In
2010 the senate election in Alaska was focused on the intraparty fighting among
Republicans. In that election, Joe Miller who had backing from Sarah Palin won
the US Republican Senate primary defeating incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski and
appeared to be a shoe-in to win that election.
What
he didn't count on was that Alaska allows for a write-in candidacy.
Senator
Murkowski launched a successful write-in bid and defeating Miller in a three-way
election and kept her senate seat. I am no fan of Republicans, but I do enjoy
seeing an interparty fight and I would rather have her in the senate than Joe
Miller.
For
the third time in four election cycles, Alaska is part of the national political
discussion.
Alaska
is the largest state in the Union by land area. It is also one of the most
sparsely populated states averaging 1.3 people per square mile and has a
population of 735,000 people. In comparison, Denver has a population of 634,000
people and Dallas has 1.26 million people according to the US Census.
Alaska,
like a lot of the states I have profiled in previous writings, is a red state
at the presidential level but does have a history of electing Democrats as you
head down ballot. It also has a very strong independent streak. So strong that
there is a third party dedicated specifically to Alaskan secession.
The
Alaska
Independence Party
received a lot
of attention in 2008
when it was revealed that then-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's
husband, Todd, was a
member of the Alaskan Independence Party.
Despite
this revelation, Alaska maintained its status as a reliably red state in
presidential elections in 2008. Since becoming
a state in 1960, a Democrat has only won the state once. That was in President
Johnson's 1964 landslide
victory
over Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Since then the closest the state has ever
come to turning blue was in 1968 when Richard Nixon won the state by 2.63
points. The best a Democrat could hope for was at best 40%.
Generally
Alaska is called for long after the presidential election has been called for
(exception: 2000) due to it
being one of the last states being called and its result is generally not in
doubt.
Something
else happened in 2008 as well.
Long
serving Senator Ted Stevens was indicted and convicted on 7 corruption
charges. Stevens maintained his innocence, but the voters decided it was best
to not let a convicted felon serve in the Senate. Former Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, the son of Nick Begich who served in
the Alaska senate and as the state's lone representative from 1971 until his
death in October 1972, was elected to the Senate that November. Begich became
the first Democrat elected to the Senate since Mike Gravel.
Begich's
re-election was going to be difficult due to running in a red state like many
of his other Democratic colleagues. While Begich is in line with a lot of the
Democratic Party positions such as marriage
equality,
being pro-choice, voting for The
Stimulus,
and supporting ObamaCare, he does differ with the party on environmental issues.
In
2008, Begich stated his support for drilling in
the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR). Environmentalists are feverishly opposed to drilling in this ecosystem,
but in Alaska it is a political wedge issue. Those that are in favor claim that
it will create jobs, a revenue stream, and bring our country closer to energy
independence. I am on the side of that it is a temporary solution to a long
term problem and that we have not had a great history when it comes to cleaning
up oil spills (see: Gulf Coast 2010).
In
2012, Frontline
aired a program on mineral mining in Alaska's Bristol Bay where it is home to
one of the largest salmon fisheries in the world. In March 2014, it appeared
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was either going to restrict or
even ban plans to mine this environmentally sensitive area. While the EPA might
rule on this next year, voters will be deciding this November on a ballot
initiative
concerning mineral mining.
According
to the New York Times'
Senate model,
Begich is likely headed towards defeat. Alaska is one of six competitive seats
and is giving his Republican challenger Dan Sullivan a 79% chance of winning.
Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight is at 76%. Daily Kos agrees with the New York
Times listing a 79% chance for the Republican as well. Huffington Post is
giving better odds for Begich by saying Sullivan has a 66% chance of winning.
PredictWise and the Washington Post are saying that there is a greater than 80%
chance that Sullivan will win.
However,
the more reliable forecasters in the Cook Political Report, Rothenberg, and
Larry Sabato still have the Alaska Senate election rated as a Tossup.
In
September, Nate Silver wrote this piece about Alaska being a place for bad polling. For instance,
the four polls that were conducted for the 2008 senate elected showed Begich
with an average poll margin of nearly 10 points. Begich won that election by
1.2 points. In the polls conducted in Alaska since 2000, there has been an
average bias towards a Democrat of 7.2 points.
Why
are the polls so tough to poll in Alaska? No one is quite sure as shown in this
New York Times
piece from August 2014. The obvious answers are that the state is sparsely
populated which could be why pollsters have missed the state badly.
Silver
in his piece critiques that the only polls they have looked at have so far been
internet, automated, or partisan polls which are usually not the most reliable.
Six
days ago, FiveThirtyEight
published this piece
about how Sullivan's chances have improved given the polls showing him
with a lead. Of course it cautions about the data they are looking at and how
Alaska has a history of poor polling.
So,
who has the advantage in Alaska?
Begich
has the advantage of incumbency and I don't feel like this election has the
same anti-incumbency wave from four years ago. Now, in 2010 I was living in
Texas where the anti-incumbency was strong and in 2014 I am now living in
Colorado, but even with the change of location I don't feel the anti-incumbency
wave. He also has been building a
turnout operation
in order to reach the small villages in the state. In 2012, Alaska had 82 early
voting locations located in the larger population centers. Alaska Native
leaders demanded better access in their parts of the state and as a result 208
early voting locations are available, more than three-fourths are in rural
Alaska.
Begich
has 16 campaign offices fielding 90 paid staff members vs. Sullivan's 5
campaign offices with 14 paid staff members total. Begich's campaign offices are aimed at
turning out Alaska Native population which makes up 20% of the state's
population but has historically low turnout.
The
ground game is what is important and whoever has the better ground game will
likely win this election.
A
couple more factors could play in this race. Alaska has a couple more ballot
initiatives this year. One is recreational
marijuana which actually doesn't bring young people to the polls. The other is
one that would raise the minimum
wage in Alaska
from $7.75 to $9.75 an hour by 2016. Senator Begich supports raising the
minimum wage and those that would vote yes for the ballot initiative might vote
to keep him in the senate.
The
other is this and probably why the national Democratic Party is investing in a
turnout machine in Alaska for Begich.
Well,
besides the obvious of Alaska being necessary for Senate control.
Obama
lost Alaska in 2012 by nearly 14
points. Compared to 2008, the Obama loss in Alaska was 22 points. Alaska was
the state with the strongest Democratic gain and it was the first time since
1968 that a Democrat crossed 40% in the state. Based on that assumption, Alaska
could be worth staying up to watch during presidential elections.
Now
before Democrats start Battleground Alaska for 2020, Nate Silver back when FiveThirtyEight was in the New
York Times' sphere along with Jordan
Shilling of the Alaska Dispatch News looked at the prospects of a blue Alaska.
The conclusion is that yes Democrats are making inroads but not enough to turn
the state blue at the presidential level. Perhaps under the right conditions of
a Democratic candidate from the center-left or libertarian-left of the party
and enough Democratic transplants from other states could make the state
competitive in the future, but that is a lot of ifs.
For
chances of maintaining Senate control, Alaska could be the Last Frontier for
the Democrats.
No comments:
Post a Comment