AK Congressional Races 2014

[smoltchanov]

But Angus King never won a write-in campaign. Strom Thurmond in 1954 was the only other Senator who has.

Previous author simply hates Murkowski too much. He doesn't care about details - he simply wants to see her defeated, and his beloved "true conservative" - elected in her place. ANY "true conservative"

[smoltchanov]

But Angus King never won a write-in campaign. Strom Thurmond in 1954 was the only other Senator who has.

Previous author simply hates Murkowski too much. He doesn't care about details - he simply wants to see her defeated, and his beloved "true conservative" - elected in her place. ANY "true conservative"

I don't care about details? Really? I have supported my fair share of moderates (Dillard, Kirk, Snowe, McCain until 2006, Collins, Simmons, Campbell, Castle, Brown, Douglas, Rell, Pataki and even Lincoln Chafee in his 2006 primary). You were saying something about details? HA!!! I expected more from you then this kind of insulting presumptuousness Smoltchanov.

My problem with Murkowski stems from her ties to the old Alaska GOP establishment and its corruption. I first started following politics because I was sick of the corruption within the GOP back in 2005 and 2006.  And I will say that it is you guys that are ignoring the details, precisely because you are hung up with the fact that she won as a write-in. She has a familiar name, sh**tloads of money, a wide circle of insider support, a quirky state campaign wise and an opponent who was nuts, all in the age of the smart phone and the internet.

I think it is clear who is considering the details and who is ignoring them to buy into a misguided media narrative.

Amazing you and sg0508 think I am tea Party nutcase and Ben Kenobi thinks I am rino sellout. Guess I must be right where I should be.

You started to follow American politics about 2005? Congratulations! I started about 1972. And i CARE about details. Alaska's Republican party is prone about running ultra-right wingers like Miller since Palin became McCain running mate in 2008, and, frankly, i don't see any normal pragmatic conservative (i don't even speak about something better) among "Murkowski alternatives". Even like Ted Stevens and Don Young. Palin? Don't make me laugh. Parnell? Not likely (and too conservative for my tastes). Treadwell? (atrocious fundraiser plus, again, social conservative). So, sorry, but you didn't convinced me (hope - you will not take that as additional "insult").

P.S. Looking at your posts (not only here) - i would never say that you supported "a fair share of moderates". May be - in the past, like Dillard (who swung heavily to the right of late)? If i am mistaken - well, then i am pleasantly surprised and owe an apology, but i REALLY don't see it from your posts.

[smoltchanov]

I think my understanding of Alaska politics is far more detailed then most of yours.

You are DEEPLY mistaken))))

[smoltchanov]

Well, thanks for info, but here i disagree at least somewhat. Treadwell may be formerly in Stevens-Young-Murkowski (Sr.) camp, but, IMHO, not now.  Too close association with Palin-Parnell camp. I can't remember a single disagreement between them. And, while i agree, that Alaska's "establishment" contain a fair share of conservatives, they were mostly, "pragmatic conservatives" - Stevens, Young and other were NOT conservative on economy (and were great "porkers"), while being more conservative socially (in Young case, Stevens was more "murky" on social issues). And i wouldn't call Palin's group "a reformers", and, surely, would not consider Miller a "reformer" - from my point of view he is a "pure tea-party extremist", and i can't characterize most of the "tea-party" otherwise then an "strongly extremist wing" of Republican party (Palin, from my point of view, essentially belongs to the same camp). Paulists - well, Alaska always had strong libertarian current (to some extent even among Democrats), so - not surprising they exist as a rather string faction of state party.

BTW - is Sullivan member of "reformer" group? Where he stands on economy and social issues? (i know that Treadwell is a "standard solid conservative" and Miller - well, i already spoke about him)

P.S. I didn't guessed. I remember many your posts, and (well, i don't look at signatures) it always seemed to me - they were written from precisely clear ideological position of "very solid conservative". I never hid that while i see a need for conservatives in conservative states (the same position - candidates must reflect their states and  districts), i don't have too much love for very strong conservatives (IMHO - there is overabundance of them in Republican party, just as there is overabundance of radical left-wingers in Democratic), especially - in moderate states (North-East for example). " The Big tent" is still important from my point of views (otherwise, when i can predict 95% of positions of candidate simply looking on letter after his name - it becomes utterly boring), and i don't like present days political polarization and "purity". May be - i am becoming old, but it was much more interesting to me then, in 1970th, when you could still see, say, Jacob Javits and Charles Mathias among Republicans, and James Eastland and James Allen - among Democrats))))

[smoltchanov]

I would say that Sullivan is more of an outsider and more like Parnell I would say. Whether he pursues reforms or not is up to him going forward as his site is rather bare at present, but my preference is to go with the one more likely then the one least likely. I initially called it the Sarah Palin types, but that would have implied candidate train wrecks and that wasn't the point I was going for, so I switched it to the outsider-reformer wing.

