Nov 5th, 2008 at 10:41 am
What’s the Matter With Alaska?
Speaking of new cold wars, doesn’t somebody need to figure this out? Common sense says that convicted felons and so forth don’t win re-election. I guess folks up there are really pissed that those of us in the Lower 48 have been making fun of Sarah Palin.
Given the views of Alaskans, one doesn’t expect either its House or Senate seats to be fertile ground for progressive politics, but one would hope at least that the Alaska GOP would be forced to swap out corrupt incumbent conservatives in favor of fresh, new, less-corrupt ones in order to hang on to the seats.
60 Responses to “What’s the Matter With Alaska?”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Basketball
Budget
Bush Legacy
Cars
climate
Congress
Conservatism
Culture
DC
Economics
Economy
education
Energy
Environment
Finance
Health care
Health Care
History
Housing
Inequality
Iran
iraq
Israel
mccain
Media
National Review
National Security
NBA
obama
Pakistan
Palin
planning
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
SCOTUS
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Torture
transit
Transition
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 5th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Senator Sarah Palin?
November 5th, 2008 at 10:45 am
look, we don’t allow the iraqis to put our u.s. troops on trial.
and why not? because they’re fucking foreigners, is why!
you can’t get a fair trial from foreigners, and if they cook up a conviction, it means nothing.
okay: now you see how alaskans feel about the lower 48.
a.i.p.! a.i.p.!!
November 5th, 2008 at 10:45 am
As has been pointed out elsewhere, it’s strategic voting- you vote for the convict, knowing he’ll have to resign, then you can vote for a new Republican to replace him.
November 5th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I’m guessing a lot of people voted a straight party ticket and didn’t itemize. Or (though this is less likely) some people decided to vote strategically for whichever yet-to-be-named Republican will be Stevens’s replacement after he gets expelled from the Senate.
November 5th, 2008 at 10:50 am
begler should make that new republican take a palin-special ‘no pork’ pledge: make them promise not to bring any federal money back to alaska.
then we’ll see how much alaskans love republicans.
fuck these red states. the more they bitch about big gummint, the more they suck out of the treasury.
November 5th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I think earmarks play a big part; sure, Stevens is a criminal, but he’s brought in so much pork to the state all these years. From their perspectives, he’s a good senator.
Hey, this is a state that selected Sarah Palin as governor for heaven sake. Why should we be surprised?
November 5th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Not just Alaska. William Jefferson won his primary runoff in Louisiana:
http://www.ktbs.com/news/Indicted-Congressman-Jefferson-wins-primary-in-New-Orleans-19655
November 5th, 2008 at 11:00 am
If the Senate doesn’t seat Stevens, there will be a new election. Palin can’t appoint herself.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:03 am
You don’t swap getaway drivers while the robbery’s in progress.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Palin can’t appoint herself, but she can step down as governor and have the Lt. Governor appint her to fill the seat. If she’s really serious about becoming a GOP frontrunner, she has to get out of Alaska and place herself in the national political scene to get “experience.” And that’s the quickest route.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I hope the Senate doesn’t seat him.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Stevens — Alaskans are unbelievably sentimental about the old guy. There’s also the strategy of re-electing him and letting the rest of the process sort itself out. Also, Begich had nothing to offer except that he wasn’t Stevens.
Young — I couldn’t tell you. Maybe the “divided government” argument carried the day. As returns came in from the east, Alaskans voting late in the day decided they needed an extra Republican in the legislative branch.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:12 am
As I had just posted elsewhere…
Here are the pre-election polls for Stevens and Young.
They might be the two biggest upsets of all Tuesday. Both in Alaska.
Coincidence? Or is someone counting votes funny up there?
November 5th, 2008 at 11:16 am
So will Palin run for the senate? Stevens will probably be tossed out in January. When he is, Alaska law says there must be a special election within 90 days. Palin would probably win that hands down, which would keep her in the national spotlight rather relegated to socialist Alaska.
Will she do it?
