Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski Draws First Major Primary Challenger

Murkowski got primaried in 2010 and won the general election as a write in candidate. She us had to fight for that seat and won. Senator Lisa Murkowski wins Alaska write-in campaign

NightHawkeye said:

Then she'll be able to do it again.

Click to expand...

Right after she gets primaried, yup.

Sarah Palin was seen in a you tube video promising she would primary Murkowski. My son showed it to me. He found the idea quite comical.

Fantine said:

Sarah Palin was seen in a you tube video promising she would primary Murkowski. My son showed it to me. He found the idea quite comical.

Click to expand...

uggghhh thanks. i had blissfully forgotten that that creature was still alive.

Alaska doesn't have a traditional party primary anymore. I believe it is an "all-party" primary with the top 4 getting on the November ballot. If so, she'd have to finish pretty low to not be on the general election ballot. (Not that she couldn't lose that election.)

Hans Blaster said:

Alaska doesn't have a traditional party primary anymore. I believe it is an "all-party" primary with the top 4 getting on the November ballot. If so, she'd have to finish pretty low to not be on the general election ballot. (Not that she couldn't lose that election.)

Click to expand...

Yes--I was about to post that.

To be a little more detailed, here is how Alaska's election system is now set up due to a referendum that was recently passed. In most states, each party has primary to decide who gets the nomination, then they all run in the general election.

What Alaska is doing is what some have termed as a "jungle primary". Anyone who wants to run can run. So you can easily have a race in which you have 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats, and 2 Independents in the primary.

California has a system like this. Everyone who wants to runs, and then if someone gets a majority, they win on the spot. If no one gets a majority, they move to the general election. California, however, has a "top 2 primary" meaning that only the top two vote-getters go onto the general election. This results in weird situations like elections where you have two Democrats or two Republicans on the ballot.

Alaska doesn't do top 2, though. Instead, it does top 4 for the primary election; that is, the 4 people who got the most votes advance to the main election, which is then decided via Instant Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice Voting) rather than plurality voting. To copy from a site that advocates Ranked Choice Voting, it works like this:

For a single office, like for a mayor or governor, RCV helps to elect a candidate who reflects a majority of voters in a single election even when several viable candidates are in the race. Ranked choice voting is a way to ensure elections are fair for all voters. It allows voters the option to rank candidates in order of preference: one, two, three, and so forth.

If your vote cannot help your top choice win, your vote counts for your next choice.

In races where voters select one winner, if a candidate receives more than half of the first choices, that candidate wins, just like in any other election. However, if there is no majority winner after counting first choices, the race is decided by an "instant runoff." The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and voters who picked that candidate as ‘number 1’ will have their votes count for their next choice. This process continues until there’s a majority winner or a candidate won with more than half of the vote.

Click to expand...

So to put it this way, the way the Alaska system works is:
Primary: Anyone, regardless of party, can run. If someone gets more than 50% of the vote, they win on the spot. If not...
General election: The 4 people with the most votes from the primary advance to the general election. This is decided via ranked choice voting.

NightHawkeye said:

The challenge comes two weeks after the Alaska Republican Party voted to censure Murkowski and pledge support for a primary opponent. While the censure came in part by Murkowski’s vote in favor of former President Donald Trump’s impeachment, the party cited Murkowski’s long history of decisions on consequential issues that fly in the face of conservative and Alaskan interests, from abortion to transgender sports.

Click to expand...

...this is one of those scenarios where I see the GOP "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" with regards to certain elected officials.

Using "loyalty to Trump" as some sort of litmus test to grade "how much of a real conservative someone is" seems silly.

And them trying to pretend that it's, in part, because of other issues is laughable.

The censure is specifically because of her vote to convict Trump. (the Alaska GOP claiming that it's because of abortion or any other issues is a lie)

Murkowski has expressed certain pro-choice sentiments since 2007...no censures. Odd they all of the sudden had an issue with her other "against-the-grain" positions right around the same time she voted against Trump.

Are they honestly expecting anyone to believe that her positions on abortion are even remotely a factor in why they're targeting her for "replacement"? Had she voted in favor of Trump, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

My reasoning behind my theory?

A) There are other other mixed-voting (on the topic of abortion) republican senators who aren't being targeted (like Senator Capito from WV, who voted to acquit).

B) They're giving the same treatment to other Republican senators who voted against Trump, but still hold strong conservative positions on abortions and transgender issues. For example Richard Burr from NC. He's been a "party-line" voter on the LGBT & Abortion issues for some time now, and they still censured him simply because he voted to convict.



If we've entered an era where "loyalty to Trump" is the measuring stick by which every conservative is graded, the right may form the "circular firing squad" before the left does.

Risky game to be playing in Alaska. Its not deep red enough to rely on hard-core Trump voters for senate races.

Kentonio said:

Risky game to be playing in Alaska. Its not deep red enough to rely on hard-core Trump voters for senate races.

