The Alaska Senate election is only three weeks away. But a multitudinous number of Alaska Democrats, including me, whose votes may decide the outcome remain flummoxed, befuddled, uncertain. Should they remain allegiant to their party and vote for Scott McAdams, the Democratic candidate? Or should they abandon McAdams and write in incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski to try to save Alaska and the nation from Tea Party poster boy and Sarah Palin spawn Joe Miller, the Republican candidate?
How a Democrat should vote is a conundrum.
People who know him tell me that Scott McAdams, who describes himself as a big guy from Sitka, a small town on an island in southeast Alaska where he serves as the part time mayor, is a nice guy. But until Joe Miller upset Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska Republican primary election, not even Scott McAdams took Scott McAdams's candidacy seriously, since during the primary campaign he raised next to no money, made a few telephone calls, and let it go at that.
Since the primary election enough campaign contributions have come in to allow Scott McAdams to begin traveling around the state. At each stop, after mouthing the predictable Democratic platitudes, McAdams argues to his audience that the reason he is qualified to represent Alaska in the United States Senate is that he is not Joe Miller, a right-of-wing-nut ideologue who believes that Alaska should get off the federal dole. McAdams not only disagrees, but he is promising that, if he is elected, when he gets to the Senate he will fight to shove into as many appropriations bills as he can as many earmarks as he can in order to see that the torrent of federal dollars that has been flowing into Alaska since 1973 when former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens first joined the Senate Appropriations Committee keep flowing.
The trouble with that rationale for McAdams's candidacy is that in 2008 when Alaska voters turned Ted Stevens out of office after forty years in the Senate, Lisa Murkowski inherited Ted's seat on the Appropriations Committee. Since if he is elected there is zero chance that Scott McAdams will be appointed to a seat on the Committee, if keeping earmarked appropriations flowing is the criterion about which they most care, Democratic voters would be knuckleheads to vote for McAdams, rather than for Lisa.
There's also the problem that McAdams can't win.
With the exception of the election contest between Lisa Murkowski and former Alaska Democratic Governor Tony Knowles that Lisa won in 2004, for a generation Senate elections in Alaska have not been competitive. (Since Ted Stevens was a convicted felon at the time, the 2008 election in which Mark Begich narrowly defeated Ted doesn't count as competitive.) But Alaska gubernatorial elections have been competitive. So their vote counts are instructive.
In 1998 Tony Knowles won 51.2 percent of the vote when he defeated John Lindauer, the Republican candidate. But that was a special situation because the Alaska press did its job and educated the electorate that Lindauer was a pathological liar whose campaign had been financed illegally with $1 million that Lindauer said his wife, who is independently wealthy, gave to him, but which may have come from the Chicago mob. More representative are the 1994, 2002, and 2006 Alaska gubernatorial elections in which Democratic candidates won 41, 40.7, and 40.9 percent of the vote.
Last week at a campaign event I attended Scott McAdams predicted that on November 3 he will receive 40 percent of the vote. If he does, in a three-way race with Joe Miller and Lisa Murkowski, McAdams can win.
Given the 1994, 2002, and 2006 gubernatorial election vote counts, Scott McAdams winning 40 percent of the vote does not appear, on the face of it, to be an unrealistic possibility. But there are two problems.
The first problem is that, because they both had been involved for decades in Alaska politics, Democratic gubernatorial candidates Tony Knowles and former Lieutenant Governor Fran Ulmer had massive statewide name recognition and, as candidates, considerable gravitas, particularly among independent and nonpartisan voters who today are 52 percent of the Alaska electorate. Scott McAdams has neither.
The second problem is that to get to 40 percent Tony Knowles and Fran Ulmer needed massive support from Alaska Native voters, and particularly from Alaska Native voters who live in one of the more than two hundred small villages that are scattered around the bush. But the members of the board of directors of the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), the state's most politically influential Native organization, begged Lisa to run as a write-in candidate because they are terrified that if he is elected Joe Miller will do what he has said he will do and end the appropriation earmarks on which the economy of rural Alaska, such as it is, depends.
