanor.  He was certainly no moderate, I can't think of anything he was even moderate on (unlike Murkowski, who is a corporate GOP establishment hack, but happens to be kinda pro-choice...pretty much the opposite of anyone a Democrat should ever endorse).  I may have been right about it being better for the Democrats to have 59 seats rather than 60 seats though, I'm still not sure about that.

[Lunar]

It should be said that it's profoundly foolish to advocate a course of action for McAdams, other than waiting and seeing, based on one poll for Alaska done in the middle of summer while the GOP primary is slowly being tabulated.

We don't know what Murkowski is going to do, she was part of the GOP leadership for years.  She was part of an effort to stop the raising of the liability cap for oil disasters and is an absolute nightmare in terms of capitulating to special interests.  Advocating McAdams drop out and endorse her is crazy, we don't even know if Murkowski really has a shot at even getting a third party nomination shot yet, or what the polling will look like should she accept it [hint: you can't really poll these things effectively in advance, you have to let the news hit].

You have to let the dust settle.

[Lunar]

It should be said that it's profoundly foolish to advocate a course of action for McAdams, other than waiting and seeing, based on one poll for Alaska done in the middle of summer while the GOP primary is slowly being tabulated.

The point is, if Murkowski loses the GOP primary, which is 95% likely, McAdams should take a course of action. If
1) Murkowski ends up winning after "[the] GOP primary [is finished] slowly being tabulated", or
2) Polls start coming out contradicting this poll and showing Murkowski with a lead in a 3-way,
I will eat my hat. You are the one being profoundly foolish in thinking either event could possibly occur. Don't you have any contrition after being wrong about Meek? You're still acting like the know-it-all when your record of accuracy isn't that great. When Senator Miller is sworn in next January you'll still probably not respect my perspective.

okay, I didn't mean to be rude.  This is all bork now that Murkowski is denied her third party options.  I think it's naive to view ever race in a vacuum (i.e. ignore the harms to the state party for just tossing this one away.  Sometimes it's good to run in serious races, even if you'll lose), naive to think that Murkowski would be open to seriously working with the Democrats (I mean, that's like saying the Democrats should back a third-party effort by John McCain if he got primaried, she's like the #4 Republican in the Senate!).  Her efforts to destroy the EPA and so on on behalf of her corporate donors would also be troubling.

you may think I'm naive in valuing the expected outcome of a serious McAdams candidacy higher than you are, but whatevsky, it's all bork now

[Lunar]

Could Murkowski get one of the independent candidates to drop out and give her their spot on the ballot? She can't run on her own accord, but getting her to replace another candidate might work.

They both rejected her.

[Lunar]

It should be said that it's profoundly foolish to advocate a course of action for McAdams, other than waiting and seeing, based on one poll for Alaska done in the middle of summer while the GOP primary is slowly being tabulated.

The point is, if Murkowski loses the GOP primary, which is 95% likely, McAdams should take a course of action. If
1) Murkowski ends up winning after "[the] GOP primary [is finished] slowly being tabulated", or
2) Polls start coming out contradicting this poll and showing Murkowski with a lead in a 3-way,
I will eat my hat. You are the one being profoundly foolish in thinking either event could possibly occur. Don't you have any contrition after being wrong about Meek? You're still acting like the know-it-all when your record of accuracy isn't that great. When Senator Miller is sworn in next January you'll still probably not respect my perspective.

okay, I didn't mean to be rude.  This is all bork now that Murkowski is denied her third party options.  I think it's naive to view ever race in a vacuum (i.e. ignore the harms to the state party for just tossing this one away.  Sometimes it's good to run in serious races, even if you'll lose), naive to think that Murkowski would be open to seriously working with the Democrats (I mean, that's like saying the Democrats should back a third-party effort by John McCain if he got primaried, she's like the #4 Republican in the Senate!).  Her efforts to destroy the EPA and so on on behalf of her corporate donors would also be troubling.

you may think I'm naive in valuing the expected outcome of a serious McAdams candidacy higher than you are, but whatevsky, it's all bork now

What, exactly, is the value of running a "serious race, even if you'll lose"? How many people today remember the "serious race[s ]" of Senators long ago who lost, as opposed to those that cruised to re-election against a token candidate? Specter and Crist have shown willingness to work with the Democrats, so why not Murkowski? As I've shown, she's one of the most moderate GOP Senators to begin with. No she wouldn't be with us on all issues; yeah she's probably influenced by corporate donors to do corrupt things, but so would McAdams. So would Miller. So is Chuck Schumer. It makes no difference.

Like I said, there is a certain amount of infrastructure.  It's not just "Alaska: Senate Race, 2010."  It's a key component of the 2010 elections for the entire state party, that they'll use to build on for 2012.  It's the donors and activists and netroots that will be less than happy with enthusiastic backing of Murkowski.  

If you want to believe she's a genuine moderate Republican instead of an establishmentarian Republican, then I guess we disagree on that issue, which affects our perspectives of the potential net outcomes.  Ever Senator does stuff for special interests, but Murkowski has done more to hamstring the EPA than almost everyone (not even Blanche Lincoln goes as far as she does).

[Lunar]

Oh, she's moderate-ish.  I'm kind of busy right now (moving to a new apartment) so I'm going to bow out of this hypothetical as Lisa can't run on a third-party now.

[Lunar]

Oh, she's moderate-ish.  I'm kind of busy right now (moving to a new apartment) so I'm going to bow out of this hypothetical as Lisa can't run on a third-party now.

Well my argument is that McAdams should give her his own ticket, because he can't win and she can.

Ohh...that's depressing.  Could serve some value just to F$*) with the NRSC hah, but yeah, depressing.  No time to give you justice for now.

I'd like to see where the dust settles over the next couple weeks.

[Lunar]

Politico 2010 A1:


Dems ready to stand by McAdams