Why the DSCC Loves Sarah Palin
It’s mind-boggling how the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee hasn’t shown up for Scott McAdams, Alaska’s Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate.
They’ve had weeks to help secure a now open seat they didn’t think they had a prayer to take. Why aren’t they fighting for Alaska? Lisa Murkowski asked McAdams where his DSCC support was. When it didn’t show, she threw back in as a write-in candidate.The front page of their website features a picture of Sarah Palin. Fear of her brand of crazy has been an ATM for the DSCC. They’ve raised millions off of Palin word salads with guano dressing. The DSCC website also has a link to Palin’s anointed Alaskan proxy for US Senate, Joe Miller, but they haven’t supported his opponent.
Alaska is the cheapest place in the country to run a campaign. One hundred dollars of campaign money in such a small market is equivalent to $2,000 for a race in Texas. With Palin’s negative numbers over 50%, her candidate, Joe Miller, is vulnerable. The Tea Party is recruiting people with “Lisa M” type names to run a write-in, and every Murkowski vote will be challenged by their attorneys. It will make the Franken/Coleman recount look like play-dough hour in kindergarten.
52% of Alaska’s voters are registered independent or undeclared. Nate Silver thinks Murkowski could win a write-in campaign? He’s wrong about Alaska – again. Ask NOT-Congressman Ethan Berkowitz. Silver projected Ethan would best incumbent Don Young in 2008. He didn’t.
Nationally, both Democrats and Republicans are underestimating Sarah Palin. The DSCC and others do this at their own peril. There is a chance to drive a political stake through the heart of the Palin king-maker meme. I realize Palin is a money maker, but neutering her politically by electing a Democratic Senator in Alaska is priceless.
Please help Alaska take our state forward. Save yourselves. Support Scott McAdams for U. S. Senate. Contribute to Scott McAdams campaign.
Call the DSCC and ask them to FINANCIALLY support Alaska’s democratic candidate. 202-224-2447 Email them at info@dscc.org
******************************
Mudflatters – I don’t often make a direct ask of you. I know time and energy is valuable, and not everyone finds it easy to pick up a phone and make a call. But I am asking. Alaska bloggers work hard to make a difference, and this time we need your help. We need EVERYONE to pick up the phone and call. And then email too. And if you haven’t done it yet, donate to Scott McAdams at the link above in the text.
Also, if you have a blog, cut and paste this. If you have a Facebook account, share it. If you have a Twitter account, tweet it. If you have a progressive email list, email it. We need all hands on deck. Thank you so much.
AKM
I couldn't agree more.
Thanks, AKMuckraker.
4 comments:
Thank you for posting this! And thanks to all who are making those calls to the DSCC and donating to Scott McAdams.
I don't know much about Alaskan politics, but wouldn't Lisa Murkowski steal votes from the teabagger and give Scott McAdams a better chance?
I hope so anyway.
Tom,
Normally (that is, in ANY PLACE other than Alaska), I'd say yes. But Alaska Politics are not like anywhere else.
Alaska politics are, at best, unpredictable.
Write-ins have not, historically, been successful in Alaska. But in a number of cases, a write-in candidacy has dramatically affected the final outcome of an election.
After watching (and participating in) Alaska politics for 40+ years, I know that it's a mistake to assume that Murkowski's write-in will split "conservative" voters. It will split the rational voters.
With her in the race, there simply aren't enough Democrats, or Democratic-leaning "undeclared" voters, to give a win to McAdams... nor, in my opinion, are there enough people who will write-in Murkowski to give her a win.
Here are the facts:
26% +/- of Alaska voters are registered Republican.
17% +/- are registered Democrat.
More than 50% are undeclared.
The balance are registered in minor parties, like Green, Libertarian and AIP. You can discount them, because they are going to vote "their" candidate.
In this case, one should assume that the voters Murkowski is going to get are rational moderate voters, who, up to her announcement, had resigned themselves to voting for McAdams.
She may even peel off some thinking Democratic voters who would have voted McAdams, but now can see the handwriting on the wall. They realize that if they have to have a Republican Senator, Murkowski is far preferable to Miller.
Immediately following the primary, a Rasmussen Poll indicated Miller had 50%, and McAdams 44%. In a heads-up race, McAdams had nowhere to go but up. Making up a 6% difference was doable.
With Murkowski as a write-in, Rasmussen now indicates that Miller has 42%, Murkowski 27% and McAdams 25%.
So, thanks to Murkowski's narcissism, it's likely Alaska will wind up with a TeaBag Senator, firmly cementing in the minds of the rest of America that we're nuts up here... when really only 42% (+1) of us are.
It's really useful and informative, thanks a lot for posting.
Post a Comment