Page created for an undergraduate class at Davidson College.
Lisa Murkowski's Message Strategy
Description of the Message
Alaska has generally voted Republican in recent elections forcing both Senatorial candidates, Tony Knowles (D) and Lisa Murkowski (R), to take similiar positions on many issues. Because of these similarities, Murkowski has emphasized the ramifications of tipping the balance of the Senate in favor of the Democrats.
Murkowski has highlighted the slight advantage Republicans hold in the Senate and how a shift in this balance may allow more liberal social legislation to pass. She has said "the Republican agenda is synonymous with the Alaska Agenda." (Tsong 2004) This is an allusion to the conservative viewpoints many Alaskans take on issues such as taxes, guns and abortion (Tsong 2004). In addition, Murkowski has harped on party differences such as "environmentalist's stranglehold on Democrats," a concern for Alaskans because of the battle surrounding ANWR (Kershaw 2004).
In addition to potential policy changes, Murkowski has attached herself to Ted Stevens (R). She has received his endorsement and he has been featured in ads that discredit nepotism charges. In addition to his support, she uses him as another potential risk of voting for Knowles. She and Stevens assert in the campaign ad, "Everything," that if Knowles is elected, the balance of power in the Senate could shift and Stevens would lose his President Pro-Tempore position along with a strong ally in Murkowski (Kershaw 2004).
Analysis of the Message
From a strategic standpoint, Murkowski's campaign seems to be extremely effective. In both pre-election and exit polls, Knowles was more widely liked (Mauer 2004), but other factors such as Ted Steven's role in the election tended to give Murkowski an overall advantage. Stevens' introduction, along with the doubt that Murkowski instilled in voter's minds about Knowles' election, served to minimize voter's fears about issues such as nepotism (Volz 2004). By incorporating Ted Stevens into their strategy at the end, Murkowski made a strong strategic play by not allowing Knowles much time to respond. Steven's is seen as "their killer argument" because "nothing is more important than the federal money we get through Ted Stevens (Kershaw 2004)."
Murkowski's campaign was also effective from a normative standpoint. She uses a unique message, along the lines of: a vote for me is a vote to keep Ted Stevens in power. She is speaking honestly to her constituents throughout the state, her election means that they get a conservative senator dedicated to protecting conservative social values, and they keep Ted Stevens in a position where he can continue to funnel millions to Alaskan projects (Tsong 2004).
Because the two candidates are similiar on many policy issues, she forces people to make the decision to vote for her based on risks that they would face by electing Knowles, not policy issues.
Send Comments, Questions or Comments to Jamie McCord
Page Created: 11/11/2004
Last Updated: 11/15/2004
