Why did Murkowski win?
Murkowski won the senate election because she is a Republican. Murkowski campaigned heavily on this fact (McAllister 11/7/04). A vote for Knowles was described as a vote against Ted Stevens’s ability to keep his committee chairmanship. Murkowski said the Republican agenda was synonymous with Alaska’s agenda. Evidence for this theory lays in the exit polls. Knowles and Murkowski both dominated the vote within their own party. Knowles clearly beat Murkowski among independents. However, Knowles still lost the election by four percentage points. The only reason Murkowski won is because Republicans outnumbered Democrats two to one.
Total |
Murkowski |
Knowles |
Democrat (19%) |
11% |
87% |
Republican (41%) |
83% |
11% |
Independent (40%) |
38% |
53% |
(Exit Polls 2004)
Another explanation offered as to why Murkowski won is because Knowles ran such a negative campaign (Anchorage Daily News 11/8/04). Knowles pasted the airwaves with ads criticizing Murkowski for putting special interest first and for how she obtained her senate seat. Voters got sick of the highly negative strategy and decide not to support Knowles. This explanation is faulted. Negative advertising works. If it was hurting the candidate, the Knowles campaign would have stopped running the ads. The Knowles ad blitz at the end of the campaign was successful. Of voters who decided in the last week, Knowles defeated Murkowski 51% to 35% (Exit polls 2004). Those sick of the ads likely already knew they were going to vote for Murkowski.
Compromise their principles?
Politicians are often tempted to compromise their principals in order to get elected. Candidates will also change the focus of their campaign in order to get elected. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between changing focus and compromising principals. It is clear that Knowles compromised his principals; the same cannot be said about Murkowski.
Knowles compromised his principals when he went back on a campaign promise. In March Knowles said he would not make how Murkowski obtained her job an issue (The Hotline 10/28/04). Many people thought it was inappropriate how Murkowski got her job. The Knowles campaign knew this and decided to launch an attack on Murkowski in the final weeks. This strategic attack was in clear defiance of the claim Knowles made earlier. Knowles compromised his principals in attempt to gain votes. The effort helped Knowles, but was not enough to get him into office.
It does not appear that Murkowski compromised her principals. Murkowski wanted people to view her as similar to Don Young, Ted Stevens, and President Bush. In an effort to be Republican, Murkowski took on a more Republican agenda (Volz 11/4/04). This agenda included promoting tax cuts and looser gun restrictions (Tsong 2004). However, a shift in agenda does not mean a shift in principals. Just because Murkowski’s focus changed does not mean she sacrificed her principals.
Works Cited Pledge
Davidson College, Davidson, NC 28035
Send comments, questions, and suggestions to Jordan Sundheim
Date Created: 12/4/2004. Last Updated 12/5/2004.
Political Science 318 - Strategy and Ethics in Election Campaigns
