This page is part of an undergraduate assignment at Davidson College.
Why Should Alaskans Vote for Lisa Murkowski?
A Look at Murkowski's Campaign Message
Description
Lisa Murkowski (R) and Tony Knowles (D) have similar positions on the most important Alaskan issues (Kershaw 2004). Thus, instead of focusing on issue positions, Murkowski’s campaign has emphasized that electing a Republican to the U.S. Senate will benefit Alaska more than electing a Democrat.
Throughout the general election, Murkowski has reiterated the importance of maintaining a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate since “the Republican agenda is synonymous with the Alaska agenda” (qtd. in Tsong 2004). She has specifically stressed their shared conservative viewpoints and the Republicans’ support of popular resource development initiatives such as opening ANWR (Tsong 2004). Thus, according to Murkowski, a Republican majority would be best for Alaskan interests.
Lisa Murkowski’s campaign has also asserted that the Democratic Party leaders have different positions than the Alaskan public on key Alaskan issues such as logging and oil drilling (Fagan 2004). Therefore, electing Tony Knowles might give the Democrats an influential majority that would vote against popular logging and oil-related projects. In addition, a Democratic majority would undermine Senator Ted Stevens’s (R) immense influence that has enabled him to secure substantial federal funding for Alaskan initiatives (Fagan 2004). Even if the Democrats did not achieve a majority, Knowles would be ineffective as a member of the minority party without any seniority (Murkowski 2004). In either case, electing Knowles would not help Alaskan interests. Murkowski’s campaign message has clearly emphasized that the best way for Alaskans to protect their interests is to vote for her and thereby strengthen the Republican delegation in the Senate.
Evaluation
Lisa Murkowski’s campaign message is strategically strong. Polls have concluded that voters like Knowles more, but nevertheless believe that a Murkowski victory would be better for Alaskan interests (Mauer 2004). Thus, Murkowski has provided an effective comparison of how electing her to the Senate would benefit Alaska more than electing Knowles.
From a normative perspective, Murkowski’s message is sound because it provides a rational appeal and does not mislead voters. However, Knowles objects to Murkowski’s message and claims that politicians should be judged more on their personal merits than “who they hang out with” (qtd. in Kershaw 2004). Despite Knowles’s objection, Murkowski nevertheless illustrates the importance of considering partisanship independent of all other factors. She does not deceive Alaskans in her campaign message; rather, she provides relevant information and caters her message to voters’ desire to elect officials that best protect their interests.
Lisa Murkowski’s campaign message does not have any conflicts between the normative and strategic perspectives. It satisfies both measures by effectively making a straightforward, rational appeal to voters.
© Davidson College, 2004, Davidson, NC 28035
Created by Keith Farrow (kefarrow@davidson.edu) for POL 318
Created: 11/9/2004. Last updated: 11/14/2004.