View Story | 71 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Alaska now with Alaska moving into tossup category, so that should provide a boost for Begich, one would think.
Don't Legitimize Fox News. "Democrats have the heart to care."
by jeepdad on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:43:04 PM PDT
Plus, let's not forget that Alaska was expected to be the Democratic state when it came into the Union, while Hawaii was expected to be Republican. It can be won.
Pragmatic progressivism is the future.
by Pragmaticus on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:44:46 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Upon gaining statehood in 1959, Alaska was run by the Democrats and Hawaii by the Republicans. They were both actually very, very close in both 1960 and 1968. Only in the late '70s and early '80s did Hawaii become known as solidly Democratic and Alaska as solidly Republican.
The Republican Party is neither pro-republic nor pro-party. Discuss!
by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:13:59 PM PDT
Well, possibly -- no Democrat has ever really tried to win Alaska in a coherent manner. Alaskan politics are very curious, and difficult for outsiders to predict. Heck, they're difficult for insiders to predict: * Alaska does not have much respect for either national party. As of March 4th, Alaskans were registered 25% Republican, 15% Democratic, and a whopping 53% registered as Nonpartisan/Undeclared. * Also, coattails can be dangerous in Alaska. The death-knell for any Alaskan politician is strong support from 'Outside' interests. There's a strong distrust of all national politicians, and with good reason -- odds are, they're not making a decision with Alaska's interests in mind. The largest third party in the state, the Alaskan Independence Party, advocates a vote on secession. Their founder once famously said "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." * Alaska is a very, very libertarian state. Alaskans generally believe that they see very little of the benefits of federal taxes, and their politicians have an obligation to 'rescue' as much money for the state as they can. This is why Young, Stevens and Murkowski were so popular, and that's also why that support's waning in a Democratically-controlled Congress.
by NYC Alaskan on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:35:27 PM PDT
Even I, and I hate that son-of-a-bitch Stevens with a passion, know I'm going to miss his ability to bring home the bacon to Alaska. He's done a lot of good things for the state. Weird. I mean, if Begich beats him, which I am starting to think might be possible. Obama win Alaska ... hmmm. He actually seems to be pretty popular in Fairbanks, so maybe so.
-8.75, -8.21 Another White Dude for Obama (4/25)
by pacotrey on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:14:27 PM PDT
Honestly, I think that a lot of old stereotypes and talking points are still hamstringing Democrats in Alaska unnecessarily.
I know a lot of folks who voted for Bush in 2000 because Gore "would take away our guns." For a community focused on subsistence hunting and fishing, that's a death sentence. Of course, it's also not at all what Democrats would do.
I know a lot of folks who vote for Republicans because they believe that their tax dollars have no positive effect (except "Down South") and so whomever they think will lower taxes gets their vote.
There's a perfect storm here for Democrats in Alaska. There are actually brave, honest, respectable Democratic candidates. Republicans don't have a built-in pork advantage. Republicans aren't seen as more fiscally responsible (with the state or the nation). The war is not popular. And we have a charismatic presidential candidate who might actually visit Alaska and speak knowledgeably about Alaskan issues.
Heck, just that last point would be a nice change...
by NYC Alaskan on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:37:03 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 71 comments