Google Ads


Site Stats

AK-AL: Young Leads Crawford by 15

by: Crisitunity

Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 3:04 PM EST


PPP (pdf) (1/27-28, likely voters)

Harry Crawford (D): 34
Don Young (R-inc): 49
Undecided: 17

Generic Democrat (D): 25
Lisa Murkowski (R): 52
Undecided: 23
(MoE: ±3.7%)

2008's Alaska at-large House race was a disappointment for Dems, with all polls projecting a pickup for former state House minority leader Ethan Berkowitz over long-time Republican Rep. Don Young, with voters seemingly having tired of his ethically questionable reputation. Young pulled it out in the end, though, as Sarah Palin on the ticket (and probably also some desire to keep at least one old-time pork-barreler in place as Alaska voted out Ted Stevens) pushed him over the top.

It doesn't look like Dems are poised to finish the job in 2010. State Rep. Harry Crawford doesn't seem as well-known as Berkowitz. And more importantly, Young's reputation seems to have recovered a bit (with 43/41 approvals -- not in the safety zone, but between it being dark-red Alaska and a Republican year, probably good enough). Despite his name often popping up connection with the VECO affair, it doesn't seem like he's in any imminent danger of being indicted, which is probably the only way he's going to get pried out of this seat. (Although his primary against Andrew Halcro will bear watching too.)

In the Senate, Lisa Murkowski can count on an easy return to office (no surprise, as all prognosticators have had her down with Schumer and Shelby at the bottom of the vulnerability list). With no prominent Democrat interested in sticking his head on the chopping block so far, PPP just runs a Generic Democrat test, and finds even G.D. trailing by a wide margin.

RaceTracker Wiki: AK-AL

Crisitunity :: AK-AL: Young Leads Crawford by 15
Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

No GOP challenger for Young?
I am kind of surprised that Young doesnt have some kind of  GOP primary challenger.

I know Palin went after him 2 years ago by getting Parnell to run against him.

I really though someone would take a strong shot at him in the primary.

Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...


He has two
Andrew Halcro (who I mentioned above), the gadflyish rich guy and sometime-blogger who ran as an independent in the 2006 gubernatorial race (and got almost 10%), is the better known one. There's also some other random rich guy, Sheldon Fisher.

[ Parent ]
That's what I ment...
There is a big difference between having a gadfly rich guy challenger and a real primary threat like that from sitting LT Gov Parnell.

Parnell even had some establishment backing from Palin who was Governor at the time. It was the conservative  "reform" (which I guess now is referred to as the Tea Bag) wing of the Alaska GOP vs. the semi-corrupt porkbarrel wing.

Halcro just isnt in the same catagory of primary challenge as Parnell was.

Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...


[ Parent ]
Has Generic Democrat even expressed any interest in running?
I know he made noises about the NC senate race because of his strong numbers against Richard Burr, so if he switched to Alaska he would probably field accusations of carpetbagging.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


That could be pretty damaging
Considering how ill-defined a candidate Democrat is, that narrative could easily be created.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09

[ Parent ]
LOL
That comment is just one of the things that makes me so happy to be on SSP :)

Only a SSP nut would get this comment...

NY-14, DC-AL (college) Distraught Mets fan


[ Parent ]
I'd love to know what went wrong in Alaska.
For awhile there it looked like the state was bound to be the next Ohio, until Palin was put on the ticket.  Sure you can pass a lot of what happened there in '08 off as a Palin bounce, but still, the state seems to have taken an incredibly sharp turn to the right even has Palin's numbers there have crashed.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

Does it matter?
I'm all about contesting elections in every state but to have one Senator in the federal delegation in a state as Republican as AK is good to me. All the travel involved in campaigning there for presidential elections seems too much effort for a 3 EV state.

[ Parent ]
Yes it does matter.
The 50 state strategy was a winner for Democrats and 50 states means just that.  The fact that we've slacked off and let the state parties wither a bit without much focus is contributing to our current electoral problems across the board.  That's not to say it's the only factor, but it's a big one.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

[ Parent ]
Was it really?
All it led to was the election of Blue Dogs like Bobby Bright, Walt Minnick and Travis Childers, and disappointing losses like Gary Trauner, Scott Kleeb, Andrew Rice, and Jim Martin.


[ Parent ]
IMHO
it's better to have Minnick then Sali, Childers then Davis, Bright then Love. I will gladly take such "40-60%" Democrats" in such districts (if really neccessary - even more conservative) over "0%" Republicans... You can't elect progressives in them, can't ypu? Then take what's best out of possible.  

[ Parent ]
I think [i]some[/i] progressives envy
how conservatives in the R party vote in lockstep, in the belief that such party discipline makes for a better presentation to the American electorate.

While I'm mostly progressive, I find such party discipline to be the most frightening part of the R party. I want no part of such a "one size fits all" view of politics.


