Page created for an undergraduate class at Davidson College.
Evaluation of Alaskan Senatorial Race
Why did Murkowski win?
The Alaskan Senate race between Lisa Murkowski (R) and Tony Knowles (D), was an extremely tight race. Towards the end, Murkowski had Ted Stevens (R) who is "one rung lower than god in Alaska (Kershaw 2004)," endorse her campaign. The argument made by Republicans is that if Murkowski loses, Stevens could lose important majority positions in the Senate. This is a compelling argument as to why Murkowski won the election (Kershaw 2004).
Another possible reason why Murkowski won relates to the perception that she really cares for the people of Alaska (Tsong 2004). In an election year in which Republican's stressed moral values, Murkowski genuinely caring is another powerful argument for her vicotry.
Alaska is a solidly Republican state where Democrats are outnumbered two-to-one (NationalJournal.com 2004). This is important because nearly 85% Republicans voted along party lines in this election (CNN.com 2004). This would support the argument that keeping Ted Stevens in power was important enough for voters to elect Murkowski. Even Murkowski recognized Stevens effects on her campaign saying he played an important role in the election (Mauer, Tsong and Demer 2004).
The effects that Murkowski's character had on the election are more ambiguous. In a CNN exit poll, people that considered the most important quality to be, cares about people, only 40% of those polled voted for Murkowski (CNN.com 2004).
Thus, it seems as if Ted Stevens role in the campaign is one of the more relevant reasons why Murkowski won.
Did either candidate compromise their principles?
In order to determine if either candidate did in fact comprimise their principles, some normative baseline must be set. I will evaluate the campaigns using consistency as the this baseline in the context of each candidate's issue positions, and pledges made during the campaign.
Both candidates took nearly identical positions on most of important issues to Alaska, such as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a popular idea among Alaskan voters (Kershaw 2004). Examining the candidates consistency on issue positions shows that neither shifted throughout the campaign (Mauer and Tsong 2004).
In the campaign itself, Knowles was not consistent about the issue of third-party, negative advertising. Early in the race he called for Murkowski to condemn this type of ad. She never did, which never ended up hurting her in the race.
However, after being lambasted by these attack ads, Knowles went back on his pledge by endorsing third party attack ads such as "Difference" (Mauer and Tsong 2004). Knowles was not hurt by switching his stance on negative third-party ads. In fact, it may have helped him by bringing nepotism back to the forefront of the campaign. Also, since Murkowski had endorsed this type of ad all along, he could not really be criticized by her.
Send Comments, Questions or Comments to Jamie McCord
Page Created: 12/1/2004
Last Updated: 12/2/2004
