This page is part of an undergraduate assignment at Davidson College
Mike Miller: Why He Lost
In August's primary, Alaskan Republicans picked Lisa Murkowski over Mike Miller 58% to 37% (Miller 2004). Why did the election turn out this way?
Points in Miller's Favor:
* The Nepotism Issue: While Murkowski's appointment was technically her father's doing, the regime-change still reflected poorly on Murkowski's character. Many labeled it nepotism (Bellow 2004).
* Conservative Record: Miller's stronger conservative record on guns, abortion and taxes allowed him to cast himself as the more conservative candidate (Tsong 2004). Because Alaskans are predominately conservative, this distinction was a definite plus ("LG Backs.." 2004).
*Experience: Miller served a total of 18 years in the state legislature and steadily rose through the ranks (Tsong 2004). Murkowski served only four years before moving onto the Senate ("Sen. Lisa..." 2003).
*Through speeches and radio ads, Miller took every opportunity to highlight these three points. When asked why voters should vote for him, Miller said that both Knowles and Murkowski "are liberals, so the only issue would be nepotism -- and Lisa Murkowski loses to Tony Knowles" ("Does Santa.." 2004). Why didn't this tactic translate into victory?
Problems With the Campaign:
*
Murkowski had counter-arguments to Miller's claims to deeper conservatism and greater experience. For the former, Murkowski noted her strong conservative record in the Senate ("Does Santa.." 2004) and the fact that she voted the same as Miller 97% of the time while in the state legislature (Glazer 2004). For the latter, Murkowski argued that she had something that Miller did not: actual time in the Senate.
*The most significant problem facing Miller's campaign was Murkowski's incumbent status. Powerful organizations that had supported Murkowski during her term were reluctant to switch allegiances. For example, Miller arguably had a better record of gun support, but the N.R.A. had already endorsed Murkowski and refused to abandon her for an unlikely winner (Bishop 2004).
*Murkowski's incumbency also made it difficult for Miller to gain support from Republican party leaders. While he did gain endorsements from many Alaskan Republicans such as Loren Lehman (Tsong 2004), Murkowski had the backing of nationally prominent Republicans, including George Bush and Bill Frist.
*Miller's inability to gain support from organizations and the Republican party resulted in a lack of funds. As of August 4, Miller had spent just $230,000 to Murkowski’s $2.6 million (Miller 2004).
Conclusion
Considering that he received 37% of the vote, Miller's campaign obviously persuaded many Alaskan Republicans. In order to beat an incumbent, however, one must have either immense personal wealth or remarkable fundraising abilities. Unfortunately for Miller, he had neither. Miller would be well-advised to run for an open seat rather than trying to topple a well-financed incumbent.
Mac Skelton (maskelton@davidson.edu), PO Box 6375, Davidson, N.C. 28035
Created 9/20/04, last updated: 9/22/04