How Democrats can win Murkowski's Senate seat now

[babylonsister]

How Democrats can win Murkowski's Senate seat now
By Steve Kornacki


Let's get the obvious out of the way first: There is just about no reason in any election year to believe a Democrat has a shot at winning a Senate seat in Alaska -- let alone in 2010, when a powerful anti-Democratic tide seems likely to turn the state, already one of the nation's most Republican-friendly, even more red.

That's why when Sen. Lisa Murkowski, after suffering a stunning loss to Tea Party favorite Joe Miller in the August 24 GOP primary, decided against seeking a third party nomination, I felt safe in penciling in Miller as the state's next senator.

What I didn't see coming, though, was Friday afternoon's news: Murkowski has decided to run a write-in campaign in the general election. Which means that Democrats might actually have a chance at an utterly improbable Senate seat pick-up.

The logic goes something like this: Murkowski probably can't win, since her name isn't on the ballot (and since it figures to be hard for some voters to spell). As Taegan Goddard helpfully notes, only one senator has ever been elected as a write-in candidate, Strom Thurmond in 1954. But what Murkowski can do is drain Republican and Republican-friendly votes away from Miller, dragging down his total and -- potentially -- allowing Scott McAdams, the Democratic nominee, to win with substantially less than 50 percent of the vote.

Believe it or not, there is a precedent for this in Alaska. In 1994 -- the last election cycle in which the national climate was as favorable to the GOP as this year's is -- Democrat Tony Knowles took advantage of a three-way race to win an open seat election for governor by a tiny 536-vote margin. The Republican base was split in that election because of the presence of Jack Coghill, a longtime conservative Republican who had left the GOP four years earlier to serve as Walter Hickel's running-mate on the Alaska Independence Party line. Hickel won that election but, after abandoning the AIP's secession-focused agenda, left the party and declined to seek a second term in 1994. But Coghill stayed loyal to the party and claimed its gubernatorial nomination in 1994.

more...

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/17/alaska_democrats_murkowski

[Ozymanithrax]

1. As long as they don't turn chicken and vote for Murkowski out of stark fear...

of a Teabagger.

[seattleblue]

2. The OP article ignores the fact that polling is showing

Murkowski will pull independent votes away from McAdams. McAdams does better in a two way race.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

3. That polling was assuming she ran on the Libertarian ticket. Write-in may have different dynamics.

All bets are off, but McAdams has a shot. It's going to further stiff the pot between the Republican Establishment and the Tea Partiers.

[applegrove]

4. The left and left of centre is split in Canada and we always end up with the

neocon party in power because of that even though the vast majority of canadians are small "l" liberals. Yes. Splitting the right wing is great for Dems.

[catgirl]

5. This should fire up our voters in Alaska

Let them battle it out while we sail across the finish line to victory!

[Inuca]

6. I hope it happens, but even if it does not

I would much rather have Murkowski who is one of the very few relatively decent Rs in the Senate than that articulate (unfortunately) teabagger. What I think I heard last night (Nate Silver? not sure...) was that the current guess-timate is that Murkowski has a decent chance of winning this (in spite of the difficulty of spelling her name correctly :-), but I guess it is a household name in Alaska, so that helps). And my guess is that if shemakes it back to the Senate, Lisa M will bemuch more willing to cooperate with the dems, because she surely is pissed and does not have much to lose politically any longer in doing so. Incidentally, I saw a phone inteview with Miller on Greta van what's her name (fox) right after Murkowski's announcement. He was not a happy camper, and repeatedly called her a "liberal". Also FYI here is what the R leadership says http://senatus.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/alaska-senate-murkowski-will-run/ (great site for Senate wonks, by the way). As I said, if Lisa makes it back, I do not think she will feel much party loyaly.