November 5th, 2008 at 11:18 am
If the US is a “center-right” country after electing a “socialist” in a landslide, I guess this means that Alaska is…what? I guess something to the right of Mussolini’s Salò Republic.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:20 am
To put it in terms that I’m sure you’ll appreciate, Matt; Alaskans didn’t elect Toobz, they elected Toobz’s expiring contract.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Most likely Republican turn out was up because of Palin. This is the one state in which 2004 voting patterns probably understated the Republicans.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:37 am
We didn’t see much of the Bradley effect last night, but now we might have to invent the “Stevens effect” - reluctance to admit to pollsters that you would vote for a convicted felon.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Everybody knows about Alaska Goddamn
November 5th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I think there was a whole lot of Bradley effect evident. Simply because it wasn’t enough to defeat him doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a factor. The TV heads wanted a sentimental angle — the end of race! — but there were quite a few polls that showed Obama with a much bigger margin than he wound up with.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:43 am
We didn’t have a “straight party” voting option here in Alaska. We had to vote for the candidates individually. People actually filled in that bubble by Ted’s name.
I’m holding out a little hope that the early & absentee ballots coming in will favor Begich, like they’ve favored Obama in many other places. But I wouldn’t count on that effect as much as elsewhere, because I think the enthusiasm for Palin here probably balanced out the early-voter enthusiasm for Obama nationwide.
Try to keep in mind that not ALL the people in Alaska are moron rednecks who voted for a felon. Plenty of us are in those Begich/Obama/Berkowitz columns… just not quite enough.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:45 am
But the Daily Kos poll had Begich up by 22 points in the past week! Nate Silver had the chance of Begich winning at 100%. How can that be?
It is, of course, utterly pathetic that Stevens was reelected. But the fact that he was simply proves that the election was NOT a Democratic landslide.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Lon: “Most likely Republican turn out was up because of Palin.”
Possible. Alaska Republicans hated McCain. He came in 4th during the primaries, behind Ron Paul. Having Palin on the ticket gave Alaska Republicans a reason not to stay home.
Although, we don’t know if a Palin-less McCain ticket would have whipped up the anti-Obama fervor that also drove socialist-hating Republicans to the polls.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:55 am
It is, of course, utterly pathetic that Stevens was reelected. But the fact that he was simply proves that the election was NOT a Democratic landslide.
Well, it proves once again that Alaska doesn’t have a lot to contribute to the country, but beyond that I don’t think results in Alaska ever tell anyone anything about the rest of America.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Good Lord, even the Democrats endorsed by RedState can’t win an election.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Was Stevens allowed to vote for himself, or is Alaska one of those states that still practises atimia?
November 5th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Ironic that Alaskan voters - who are on in effect on the dole from the oil companies’ wealth, and who collectively receive millions of federal dollars more than they contribute in taxes - vote so relentlessly Republican.
They preserve the conceit that they are independent and self-reliant, while getting a free ride and a free lunch.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Alaska is a third world petrostate with a single-party dictatorship. It’s not much different than Iran.
The opposition never wins.
Just be glad that the Alaska State Police didn’t round up and imprison Democrats prior to the election.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Re dcb
The analogy of Jefferson with Stevens is somewhat premature as the former has not yet been convicted.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Saudi Alaska likes its sheikhs.
Call it the Stevens Effect: people who tell pollsters they’ll vote against the felon and the most corrupt member of the House, then go and vote for them because they think their subsidized subsistence lifestyle depends upon it.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Seriously though (I was only half serious before), Alaskans love their pork. And Stevens and Young deliver the bacon. Lots of it. Alaska would be a barren wasteland with a few oil fields and a part time population (plus a few inuit) without people like Stevens and Young.
Those two deliver so much government cheese that people can stand to live there. If you were heavily dependent on 2 people to feed, clothe, and house you, would you vote to evict them, and bring in 2 new people who may not be able to afford the mortgage and the food?