[ Parent ]
Neither do i
And in fact, if progressives will insist on such approach - they will lose. There are only 189-190 districts which can more or less reliably elect more or less progressive Democrats to House. No more. Now with help of about half of about 60 "blue-doggish" Democrats Pelosi (who is as cunning as fox) can get required 220 votes without really endangering too much of them. But if, for example, there will be about 30 "Blue Dogs" in House with Democrats having say, 225-210 overall majority (quite realistic figure for now) - then Pelosi will need about 25 of them (or some Republicans and they are much mre difficult to get) - and that (25 of 30) looks very unlikely

[ Parent ]
I find their issue stances infinitely more frightening.
Whether it's the institutionalized homophobia or the religious particularism or the corporatism or the warmongering or the blind worship of the "free" market.  I'm damn well not going excuse the same from elected members of my party.  Placing strategy over issues is, to me, a sign of misplaced priorities.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Once again - that's your opinion
and you are entitled to it. But my opinion is polar opposite and i am no less entitled to it too, doesn't i? I am very much interested in winning elections and much less - in "ideological purity". In fact - i am very much against such "purity" as long as America has 2-party system. If there will be 3-4 parties, including "party of center" - well then i will remove my objections and then i will have "my party". But so far - .....

[ Parent ]
I'll take 1/2 a loaf over going hungry every time
For me, in terms of electoral strategy, it means supporting the most progressive candidate who can consistently win an election.

In a few parts of the country (e.g. Minnick, Childers' districts), that means supporting candidates who will provide much less than half of a loaf. But that's still better than going hungry, i.e. losing majorities in one or both houses of Congress.


[ Parent ]
Yep. Especially with Minnick and Childers...
they don't seem any more conservative than the district they come from.  Look at Nate's awesome logistic regression looking at the key House votes so far, and how each Democrat voted, in comparison to how conservative or liberal their district is.

Neither one makes the top 25 list in either the category of those who vote much more liberally than their district, or the category of those who maybe deserve primary challenges for being much more conservative than their districts.

Which tells me that Minnick and Childers are just about right in voting the way their constituents would like them to vote.

It should be noted, however, that some of the worst 25 made the list almost solely because of the infamous Stupak Amendment, and have a pretty good track record otherwise.  And the PVI can be a bit misleading, as some of those Democratic districts in the Deep South and rural Pennsylvania are still VERY much pro-life, and where a vote for Stupak was in line with what their constituents wanted.  Change the people's minds in those districts on that, and then we'll talk.


[ Parent ]
I applaud
and agree completely..

[ Parent ]
I see no difference.
Defending them with statistics like "they vote with us 60% of the time" masks the fact that the other 40% are on the most important, visible issues and their recalcitrance on those issues has put us in the electoral situation we're in now.  

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
If YOU don't see the difference
that doesn't mean that other don't. And others are not obliged to see events and people the way you see them - dosn't they? Yes, they (Minnick, Childers and others) vote against party majority on MANY issues (but not all - look for example Childer's voting for cap's and trade or Minnick against Stupak). Even more - many procedural issues, on which they vote WITH the party, are also very important. The ONLY alternative (very right-wing Republicans) will not do even that. Not enough for YOU? That's your problem, not theirs. The most important thing is that's what THEIR voters want

[ Parent ]
It's either this or the minority
And if you think allowing them in the party is going to put us in the minority, then you're ignoring the reality that without them we'd be in the minority anyway.

So either way, get used to being in the minority, we'll be there for a good while.  


[ Parent ]
I really want to answer your comment and the other above.
But I think I've risked enough ire from James and David for talking about this topic in this thread, so I'll refrain for now and for here.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Obama still gained there over Kerry.
Plus, you have to remember there was the Ted Stevens trial fiasco and Alaska is still a deeply red state.  

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Young is safe
Ted Stevens proved that a Republican has to be indicted and convicted in order to be defeated, and then only in a great year for Democrats.

and also it must be by the mayor of the state's largest city
whose father was a respected politician, and even then the Republican loses by less than a point.

:)

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


[ Parent ]
Correct me if I'm
wrong, but didn't Palin being on the top of the ticket in Alaska kind of screw us in Alaska, I mean we were way up in the polls there in the Senate race at least before Palin was chose, and plus Obama was planning on contesting Alaska before Palin went on the ticket, and honestly I think he could have won the Presidential election by a narrow margin and would have won the Senate by 10-15 instead of 1 point and would have pulled of a win on the Congressional race as well.  While Palin seriously helped us win America, she is why we did not bode as well in Alaska. Although by NO means am I mad McCain picked Palin! :)  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
I find it ironic
that Palin nearly pulled Stevens to victory, even though the two despise each other.

[ Parent ]
There aren't many people that those two don't despise.
[ Parent ]
It was a failure of the polling.
The final poll of AK-Sen (taken after Palin's selection and Stevens' conviction) had Begich up by over 20 points.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


[ Parent ]
It is really hard to
poll small states. That is why I wonder if the polling showing Dorgan 20 points down was right. Just saying.

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
Alaska especially
anyone remember the dueling polls way back when, one of which had Palin crushing Lisa Murkowski in a primary and the other which had the exact opposite result?

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


[ Parent ]
Interesting point
n/t

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Maybe, maybe not
we were way up in polls even after Palin was added to the ticket.  

[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox