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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DrScholl]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And she'd lose on that ticket anyway. It'd probably backfire. Imagine if Joe Lieberman accepted the GOP nomination in 2006.

[Niemeyerite]

let's see:

finally, mcadams will be the Democrats choice for november YES or YES. begich is supporting him.
murkowskican't run as a libertarian and has probably lost the GOP primary. so, she will retire or begin a write-in campaign. as a libertarian, she would have a lot of democrat vote, but as a write-in, I think she will steal GOP votes. see alaska gubernatorial election 1998. robin traylor was a republican running as an write-in candidate, and he received more votes than the republican nominee john lindauer. could mcadams win if miller and murkowski splitted the republican vote? I think so.
But I think murkowski won't run a campaign and will support mcadams. And mcadams will beat miller by one or two thousand votes. see the 2008 election in maryland 1st district.

[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.

[Lunar]

Politico 2010 A1:


Dems ready to stand by McAdams

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If Lieberman did actually run as a Republican, it would've turned off Democrats who did vote for him. As it the GOP kept their candidate, though a joke.

[The Mikado]

If Lieberman did actually run as a Republican, it would've turned off Democrats who did vote for him. As it the GOP kept their candidate, though a joke.

BRTD's absolutely right.  Lieberman got a pretty hefty chunk of the Dem vote running, as he did, as an "Independent-minded Democrat."  Considering how crucial an issue control of the Senate was for many Dems in 2006, a lot fewer of them would've pulled the lever for Joe if he had that R next to him, probably more than would be offset by the votes he'd pick up from Schlesinger (wonder what ended up happening to that guy).

Anyway, the idea of Lisa Murkowski running as a D is ludicrous and she'd still lose.  Frankly, I'd rather lose with a real Democrat than lose with a fake Democrat, as I said when I supported Halter over Lincoln.  (When the question becomes win with a fake Democrat versus lose with a real one, it's a much harder issue, but this is a no-brainer)

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Politico 2010 A1:


Dems ready to stand by McAdams

Good. Miller and McAdams would both make better senators than Lisa Murkowski ever did.