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

[Beet]

McAdams must drop out and endorse Murkowski.

[Beet]

Guys. Murkowski's DW Nominate score is more liberal than Voinovich. She's just 2 places away from Snowe.

http://www.voteview.com/SENATE_SORT111.HTM

Murkowski is a lot better than Miller.

Plus, if her base becomes more Democratic, so will she. Just like Crist. If Democrats want to win this race (and they can) and hand the GOP and Palin a major defeat this November and a major counter narrative to what's assuredly going to be treatment royale for the GOP by the press after the elections, McAdams will endorse Murkowski. The reverse- a Murkowski endorsement of McAdams, could be decisive too, but the Democrats' interest is really, really clear here.

[Beet]

It makes no difference. She's a reliable Republican vote. At least with Miller there's some chance of him opposing the military–industrial complex (the way Rand Paul was supposed to before he sold out); with Murkowski, we know what we're getting, and it's not good. Moreover, Begich and Miller would make one of the most junior teams in the Senate, which would mean less pork for Alaska, which would be better for all of us. This ignores the obvious fun inherent in a three-way race.

Uhh, less pork for Alaska only means more pork for someone else. While I'm not a huge fan of Alaska, I don't see why it should be penalized. Plus, I don't see what could possibly be more fun than Murkowski running on a Libertarian/Dem ticket against Miller. Certainly not a three way whose outcome is basically guaranteed.

[Beet]

It makes no difference. She's a reliable Republican vote. At least with Miller there's some chance of him opposing the military–industrial complex (the way Rand Paul was supposed to before he sold out); with Murkowski, we know what we're getting, and it's not good. Moreover, Begich and Miller would make one of the most junior teams in the Senate, which would mean less pork for Alaska, which would be better for all of us. This ignores the obvious fun inherent in a three-way race.

Uhh, less pork for Alaska only means more pork for someone else. While I'm not a huge fan of Alaska, I don't see why it should be penalized. Plus, I don't see what could possibly be more fun than Murkowski running on a Libertarian/Dem ticket against Miller. Certainly not a three way whose outcome is basically guaranteed.

Right, for us. Whatever you may think of Alaska, there's no reason your tax dollars should subsidize it while its own state government has so much money it pays back its citizens.

I don't see the outcome of a three-way as guaranteed.

Wrong, if its own state government has money or not, that's none of my business. But here in Maryland we suck at the government teat, so we do kind of owe the other states.

A three-way is basically a Miller win, as this poll shows. The dynamics wouldn't work out because McAdams and Murkowski would just bleed each others' support. Witness Florida. At first, I argued that Meek should have dropped out when Crist became an independent and endorsed Crist. Lunar tried to argue with me saying Meek had a chance. Now Lunar admits Meek has no chance and the millions of money spent on him by his donors were wasted. Any Democrat is wrong for Alaska circa 2010. The state's too conservative and the mood is too anti-Democatic. Miller is also a bad fit for the state, most Alaskans don't like him. Murkowski is a perfect fit for the state... conservative, but not a nut. Democracy is supposed to represent the will of the people, not whichever candidate manages to win the biggest plurality.

I guarantee you, if it's a three way, Miller will win. How much do you want to bet?

[Beet]

Beet has this weird fetish with Republicans who don't talk as outright crazy as the teabaggers yet still support the teabaggers on 95% of the issues and an even higher percentage on what they vote on. Remember his love affair with Trey Grayson who is probably to the right of McConnell.

Because we've got to throw everything we've got at the teabaggers. They're mighty conservative, and they're mighty powerful, and they're coming. All I'm trying to do is fight on the front lines, so when they reach the lines you actually care about (and they will), they'll be a little weaker.

When there's a division in the opposing party, you have to exploit it. Remember Operation Chaos? Division in the other party is like a ripe, low hanging fruit of opportunity. In a year like this, Democrats can't just whistle by.

[Beet]

You were screaming about how it was a horrendous travesty that Paul and Angle won their primaries. Of course now against Paul Conway might actually stand a chance and facing Angle is the only reason Reid has any chance at all.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the lines you care about" but if you mean teabaggers will start winning elections in Minneapolis, uh, no.

Uh, there hasn't been a single poll with Conway leading Paul since last November. When Paul won, I remember some people trying to argue with me saying Paul would be more principled. In reality he's shown himself to be just another politician, just like Scott Brown. A disturbing number of Democrats are buying into the whole "Hope and Change" theme offered by Republican teabaggers like Scott Brown, Rand Paul, and now Joe Miller. Which is absurd given how that worked out when it was Democrat.