Click to expand...

The GOO is about to devour itself IMO.

ThatRobGuy said:

...this is one of those scenarios where I see the GOP "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" with regards to certain elected officials.

Using "loyalty to Trump" as some sort of litmus test to grade "how much of a real conservative someone is" seems silly.

And them trying to pretend that it's, in part, because of other issues is laughable.

The censure is specifically because of her vote to convict Trump. (the Alaska GOP claiming that it's because of abortion or any other issues is a lie)

Murkowski has expressed certain pro-choice sentiments since 2007...no censures. Odd they all of the sudden had an issue with her other "against-the-grain" positions right around the same time she voted against Trump.

Click to expand...

I feel I should point out that in 2010, Murkowski actually lost the Republican primary in 2010 in her bid for re-election. Granted, in 2016 there wasn't any real opposition (she easily won the primary) but it's not like the Republican Party hasn't done stuff to express dissatisfaction with her before.

JSRG said:

I feel I should point out that in 2010, Murkowski actually lost the Republican primary in 2010 in her bid for re-election. Granted, in 2016 there wasn't any real opposition (she easily won the primary) but it's not like the Republican Party hasn't done stuff to express dissatisfaction with her before.

Click to expand...

If it was just Murkowski getting that treatment, then one may have to give the "benefit of the doubt" to their stated reasons for doing so. (Like it was dissatisfaction with her positions on LGBT & Abortions, building up for 5 years, and they finally decided it was "enough")

...However, why was Richard Burr from NC getting the exact same treatment? (censures, and calls for intra-party challengers from within the GOP in his own state). He's been solidly pro-life, gets an A+ rating from the NRA, etc...
You can see a full list of his positions here:
Richard Burr on the Issues

6 of the 7 senate republicans who voted to convict all got major blow back (including censures) from their own state party officials, despite 5 of them being solid "down the line" conservatives with regards to their voting record and stances on the various issues, and historically decent approval ratings from republicans in their states.

Within a week of voting to convict, they started getting censured.

Yet, the republican senators with mixed voting records on gay marriage, abortion, etc... who voted to acquit faced no such blowback.

So I think it's a bit of a far-fetched idea to think that the other issues had anything to do with it, and to pretend that it was anything other than their opposition to Trump that caused that blowback would require some mental gymnastics.

JSRG said:

Instant Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice Voting)

Click to expand...

But wait, surely that the evul cheating dominion systems hocus pocus that let the Democrats steal the election.

I mean, NHE told us, so it must be true.
Redacted forensic audit shows clearly that Ranked Choice Voting was enabled on Dominion machines

LINK

The Senate Leadership Fund will support Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski in her reelection campaign, setting up a clash between the Mitch McConnell-aligned group and GOP candidate Kelly Tshibaka, who has hired some advisers to former President Donald Trump.

Trump plans to campaign against Murkowski after her vote to convict him in his second impeachment trial. But Murkowski, a Republican moderate on issues like abortion, has beat back candidates from the right before, and now has the backing of the group that spent over $476 million last election cycle — an astounding sum for Senate races.

rubs hands in democrat
Let them fight!

Murkowski challenger wrote in support of 'ex-gay' organization and posts on evils of 'addictive' witchcraft and 'Twilight'

What's her username here?

NightHawkeye said:

Then she'll be able to do it again.

Click to expand...

She's got a tough fight against the establishment ahead of her.

Alaska GOP endorses Tshibaka.

The Alaska Republican State Central Committee endorsed Kelly Tshibaka in the 2022 race for the U.S. Senate seat held by Murkowski.

Fantine said:

Sarah Palin was seen in a you tube video promising she would primary Murkowski. My son showed it to me. He found the idea quite comical.

Click to expand...

Run Sarah Run!

essentialsaltes said:

The Senate Leadership Fund will support Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski in her reelection campaign, setting up a clash between the Mitch McConnell-aligned group and GOP candidate Kelly Tshibaka, who has hired some advisers to former President Donald Trump.
rubs hands in democrat
Let them fight!

Click to expand...

Mitch McConnell calls Donald Trump's bluff in Alaska - CNNPolitics
On Monday, the Senate Leadership Fund, the super PAC aligned with McConnell, announced that it had booked more than $7 miIlion worth of ad time in Alaska as GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski tries to fend off a challenge from Kelly Tshibaka, who has been endorsed by the former President. (The group also reserved ad time in six Senate battleground states.)

But the super PAC's decision to commit $7 million -- by way of context, that's roughly how much Murkowski spent on her 2016 reelection race -- to Alaska means that McConnell is sending a not-so-subtle message to Trump: Time to put up or shut up.

[Murkowski has already raised $5 million to Tshibaka's $1M. Will Trump use his personal piggy bank PAC to help Tshibaka in a GOP on GOP grudge match? I sure hope so, but I expect the answer is no.]