Alaska GOP candidate wants to stop votes from being counted

[fishbob]

That's good. I would hate to see Murkowski (or anyone) lose due to a slimy tactic like this radio host was trying to pull off.

Any Alaskans here? I'm curious as to whether or not Murkowski spent any of her final campaign efforts on making sure voters knew exactly how to cast a write in vote for her.

Oh yeah. I got more pounds of campaign fliers in the mail in the month before the election than I get as regular mail for the entire year. Mostly from Lisa.

Anybody in this state who can't spell Murkowski by now is dumber than a sack full of hammers and not interested in voting anyway.

PS - radio host Fagan is a local moose urine scented Michael Savage wannabe.

 

[novice skeptic]

evidence please.

source please.

forgive me if I choose not to take YOUR word for it.

I like how you responded to this post, but never responded to the posts that showed you were factually in error. A true critical thinker owns up when he/she is wrong.

 

[leftysergeant]

Or perhaps the Tea Party supported him because he's a whackjob.

Or maybe the Alaska teabaggers are greater whackjobs than teabaggers in parts of the country that do not have nights 16 to 24 hours long in the winter.

Or maybe the bloody lot of them are permanently out to lunch.

 

[Meadmaker]

In close recounts, I don't have any objection to candidates trying to shift a few votes here or there based on some minor technicality. We saw that in Minnesota 2008 and Florida 2000. It's normal and part of the process. When an election is that close, it is, for practical purposes, a coin toss anyway.

That doesn't seem like what's happening in this case. In this case, the intent of the voters was clear. Murkowski won, but Miller might try to win on a technicality.

Shame, Mr. Miller. Shame.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oh yeah. I got more pounds of campaign fliers in the mail in the month before the election than I get as regular mail for the entire year. Mostly from Lisa.

Anybody in this state who can't spell Murkowski by now is dumber than a sack full of hammers and not interested in voting anyway.

PS - radio host Fagan is a local moose urine scented Michael Savage wannabe.

Thanks. That's what I expected. She would be silly to conduct a write-in campaign and not make sure voters knew how to cast a vote for her.

Even though the numbers involved are relatively small (in the Senate race here in Missouri, for example, almost 1.9 million votes were cast, compared to roughly 230 thousand total votes in the Alaska race), it sounds like they won't come up with enough misspellings or whatever to affect Murkowski's win.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In close recounts, I don't have any objection to candidates trying to shift a few votes here or there based on some minor technicality. We saw that in Minnesota 2008 and Florida 2000. It's normal and part of the process. When an election is that close, it is, for practical purposes, a coin toss anyway.

That doesn't seem like what's happening in this case. In this case, the intent of the voters was clear. Murkowski won, but Miller might try to win on a technicality.

Shame, Mr. Miller. Shame.

I wouldn't even call it a technicality, but a conspiracy to commit election fraud. Trouble is, it initiated with the radio show host, and the courts let it happen because there's really no legal bar to listing a bunch of write-in candidates. I think the laws there should probably change to prevent this sort of thing again. When it's obvious that these people are listing as write-in candidates for no other reason but to interfere with an election, they should be barred. (And many of these people were calling in to the radio station and crowing about it--even sometimes giving their names--so their intention to interfere was obvious.)

But, Miller (and the radio show host) will fail anyway. As fishbob pointed out, Murkowski made sure everyone knew how to cast their vote properly.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Actually, the RNC did NOT back Murkowski. In fact they told her they would strip her of any seniority and threatened to not allow her to caucus with them if she won.

Anyone care to speculate if the RNC will follow through on this threat if she wins? Ah, the drama...

 

[hgc]

Anyone care to speculate if the RNC will follow through on this threat if she wins? Ah, the drama...

See my posts above. First, the RNC is irrelevant -- It's the Senate Republican leadership that determines this question. Second, they will treat her like any other member of the caucus. They wanted her all along anyway.

 

[cwalner]

See my posts above. First, the RNC is irrelevant -- It's the Senate Republican leadership that determines this question. Second, they will treat her like any other member of the caucus. They wanted her all along anyway.

I also see little value to the Senate Republicans to punish her by refusing to allow her to caucus, or strip her of seniority. As far as I know she does not have a history that would make them question her party loyalty.

The only good that may come out of such a censure would be to discourage similar write-in campaigns in the future, because such could result in splitting the conservative vote and giving the Democrats an otherwise safe seat, even though it did not happen in this instance. However, the cost of alienating an otherwise loyal party member seems a bit steep for that potential benefet (IMHO).

 

[dudalb]

After the Minnesota recount of 2008, I thought the people of that state had a lot to be proud of in the way they conducted that election with such a high level of openness. I wonder if the same will be said of Alaska at the end of this.

I'm not highly optimistic, but bigger surprises have happened.

It seems to be very open process. Check on some of the On Line Alaskan Newpapers.
On things like this, the coverage by the local and state media is usually better then the national media.
Of course, you also have the additional complication of the Write in Ballots, which Minnesota did not have.

 

[dudalb]

See my posts above. First, the RNC is irrelevant -- It's the Senate Republican leadership that determines this question. Second, they will treat her like any other member of the caucus. They wanted her all along anyway.