Byron Mallott, a former president of AFN and one of the most well-known Native leaders in the state, is a co-chair of Lisa's write-in campaign. Albert Kookesh, the co-chair of the AFN board of directors, has publicly predicted that "the Alaska Native community will be there for her" because "we owe her so much." And this week at its annual convention in Fairbanks, AFN will vote on an official endorsement.
But even if the AFN convention delegates do not officially endorse Lisa, last week eleven of the twelve regional corporations that control much of the land and money Alaska Natives were given when Congress settled their aboriginal land claims created Alaskans Standing Together, a political action committee through which the corporations have announced they will wash $1 million that will be spent on television and radio commercials and newspaper advertisements that will tout Lisa's write-in candidacy. In addition, the Alaska Native Brotherhood and Sisterhood in southeast Alaska, and the Doyon regional corporation in the Alaska interior have endorsed Lisa.
What all of that means is that even though Scott McAdams has been doing his best to pander to Alaska Natives on tribal sovereignty, Native subsistence rights, earmarks, and other hot button issues of their concern, McAdams and Lisa Murkowski will split the Native vote. And Lisa may do even better than that.
For Scott McAdams, what his lack of name recognition and gravitas and the loss of a large part of the Native vote means is that on November 3, rather than 40 percent of the vote, he will be lucky to win 30 percent; an estimate that is consistent with the 31 percent that a friend working in the McAdams campaign told me is what a recent poll that the campaign has not released publicly says is the present number. And with no better than 30 percent of the vote, McAdams loses.
If that is how the McAdams candidacy is going to play out, then for Alaska Democrats who believe that Joe Miller is a dangerous ideologue who must be defeated, a vote for Scott McAdams is a wasted vote.
But does that mean that they should abandon McAdams and vote for Lisa as Byron Mallott, who is a Democrat, has decided to do? Insofar as I am concerned that depends on Lisa.
Lisa Murkowski is a smart, hardworking, and thoroughly decent woman who during the two terms she served in the Alaska House of Representatives risked her seat in her conservative Republican election district by casting a pro-choice vote. And she worked with Democrats to fashion a bipartisan solution to the State of Alaska's coming fiscal crisis that involved reinstating the state income tax and tapping the Alaska Permanent Fund, both of which are anathema to conservative Republicans.
But over the eight years since her father, then Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski, had the brazen temerity to appoint her to succeed him in the United States Senate, Lisa has morphed from the bipartisan centrist into a hard right conservative. After tabulating her votes, the American Conservative Union has given Lisa a 70.2 percent lifetime rating. But for Alaska Democrats, in recent years her voting record, which the McAdams campaign has posted on http://www.lisavotes. com, has been worse than that.
In 2009 her colleagues in the Senate Republican caucus rewarded Lisa for her dependability by appointing her vice chair of the Senate Republican Conference, the fifth highest office in the Senate Republican leadership hierarchy. In that position, for the past two years Lisa has functioned as Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's Stepford wife, voting 90 percent of the time however Mitch told her to vote, and standing silently behind Mitch at televised press conferences gazing adoringly at her man.
So if she "makes history" as a write-in candidate and defeats Joe Miller what Lisa intends to do when she returns to the Senate is resume signing on to every filibuster Mitch McConnell orders and casting votes like the no votes she cast against the confirmations of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan as Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, then I will throw away my vote on Scott McAdams.
While I continue to ponder whether I will or not, with the election three weeks away decisions are starting to get made, such as the decision a friend who is a Democrat described in an email in which she several days ago reported that
I have finally decided who to vote for. I have sort of been keeping an open mind about Lisa, thinking that she's a contender for my vote because of being the best of the bad choices. But then I remembered her pandering to the hate-mongers and fear-mongers at her god-awful health care "town meeting" two summers ago. I can forgive her voting the wrong way on some issues, but I can't forgive her going down the low road. In short, I will cast my vote for McAdams. Call me idealistic if you must, but a person has to draw the line somewhere.
I am attracted to that logic. But Lisa can still (maybe) get my vote. The way for her to do so is to convince me that if I abandon Scott McAdams and help her return to the Senate, when she gets there the Stepford wife will get a divorce.