It’s a Bradley effect of sorts. No one wanted to admit to pollsters that they were going to vote for a Felon, but when they got to the voting booth, they thought about their government financed job and all the nice stuff in Alaska that Stevens and Young brought home from DC, and they couldn’t punch the name next to the “D”’s.
Either that, or a jackbooted Stevens thug was positioned at a lot of polling places pointing guns at people’s heads.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
But how can Stevens “bring home the pork” if he’s sitting in a federal jail somewhere? Unable to vote or even to lobby fellow Senators.
That’s assuming that the Senate will even allow Stevens to be seated — and while the Senate is a despicable whorehouse, that would be a new low for the institution.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
but there were quite a few polls that showed Obama with a much bigger margin than he wound up with.
The result was almost exactly what the polling average suggested it would be. This is just absurd.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Oh, they’ll kick Stevens out, all right (Harry Reid already said so). But guess who appoints his replacement.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
It’s not so simple, AlanC9. After Frank Murkowski was elected governor, he handed his Senate seat to his daughter, and that was too much for the legislature, so they passed a bill that forces a special election for the replacement.
You had Nepotism Pick Lisa Murkowski campaigning with Felon Stevens last week.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
There is an interesting argument for NOT formally kicking Stevens out but sticking him in jail somewhere over the next 2 years.
If the Senate can only muster 99 Senators , then does the 3/5ths rule to invoke cloture now only require 59 Senators instead of 60?
Or the Democrats could cut a deal with Stevens — he will be seated and allowed to serve , with his prosecution put on hold during “appeal” — PROVIDED Stevens ALWAYS votes exactly how the Democratic Caucus wants. Including YES on any Democratic attempts to invoke cloture on Republican filibusters.
I don’t think Sarah Palin trusts her Lt Governor enough for Sarah to resign as Governor with the understanding that the Lt will appoint her to Stevens’ position.
If the Lt welchs on the deal, then Sarah is suddenly common citizen Sarah — back in the kitchen cooking up moose burgers for Todd and his drinking buddies.
November 5th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Are you talking about exit polls? Nate Silver had a good post on how those deceptively favor the Democrat. Pre-election polling was pretty accurate.
November 5th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Don, that’s kind of awesome if it’s really possible that it would work that way. Stevens might resign if he has to report to the pokey, but he might be just a big enough son of a bitch not to.
November 5th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
The DNC is completely at fault. Once they started running those terrible ads here the race got tight because Begich and Berkowitz were seen as “outsiders”, which Alaskans are not too keen on.
November 5th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
First, if Stevens does win (which looks likely, but is not yet official) the Senate has no Constitutional choice but to seat him on Jan. 6.
Second, once he is seated, he can be investigated by the Ethics Committee who can recommend that he be expelled from the Senate. Expulsion requires a 2/3rds vote (66 Senators).
Historically this is tricky given some prior precedents. While the Ethics Committee can investigate at any time their recommendations do not have to be taken up on the floor in anything close to a reasonable amount of time. In fact, they have in the past recommended expulsion at the same time as recommending a delay on the floor pending the completion of the judicial process (i.e., appeals, new trials, etc) While this precedent is not binding, it is instructive about how the Senate choses to deal with these situations.
Another historical consideration, the Senate has been reluctant to take up expulsions in situations where there is a election between the transgression and the expulsion. This is on the grounds that the voters were fully informed of the issue and the Senate should not substitute it’s judgment for those of the voters. This is clearly true in Steven’s case. The Alaskan voters knew not only of the allegations, but also of the verdict, yet appear to have elected him anyway. Despite what some may think of him, he’s not ineligible to serve in the Senate, so why should the votes of 100 Senators mean more than those of several thousand Alaskans who were informed?
Stevens has several potential grounds for appeal, which, while not likely to clear him, at best may afford him a new trial. Either way it’s likely to take some time (2-3 years) for all of his legal maneuvering to be complete. Should the Senate choose to wait, we may be looking at quite a different political landscape.