The only difference between the teabaggers and the establishment Republicans I defend are that (a) the latter are more moderate, and (b) the former are more politically potent. You can see why any Democrat or progressive should prefer the latter.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Franken has turned out to be a great Senator, better than I thought he would be I admit. But I wasn't involved in the whole pro Coleman thing between you and Lunar, plus there was no tea party candidate involved in that race, so it shouldn't really apply to this question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

It's more subtle than that. There's a whole slew of issues Grayson was more moderate than Rand Paul on. For example, Grayson supported the Fourteenth Amendment, Paul does not. Grayson supported ADA, Paul does not. And more too. Sure you can say, "Well the 14th amendment isn't in danger, ADA isn't in danger, blah blah", but in my opinion, even having someone in the Senate who holds those views is dangerous. There was a time when only a few rogue Senators such as Barry Goldwater wanted to merge the GOP with movement conservatism... over time that grew to the whole party.

Battles don't just occur in the middle. Battles occur all along the line, across the political spectrum. For an extreme conservative view to become law, it first has to win over the GOP, then it has to win over a majority. Eventually, it may even win over a consensus. To overturn it, first you would have to break the consensus by getting progressives to oppose it. Then you would have to win over a majority. Eventually you could form your own counter consensus. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? It's like front lines and rear lines. The front lines are the battles on the "other side". If you lose that, it comes to the "general election" or prime time debate. If you lose that, you are thrown back into your own lines just to keep the debate alive. For example, on the abortion rights issue, the GOP lost the central battle but they've been very successful just by keeping the debate alive. Had liberals managed to create a pro-abortion rights consensus in the 1970s, things would have been very different.

Understand? Understand why it's important to fight everywhere? Why having mainstream conservatives win GOP primaries might be better news for progressives than having far-right, Overton window shifting tea partiers?

[Beet]

I'm going to disagree with Beet here but for different reasons. Having McAdams staying in the race will either a. force Murkowski to start tracking towards the Left and start pledging herself to a few liberal causes or b. have Murkowski try to flank Miller, which of course would be a disaster because this would require more mud flinging on personality rather than substance and because Murkowski simply could win on this strategy because she has been is the antithesis of Palin's wing of the GOP. Either way Democrats will win in some way.

In Case A Murkowski might be able to win a coalition of voters and win the election(I think how she does this would be obvious). In office during the next 6 years she would have to follow through on some of her campaign promises. She would be indebted to the Left and most her party would hate her. She would become the GOP's Lieberman, and this time the comparison would be true because like Lieberman she would still retain most of her old views and she would still probably caucus with her own party.

In Case B there would be much mudflinging and lots of orthodoxy that your average voter would hate. The DSCC could pour money into McAdams campaign and he could win in an upset election simply by being untainted and by having a complete lock on Democrats. Still having a Senator Miller would be much more likely in this case.

In the end having McAdams stay in the race will force Murkowski to track to left without looking like one of the Democratic Party's goons, which in Alaska would kill her. I see any endorsement ending up hurting Murkowski more than helping her. McAdams dropping out would be a sure loser.

No, having McAdams stay in the race means that all the leftist voters will be solid McAdams, there will be no way Murkowski could pick them up so there would be no incentive for her to tack left. If you want her to tack to the left, having McAdams drop out is the way to go, because then the leftist voters would actually be up for grabs. That is elementary.

I'm starting to see why Democrats are so inept at politics... we just don't understand it.

[Beet]

I'm going to disagree with Beet here but for different reasons. Having McAdams staying in the race will either a. force Murkowski to start tracking towards the Left and start pledging herself to a few liberal causes or b. have Murkowski try to flank Miller, which of course would be a disaster because this would require more mud flinging on personality rather than substance and because Murkowski simply could win on this strategy because she has been is the antithesis of Palin's wing of the GOP. Either way Democrats will win in some way.

In Case A Murkowski might be able to win a coalition of voters and win the election(I think how she does this would be obvious). In office during the next 6 years she would have to follow through on some of her campaign promises. She would be indebted to the Left and most her party would hate her. She would become the GOP's Lieberman, and this time the comparison would be true because like Lieberman she would still retain most of her old views and she would still probably caucus with her own party.

In Case B there would be much mudflinging and lots of orthodoxy that your average voter would hate. The DSCC could pour money into McAdams campaign and he could win in an upset election simply by being untainted and by having a complete lock on Democrats. Still having a Senator Miller would be much more likely in this case.

In the end having McAdams stay in the race will force Murkowski to track to left without looking like one of the Democratic Party's goons, which in Alaska would kill her. I see any endorsement ending up hurting Murkowski more than helping her. McAdams dropping out would be a sure loser.

No, having McAdams stay in the race means that all the leftist voters will be solid McAdams, there will be no way Murkowski could pick them up so there would be no incentive for her to tack left. If you want her to tack to the left, having McAdams drop out is the way to go, because then the leftist voters would actually be up for grabs. That is elementary.