When Lisa announced her write-in candidacy Mitch McConnell and the other members of the Senate Republican caucus of which she was a leader responded to her refusal to support Joe Miller by disowning her. So announcing prior to the election that, if Alaska Democratic voters help return her to the Senate, in return, when she gets there she finally will be her own person and vote the way she knows she should vote rather than the way Karl Rove tells Mitch McConnell to tell her to vote should not be all that hard. It also would be the right thing to do for the nation, which is in serious trouble and desperate for real bipartisanship.
Unfortunately, the signal Lisa sent last Thursday during a debate the Alaska Native Professional Association sponsored and in which she participated with Scott McAdams and Joe Miller was not encouraging. When a member of the audience asked what she will do if Alaska voters return her to the Senate, Lisa proudly responded: "I am a Republican. I have been a Republican since I was eighteen. I am running as a write-in candidate as a Republican. When I return to the United States Senate in January I will return with a full eight years of seniority. I will still be the most senior member on the Energy Committee. I will still be on the Appropriations Committee."
No hint of a Stepford wife divorce. No mention that she will retain her seniority and those committee assignments only if Mitch McConnell and the other members of the Republican caucus allow her to do so. No mention that they will allow her to do so only if she agrees to vote as the caucus, rather than her conscience or her sense of what is best for the nation, tells her to.
Three weeks out for Alaska Democrats the situation stands. Waste a vote on Scott McAdams. Try to defeat Joe Miller by voting to help Lisa Murkowski rejoin a Senate Republican caucus that Mitch McConnell will lead and, given its members' behavior throughout the 111th Congress, she should be ashamed to have been a member, much less a leader, of.
Some choice. Some election.
Assume Don’s base number of 31%, actually the low average for Dem’s in Alaska, including strong candidates and those who hardly campaigned. McAdam’s has raised $850,000 since the August primary, more than the other two candidates combined. That means getting to 31% is easily achievable. The McAdams campaign is in dollar for dollar. The numbers will improve from there, assume even a modest 4%.
Minor candidates draw about 2.7%. Miller's errors will drop him to the low 30’s. At that point the D wins. The write-in? She has to get more votes than needed because invalid ballots or ballot error (typically 5% or so) – It would take near 40% of the voters in this race then for the write-in to win (offsetting the error rate). With two well-funded, party nominees on the ballot in the 30’s, there are simply not enough votes left for the write-in to succeed. More here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghxph31HJg4&feature=player_embedded
Should I or should I not vote for Scott McAdams if I do not want Joe Miller? The simple answer on the issues, on the incumbent’s record, on the possibility of actually winning has to be “yes”.
The meme that McAdams can't win, which Mitchell parrots extensively in his essay is simply false. Mitchell is the same person that predicted that now Sen. Begich could not beat sitting Sen. Ted Stevens because the rural vote would not trend toward Begich. In fact, Stevens was trounced in rural Alaska, and Begich won the election.
Mitchell is clearly going to vote for Murkowski, repetition of the falsehood that McAdams has no shot is one of the Murkowski talking points used to reel in Democrats whose fear of Miller has over taken their better instincts. In fact, one of the biggest issues in this race is the set of structural impediments that face Sen. Murkowski as a write-in. She's not on the ballot-- this is a big problem for her. Mitchell's only discussion of this parrots another Murkowski talking point, that if she wins, she'll "make history".
Joe Miller is not a viable candidate. He can’t be taken seriously.
Lisa Murkowski is a lifelong Republican, proud of the current GOP obstructionism and eager to continue marching in lockstep for the benefit of corporate America and at the expense of the public.
Scott McAdams may not be a perfect candidate, but he’s a good candidate and a far better choice than either of the other two.
The Senate will be moved ideologically further right after the 2010 elections with the victories of several teabaggers.
LM will have to move in that direction, if she wins, simply because the tide will pull her there.
So the whole "divorced Stepford wife" thing isn't going to happen.
Now, who you vote for depends on your view of what the job of a US Senator is. Is it to deal with state issues and bring home the pork (like Byrd, Stevens and Kennedy) or is it to focus only on national issues and ignore the needs of your state (like Kyl and McCain)?