Well, never thought about Treadwell as Murkowski "stalwart". Frank - may be, but, surely, not Lisa's. But i may be wrong... And - thanks!


P.S. Sullivan on social issues? (you can see from my ratings, that i am more liberal on social issues, while being basically centrist on economy). I would like to have a possibility to support at least some Republican candidates, but moderate position on social issues is a "must" for me..

[smoltchanov]

P.S. I didn't guessed. I remember many your posts, and (well, i don't look at signatures) it always seemed to me - they were written from precisely clear ideological position of "very solid conservative". I never hid that while i see a need for conservatives in conservative states (the same position - candidates must reflect their states and  districts), i don't have too much love for very strong conservatives (IMHO - there is overabundance of them in Republican party, just as there is overabundance of radical left-wingers in Democratic), especially - in moderate states (North-East for example). " The Big tent" is still important from my point of views (otherwise, when i can predict 95% of positions of candidate simply looking on letter after his name - it becomes utterly boring), and i don't like present days political polarization and "purity". May be - i am becoming old, but it was much more interesting to me then, in 1970th, when you could still see, say, Jacob Javits and Charles Mathias among Republicans, and James Eastland and James Allen - among Democrats))))

I get rather militant about certain issues and thus the posts on immigration or the bad side of the GOP establishment problably outnumber and out intensify those which would in sum balance it out.

Ideological polarization is unavoidable, the result of instant communication anf the gravitation of like minded people to the same pole. I had hopped that the elections since 2008, the rise of outsiders even in conjunction with the tea party, that greater diversity could be restored. It was not that long ago that the GOP was run by an establishment-socon alliance under Bush for instance and fiscal conservatives and libertarians were bleeding away so this was not an unreasonable possiblity. I feared a Huckabee nomination would destroy the Party's sole connection to its roots and thus was glad when he didn't run. However, even with Romney, it didn't change much. The tea Party became too monolithic and quit supporting Scott Browns and instead sought Alabama Republicans in every state. It was also the case that it was hijacked by self centered people both in and out of the political world from Todd Akin to Christine O'Donnel and Dan Maes who put themselves first and even their own objectives second.

The one consolation is that the party is firmly ensconced on the small gov't side and hopefully generational change will force a more libertarian stance on certain issues that would also appeal to moderates like yourself.

Here i can only agree. Thanks again, and once again - an apology for rather bad "practical joke".... It was conceived as a sort of humor, but, really, could be felt as insult.

[smoltchanov]

I would say that Sullivan is more of an outsider and more like Parnell I would say. Whether he pursues reforms or not is up to him going forward as his site is rather bare at present, but my preference is to go with the one more likely then the one least likely. I initially called it the Sarah Palin types, but that would have implied candidate train wrecks and that wasn't the point I was going for, so I switched it to the outsider-reformer wing.

Well, never thought about Treadwell as Murkowski "stalwart". Frank - may be, but, surely, not Lisa's. But i may be wrong... And - thanks!


P.S. Sullivan on social issues? (you can see from my ratings, that i am more liberal on social issues, while being basically centrist on economy). I would like to have a possibility to support at least some Republican candidates, but moderate position on social issues is a "must" for me..

You have to base it on your priorities. If a little corruption is acceptable, then probably Lisa is a better bet so you have the moderate on social issues. I would assume any other would be pro-life and against gay marriage.

I want to wipe the old school AK GOP insiders that are similarly corrupted (typically found in big oil and agra states) and similar such people across the country out. I am pro-life but it is lower on my list and I thus I wanted both Inhofe and Vitter to be primaried as well someone other then Blunt to run in MO, so I don't play favorites on the issue of opposing corrupted porkers based on them being a social conservative or not.

Well, "a little" - may be, but only "a little" (you can only imagine the level of corruption in Russia, where i am for now because of personal reasons). Again - thanks for info. But, at least in North-East (sorry for off-topic) a moderate (first of all - socially) Republicans, IMHO, would only be natural...

And thanks - your position is really clear to me NOW, and i respect it

[smoltchanov]

Politico has Treadwell as one of the biggest fundraising losers of Q4. National Republicans are worried they'd have to spend too much helping him in the general.

He has to win primary first, and (IMHO, of course) he isn't even a favorite there...