November 5th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
You’re all wrong about the Palin business. Alaska passed an initiative in 2004 barring the governor from appointing a replacement, except as a placeholder while they wait for the special election. The law currently says that a special election must be held in 60-90 days, no less and no more, after the vacancy. The governor sets the date. So what will happen is this. Palin will call the special election. Then she’ll run. If she somehow loses, she’s still Governor. If not, she resigns.
November 5th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Common sense says that convicted felons and so forth don’t win re-election.
Common sense is wrong.
This has nothing to do with Alaska - Stevens may be a crook, but he’s their crook. Alaska has done very well with him in office and hopes continue to do so.
He’s hardly the first politician to be reelected despite being corrupt. Tammany Hall openly ran campaigns based on “honest graft”.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
To those claiming this election was not a major movement to the left: I don’t think there is any logic in equating the political landscape in AK with the lower 48. I mean, these people elected Palin, for God sakes.
And to those who claim there was, in fact, a broad Bradley effect, how do you explain Indiana, where Obama was generally polling behind McCain leading into the election? I think the answer you’re looking for is that polling is not a perfect predictor of the outcome. That’s not to say there were no voters who lied to pollsters and voted on racial prejudices–just not enough to make any real difference. In fact, there’s probably just as many “reverse Bradley effect” voters, who would never admit out loud that they could vote for Obama, but who voted for him anyway.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Re mouldfan’s comment “First, if Stevens does win (which looks likely, but is not yet official) the Senate has no Constitutional choice but to seat him on Jan. 6.
Second, once he is seated, he can be investigated by the Ethics Committee who can recommend that he be expelled from the Senate. Expulsion requires a 2/3rds vote (66 Senators).”
————-
The man has been found guilty by a jury of a felony. How much of an “investigation” is needed to note that fact and move for his expulsion?
Article 1 Section 5:
“Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. …”
November 5th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
A REALLY interesting question is whether enough REPUBLICANS will vote to remove Stevens — or whether they will ALL vote in his favor and block his expulsion.
So it might be better to stick him in the pokey –where he can remain an open embarrassment to Republicans.
Like every time there’s a roll call, have a Democrat raise a point of order than only 99 votes have been recorded so that Harry Reid can point out that one distinguished Republican Senator is in prison and can’t be present. C-Span would love that.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
I thought one of the leading Republican Senators also came out saying that Stevens should not be allowed to rejoin the Senate. It might, shockingly, have been McConnell.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803317_pf.html
If McConnell doesn’t want him seated, I would think an expulsion vote will be a piece of cake.
The problem is that it says McConnell wants to let him finish his appeals. With enough legal effort (and enough contributions from Big Oil), he could keep his appeal open for 6 years.
But, being a Republican, McConnell can’t keep his story straight: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/746149.html
(McConnell saying he should be immediately expelled)
November 5th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Re: A REALLY interesting question is whether enough REPUBLICANS will vote to remove Stevens — or whether they will ALL vote in his favor and block his expulsion.
Why would they? He’s a liability to them now. Better to get some GOP replacement in there now to serve for six years and have the advantage of incumbency for the next election.
November 6th, 2008 at 8:43 am
RE: Don Williams,
I don’t disagree with you at all. All I was pointing out was the procedure that has been used in the past and is likely to be used again. As Stevens isn’t the first sitting Senator convicted of a felony, the precedent is relevant. Furthermore, any suggestion that action can be taken against Stevens prior to his taking the oath of office on Jan. 6 is constitutionally incorrect. See Powell v. McCormack. While technically the Senate could start an investigation during the lame duck session, that seems unlikely given the compressed schedule and other political considerations. More than likely they’ll wait until January.
As to what kind of “investigation” or how much of one is needed, I don’t expect much, but the matter is still likely to go through the Ethics Committee who will need to issue a written recommendation; hence an “investigation” even if just a cursory one.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:05 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 14th, 2009 at 10:24 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 3:40 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:45 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:35 am
buy viagra online
I want to say - thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:48 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:11 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra