Gov. Knowles leads Sen. Murkowski in Poll

Here's the article:

http://www.rollcall.com/pub/49_45/atr/3368-1.html

In a poll of 459 registered voters conducted in late September and early October by Alaska Democratic pollster Ivan Moore for a corporate client, Knowles was preferred by 52 percent of the respondents, while Murkowski was the choice of 43 percent. The rest of those polled were undecided. The poll, conducted Sept. 27-Oct. 3, had a 4.6 percent margin of error.

in this race in Alaska and rally aroung Gov. Knowles, then we can win our first Alaska Senate seat since them mid 1970's!

I think this is going to be a tough race. ANWR might undermine Knowles's chances.

so his position is exactly the same as murkowski's...while that might hurt him outside of alaska, inside of alaska most progressives and liberals just live with that situation and do not split their votes out to third party candidates...

Johnson got lots of votes that otehrwise went to Bush because SD voters knew (though they were wrong) that keeping Johnson would ensure Democrats would keep the senate and, therefore, they're senior senator (Daschle) would be the majority leader. After the election, better than 20% of the people who voted for johnson said that if they had known Republicans would win back the Senate they would have voted for Thune.


Apply that to Alaska. The voters there definitely want ANWR opened. Both candidates may support it, but if Democrats win back the Senate it will never come up for a vote. Republicans will continue to push for it. So do they vote for tehy candidate they prefer (Knowles) or for the candidate that improves their chances of getting what they want?

Time will tell.

believe that segregation was a good thing, and slavery was a boon to whites and blacks alike. Does that mean that we as a national party should support Dems who go along with these ideas as well?

My understanding is ANWR is federally owned land, we all own this as part of our national heritage, and Congress is the proper place to settle these isues, and the majority in Congress have spoken to this issue a number of times.

Trying to analyze why people vote the way they do is part science, part guesswork. Our party often seems to "stand" for very few things. DO we risk giving up what is left of our party "principles" to gain support in Alaska, at the trisk of losing environmentally concerned voters in New York or California or Wisconsin?

Only that we pay attention to our own (and make gestures toward the "mushy middle").

As for ANWR. I think there is a difference between the federal ownership of the land and the collective state ownership of mineral rights throughout the state. Most people don't know that hardly ANYONE owns the mineral rights to even their own property in Alaska. The state collectively owns about everything for the benefit of all (of course, millions of acres have been resold to other owners for development and some is held by native Alaskan tribes).


I'm just saying that even if he is more popular and holds the same position. Alaskans may still make a political decision to elect someone who will keep Republicans in power so that their chances of opening ANWR are increased. Knowles would support ANWR, BUT he would vote for Daschle for Majority Leader and Daschle would never allow it to come to a vote.

voter behavior. It is often way beyond anything we, as party activists, candidates, as well as the media, can really get a handle on.

I'm just concerned that when discussions of issues like gay rights, gun control, and ANWR and the environment in general come up, all too often we see coments on DU about throwing off principles simply and solely to win elections, such as last week's thread about rare toads costing construction jobs because "liberal Democrats value the toads more than workers."

I can understand that an issue might not be valid any longer, or that it could be rethought -- for many reasons --but that too much fexibility on issues is a bad thing for the base, and for those who are perhaps looking for a reason to vote Democratic for the first time and see something that is inconsistant and done for clearly electoral reasons.

if we can win Illinois, Alaska, and Pennsylvania (our three best possibilities) and if Sen. Graham runs for re-election in Florida I think we have a real chance of winning back the senate next year.

nt

Right now I'd be happy with a "status quo".

Better yet - pick up just one seat (maybe have a switch) and win the White House.

NC, SC, and GA are going to be hard.

I remember speculation that he was retiring (and I read today that "John Breaux of Louisiana hasn’t decided whether to seek re-election, although lately he has sounded like someone leaning toward retirement." in TheState), but I haven't heard anything.

If Jindal wins next week I doubt LA will be easy sans Breaux. If he runs again he should be an easy re-elect.

I don't think Jindal is going to win. Also I think that Chris John would be a good candidate.

Although I took a different stance on this before, I think Erskine Bowles (D) has a good chance in NC. Although it's a Republican state, he's got a good chance (he may be the favorite right now, I'm not sure). And I'm pretty sure he'll be a decent fundraiser, since he was before.

Don't forget we have a tough race in Ga (where Miller is gone) and South Carolina will likely send a Repuke in after Hollings' service.

So we lose 2 right there. I believe we do get Illinois and will save FLA if Bob G comes back, but winning BOTH PA and Alaska will be brutal.

My hope is Spector is taken out in the primary by his right-wing challenger. I don't believe we can beat Spector unless its with someone with major ass.

Just keeping the tally equal in this cycle is my goal. Get rid of Bush, stave off the right and work on 2004 and making runs.

lost. There is NO doubt if miller stayed he would vote for frist as majority leader, a "real" repuke here will make little difference. We will probably lose one of the Carolinas and will have to wait and see what Graham and Breaux decide, hopefully they will stay. Illinois looks like a pickup barring any vote rigging Alaska and PA are strong possibilities. Many other states could be winnable if only a good candidate would run. Missouri could be won if Gephardt would hang up his Presidential run and go against bond. Oklahoma is NOT out of reach as well as Colorado if someone winnable ran. Have I forgotten any?

Unless Cleland, Marshall or Thurmond decide to run (which doesn't seem likely at the moment), this will probably go the Republicans.

However, I think that taking both Carolinas isn't out of the question. Though Tenenbaum will be in for the race of her life, she could beat what is a seemingly weak lineup in DeMint or Condon. If Gov. Beasley decides to run, he'll still have to make it through DeMint and Condon, so he'll be bloodied up by the primary. Additionally, I think that Bowles was just hitting the stride of his campaign in Nov. 2002 and if he'd had another month, he probably would've been victorious.

You're right, however, that Specter will be difficult to beat and we'd much rather take on Toomey, but Specter isn't invincible by any stretch and a bloody primary will hurt him (for those who sight Rendell's tough primary as evidence to the contrary, keep in mind that Rendell wasn't an incumbent, Specter is). Additionally, history is with the Democrats. No senator has ever been elected to four terms in Pennsylvania.

I think that at the moment, in Missouri, Bond is leading. However, once the campaigns start, Nancy Farmer should begin picking up steam. Missouri ALWAYS has close statewid elections, and turnout will be high with a gubernatorial and presidential race out there. Right now I see Missouri as a real opportunity for Democrats, but it will be a tough fight.

:kick: