This page is part of an undergraduate assignment at Davidson College.
Post-Election Evaluation of the Alaskan U.S. Senate Race
Why Murkowski Won
Tony Knowles (D) held a slight advantage over Lisa Murkowski (R) throughout most of their Senate race. Near the end of the campaign, Murkowski closed the gap by putting more emphasis on how Republican initiatives will further Alaskan interests and how electing her helps protect Senator Stevens’s (R) immense influence (Kershaw 2004). After the election, Murkowski highlighted the importance of her fellow Republicans’ support in her victory, specifically the support from Sen. Stevens and Congressman Young. (Mauer, Tsong, and Demer 2004).
Her appeal to Republicans proved important considering that exits polls illustrated that over 80% of Repulicans voted for her while only 11% of Democrats voted for her (CNN.com "Exit Polls" 2004). Murkowski won by focusing on the Republicans since Republicans outnumber Democrats two-to-one in Alaska (Mauer 2004). Murkowski’s partisanship and ability to illustrate how electing her would further Alaskan interests enabled her to win this election.
Several political observers have implied that the coattail effect from Pres. Bush propelled Murkowski to victory (Lewyn 2004; Barnes 2004). Even though this may have helped her, it was not the primary factor. Murkowski only pulled even in the polls after getting Sen. Stevens’s public support and strongly emphasizing how electing her furthers Alaskan interests (Kershaw 2004). Also, momentum shifts in the presidential election did not seem to cause any noticeable shifts in the Alaskan Senate polls during the campaign.
Did the Candidates Compromise Their Principles?
As a basis for evaluating this question, I will assess whether the candidates kept consistent campaign positions throughout the race.
Lisa Murkowski and Tony Knowles had similar stances on the key Alaskan issues such as natural resource development. Unsurprisingly, the candidates maintained these popular positions throughout the election (Kershaw 2004).
However, Knowles chose to abandon one early campaign pledge in an effort to improve his electoral chances. He publicly rejected negative, third-party advertisements and called for Lisa Murkowski to make the same pledge (Knowles “Negative” 2004). Yet, Murkowski refused to condemn these ads (Knowles “Negative” 2004). After Knowles endured negative third-party ads for several months, he quietly condoned third-party ads on his behalf (Murkowski “Nepotism” 2004). By abandoning his pledge to renounce third-party advertisements, Knowles did not hurt himself because these ads never became a prominent issue. Also, this additional advertisement support helped counter Murkowski’s support from outside groups.
Contrary to Knowles’s decision to abandon one of his campaign positions, Lisa Murkowski kept her initial campaign positions. Concerning third-party advertisements, she did not have any incentive to change her position. Since she benefited from the advertising support and did not invoke public discontent, she kept her initial position on this issue.
© Davidson College, 2004, Davidson, NC 28035
Created by Keith Farrow (kefarrow@davidson.edu) for POL 318
Created: 12/1/2004. Last updated: 12/6/2004.