I'm starting to see why Democrats are so inept at politics... we just don't understand it.

You said that you wanted McAdams to drop out and endorse Murkowski, not for him to just drop out. Murkowski would have no incentive to track towards the left if McAdams dropped out because McAdams voters would flock to her even if her issue positions stayed exactly the same. She gets already 51-41 Approval rating from Democrats and a 51-41 Approval rating from left-leaning Indies(at least in the PPP poll they are left-leaning). She wouldn't have to do dick to pick them up because there is a Gubernatorial race that these voters would already turn out for. Murkowski would understand this and not focus much on moderate/liberal voters. She wouldn't make any important campaign promises. If she won, she would return to Congress as virtually the same person.

Wrong, because McAdams' endorsement would only go so far. A lot of people wouldn't listen to him, and a lot of people would choose not to support anyone. Politicians don't care about campaign promises, but they do care about their base. Every politician has a base. If McAdams dropped out, whether he endorsed Murkowski or nor, she would become the de facto Democratic candidate. She's going to be getting 70, 80 percent of her votes from Democrats. At that point, it only makes logical sense for McAdams to endorse her. When she goes into the Senate, she'll be going in as an independent who was put into power by a majority of 70, 80 percent Democrats. Looking to re-election, she'll be looking to put together the same kind of coalition in 6 years, because that will have been the most recent proven winning coalition for her. And her voting record would reflect that.

[Beet]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is Angle could win.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference is Dennis Kucinich doesn't have the wind at his back, nor do those people in Congress who support single-payer. These people do.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is Angle could win.

Could, but could lose. I'll take those odds over someone who'd have a 95% identical voting record who'd be a shoo-in. The only thing that matters is how'd they vote. Is Tom Coburn really that much worse than the supposedly much more moderate Bob Corker?

I disagree that the only thing that matters is how'd they vote. Politicians do more than vote, they also persuade, they also set the agenda, and they also represent who has a voice. Otherwise, you'd have to argue that Michelle Bachmann or Rand Paul were no different than a no name GOP Congressman. That's obviously not true. Arguably, these are just as important if not more important than the actual vote, which is rarely decisive.

I'm not a risk taker. Since when has risk taking worked out for us? Never. Obama was a risk, and he disappointed. I'm more of a hedger. I'd rather have Reid down 25 points to a moderate Republican, at least I know what I'll get. At least election night won't be a nasty shock. In my gut, I just have this feeling Reid will lose. It'd be nice if he won, but it seems like too much to hope for.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference is Dennis Kucinich doesn't have the wind at his back, nor do those people in Congress who support single-payer. These people do.

Wake me when repealing the 14th Amendment has enough support to get 38 states to ratify it or there are enough votes in congress to override Obama's veto of the repeal of the ADA.
[/quote]

It seems unlikely today, but what was the possibility last year that the Democrats would be looking at losing the Senate this November? Back then I said the GOP would win the highest percentage of the vote since the 1920s, and you laughed at me. It looks like was right. I prefer not to risk it. Chance never works out well.

[Beet]

No a 70 seat GOP House pickup does not look likely. And remember how the only question in PA-12 was how big the GOP would win by.

I said 65-70, when most people were saying 20-30. Who's going to be closer? Me, by far. I was wrong on PA-12, but look at the Gallup generic ballot today. 10 points. And there are still 2 months left to go.

[Beet]

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.

[Beet]

Operation Chaos was a huge failure.

I used that phrase as a metaphor for the Democratic party's division in 2008, which was nearly fatal. Other even more dramatic examples are available... in 1860, 1884, 1896, 1912, 1964, 1968, 1972 Kathleen Sebelius's first statewide race, etc.

[Beet]

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).

Is there a rule that says one cannot be the other? Numerous sources categorize her as a moderate Republican, not just me. For example, Politics Daily, "This time, the group is focusing on helping conservative Fairbanks, Alaska, attorney Joe Miller oust moderate Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski."

And look, you underestimate the impact of actually having another Senator who leans towards your side and with Murkowski's seniority in a state like Alaska! If Murkowski beat Miller with the Democratic support, that's much bigger deal than any "infrastructure" is built up by running a spirited, but ultimately hopeless race.

[Beet]

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.

[Beet]

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

I don't think he should do that, if Murkowski lost her primary, she just lost it. McAdams earned a place in the general, Murkowski possibly didn't.

If politics were fair, Bush would be forced to clean up his own bubble.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wanna bet? Lieberman basically did accept the GOP nomination. The GOP not so subtly threw its weight behind Lieberman and he eventually won with the bulk of his voters from the GOP.