The best explanation:
Murkowski’s victory is a result of several factors.
The candidate herself “ would not pin her win to any one factor” (Mauer, Tsong, Demer)
These factors include that Murkowski won because polls show that by emphasizing how a Republican team is good for Alaska and that Democratic control of the Senate would cause Senator Stevens to lose his committee chairmanships, Murkowski “leads by a significant margin” against Tony Knowles. (Mauer 2004)
One factor was that the nepotism issue was overcome. Exit polls show that “While nearly two-thirds of voters polled said they thought it was inappropriate that Gov. Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter to the Senate seat he vacated in 2002, three out of every 10 of them voted for Sen. Murkowski anyway.” (Volz 2004)
Another related factor was that Senator Ben Stevens campaigning for Murkowski “ helped [Murkowski] pick up some last-minute voter support.” Indications are that Murkowski “picked up about 5 percentage points within the last two weeks of the campaign” ( INKLEBARGER 2004)
A final factor was that Murkowski was helped by recent congressional approval of “$18 billion in federal loan guarantees approved by Congress for construction of a gas pipeline from Alaska to the Midwestern United States.” ( INKLEBARGER 2004)
A less compelling argument:
Murkowski overcame the nepotism issue and won because “Murkowski had strong name recognition, the power of incumbency and history on her side — Alaska is heavily Republican and has not sent a Democrat to Washington in 30 years.”(Fox)
This argument is bad because it ignores the previously mentioned factors and the fact that even though Alaska is heavily Republican, voters have elected Tony Knowles in the past. (Glazer 2004)
Tony Knowles:
Knowles compromised his principles by breaking a promise and changing his position on a certain issue within the campaign. His desire for victory overcame his position on the issue of nepotism within the campaign. Knowles had stated that he was opposed to discussing nepotism as an issue in this campaign but “ In the final days of the campaign Knowles hit Murkowski harder on the nepotism issue, breaking a promise early in the election season to not campaign on the issue.” ( INKLEBARGER 2004)
Lisa Murkowski:
Murkowski did not compromise her principles in pursuit of victory because she did not change issue positions within the campaign. There were no media reports of her changing positions on issues. She might have placed more emphasis on one particular issue differently during the campaign than during her past, but this is something all politicians do and hardly constitutes compromising one’s principles.