If it is the former view, the LM or McAdams are the choice, except LM is disqualified, as noted above.
I say give the people of America what they deserve for their pechulance and let Miller win.
Let the people deal with a Congress that wants to do all the crazy things these nut bags say they want to do and let the American people suffer for it.
Elect Joe Miller and teach the dumb voter that having is not so sweet a thing as wanting.
Maybe in 2012, when it counts, they will come to their senses.
Name recognition and Gravitas don't mean squat. Consider the case of Alvin Greene. Hell, consider the case of Sarah Palin.
People will go into the voting booths on election day and they will see two names on the ballot. Joe Miller and Scott McAdams. It doesn't matter if they don't know who Scott McAdams is. He's the Democrat.
Lisa Murkowski's name will not be on the ballot. She is the one who can't win.
This is also far more than just a regular Senate race, it is a proxy race where Lisa Murkowski is representing the part of the Republican Party which opposes the tea party while Joe Miller is a proxy candidate who represents the tea party and everything that it stands for. The tea party is a very serious threat to possibly take over the GOP now and then country in 2012 as I have credibly documented:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18935
Unless stopped, the tea party could take over the GOP now & the country in 2012!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 30, 2010 - 1:45pm.
A Lisa Murkowski victory will show that non-tea party Republicans can fight back against the tea party and beat them at their own game which will hopefully lead to more Republicans standing up to the tea party in an effort to try and stop them and the possibility of their taking over the country!
And Lisa DOES NOT have a real chance to win. Polls don't matter. At least the ones that have been done on the race so far. The methods are flawed, in the one case where a poll asked voters to name the write in without a list, Lisa dropped to 15%.
History shows that at least 10% of the votes for her will not be counted do to spelling errors, incomplete name, not filling in the oval, not being legible, etc. So she needs enough to beat Joe and Scott by 1 plus 10%. The votes just aren't there for that. Not to mention the fact that the #1 CONSERVATIVE talker in the state said yesterday he was going to start telling people to vote for Scott.
Lisa and Joe may vote the same in the Senate but there is a difference between them when it comes to how they will actually represent the state in DC. Lisa Murkowski believes that Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, and the minimum wage are constitutional while Joe Miller does not and Lisa does not believe in repealing Constitutional Amendments. Those are very big differences in my opinion but this is only my smaller point.
The bigger point is stopping as many tea party candidates as possible to lessen the mandate that they think they will have after the election if they win too many races. If tea party candidates win too many races and think that they have a huge mandate, then the greater the risk increases that the country could become tea party controlled IF Obama loses in 2012. If Lisa Murkowski wins, then she will set a precedent that non-tea party Republicans can fight back and win. I view this as being much more of a proxy race than as just a regular Senate race because Lisa Murkowski in my opinion represents the Republican resistance to the tea party while Joe Miller represents the full extremism of the fringe tea party wing of the Republican Party. I look at this race as being much more of a proxy race with national implications than I would view it as being just a local Senate race!
Mitch Dworkin, M.Ed.
Miller did indeed do some melting yesterday, but his base is loyal, still large and viscerally opposed to Lisa Murkowski. Miller is also the official Republican candidate in a state that continues to tilt Republican. Short of a John Lindauer style scandal, Miller will poll between 30 and 35%. If McAdams polls 30% (a stretch according to most recent polls) 35% to 40% remain for Lisa and several minor candidates to split. Those minor candidates will pull 1 - 2% of the vote. An unknown percentage of Lisa's write-in votes will be disqualified. Some say that 10% of Lisa's write-ins will be disqualified. That would put her in a dead heat with or slightly behind Miller.
Democrats remember how their votes for Ralph Nader in 2000 gave us George W. Bush for eight years. Joe Miller makes George W. seem like Franklin D. Roosevelt. So mindful, they will vote for Lisa on November 2nd - even if it means holding their noses.
http://www.youtube.com/mooreupnorth#p/u/3/Ghxph31HJg4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghxph31HJg4&feature=player_embedded
Nothing more need be said.
GAME. SET. MATCH!
Scott McAdams wins!