Agreed. They were giving her a lot of support in the primary. The threat was issued in the early stages of hte general election, when no one thought Murkowski could pull it off, and the RNC was afraid all she would do was pull votes away from Miller and help the Democrat.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually, the RNC did NOT back Murkowski. In fact they told her they would strip her of any seniority and threatened to not allow her to caucus with them if she won.

And isn't that exactly what happened with Lieberman?

I agree that Murkowski is arguably slightly more a Republican than Lieberman is a Democrat, but only very slightly so.

In both cases, the party's tough talk disappeared pretty quickly since they're motivated to claim that seat as belonging to one of their own (even though it was won by defeating their party's nominee).

 

[hgc]

Agreed. They were giving her a lot of support in the primary. The threat was issued in the early stages of hte general election, when no one thought Murkowski could pull it off, and the RNC was afraid all she would do was pull votes away from Miller and help the Democrat.

Can someone please show me where the RNC said anything to/about Murkowski and her committee assignments/seniority/etc? People keep saying it here, but it's completely unbelievable.

The RNC is a general fundraising/campaign arm of the party, and has nothing to do with how Republican members are assigned committee seats and seniority within either house of Congress. The RNC is not even the most important party funder for Republican Senate campaigns -- that's the NRSC.

 

[hgc]

I agree that Murkowski is arguably slightly more a Republican than Lieberman is a Democrat, but only very slightly so.

Please point out the instances that Murkowski has differed from Senate Republican leadership in any significant issue.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can someone please show me where the RNC said anything to/about Murkowski and her committee assignments/seniority/etc? People keep saying it here, but it's completely unbelievable.

I'm not sure if this is specifically what you're after, but I found this (my bolding):

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) also reacted coldly to Murkowski’s decision. In a terse statement Friday night, he reported Murkowski has been removed as vice chairwoman of the Senate Republican Conference.

“By choosing to run a campaign against the Republican nominee, she no longer has my support for serving in any leadership roles, and I have accepted her letter of resignation from Senate leadership,” McConnell said in the statement.

Republicans said the decision wasn’t personal, but made clear they are cutting their ties.

“It’s strictly business,” a senior GOP aide said. “She’s running against a Republican. She’s no longer one of us. Period.”

Linky.

ETA: Again, these are the same sort of noises Democrats were making when Lieberman ran against their party's nominee, but that were quickly forgotten after he won the seat.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Please point out the instances that Murkowski has differed from Senate Republican leadership in any significant issue.

You don't count her running against the Republican nominee as a significant issue?

 

[hgc]

I'm not sure if this is specifically what you're after, but I found this (my bolding):

Linky.

ETA: Again, these are the same sort of noises Democrats were making when Lieberman ran against their party's nominee, but that were quickly forgotten after he won the seat.

Yes, thank you.

Mitch McConnell = Senate Republican Leader ≠ RNC

The RNC is not a general term that applies to all party leadership. It is a very specific organization, and has nothing to do with this story.

This is actually stronger than what was said to Lieberman, and I only wish that the Dem Senate leadership had showed the kind of cojones that McConnell did here. Lieberman kept his committee seniority throughout the campaign against the Dem nominee in CT.

 

[hgc]

You don't count her running against the Republican nominee as a significant issue?

Not really. Sure they would have been extremely vexed if she had split the conservative vote, and enabled the Democrat to be elected, but then this whole discussion would be moot. As it stands, everything will be just as if she had been nominated and reelected the normal way.

Murkowski has never taken the Democrats' side on any important issue. Lieberman has and does take the Republican side constantly, in votes and in ever sniveling public pronouncements. Furthermore, campaigning for the Republican nominee for President is a whole other ball-o-wax.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

From an ABC news story on Oct. 20:

Additionally, Murkowski -- despite being a member of the Republican leadership -- was denounced by the establishment when she announced her write-in campaign. National Republicans, at least on the surface, have put their support behind Miller instead.

This article points out that the National Republican Senatorial Committee endorsed Miller and not Murkowski in their ads and says, "The NRSC has made it clear that it is backing Miller ever since he unexpectedly defeated Murkowski in the Aug. 24 GOP primary."

RNC chairman Steele "defended ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and criticized Republican leaders who have voiced doubts about the prospect of tea party candidates like Alaska’s Joe Miller." Linky.

While I think you're right that the RNC probably didn't threaten Murkowski with any specific actions, it is very clear that they opposed her write-in candidacy against their party's nominee. And prominent members of the party voiced their opposition to her campaign--again similar to what went on with Lieberman and the Democratic Party.

I also agree with you that Lieberman is politically a bit less of a Democrat than Murkowski is a Republican in that he single handedly opposed key points in the healthcare reform bill.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Murkowski has never taken the Democrats' side on any important issue. Lieberman has and does take the Republican side constantly, in votes and in ever sniveling public pronouncements. Furthermore, campaigning for the Republican nominee for President is a whole other ball-o-wax.

I agree with you here. And I'd forgotten about Lieberman's participation in the RNC--so yes, the difference is more than "slight" as I said previously.

But the fact remains that the GOP did not run two candidates for the same seat. The party backed one and opposed the other. One ran as the Republican nominee and the other did not.

As with the DNC's relationship with Lieberman, I expect all will be forgiven in the name of expedience.