I think that one of the best ways to appraise the Stevens-Begich Senate race and the Berkowitz-Young or Parnell House race is to look at
Examining
Nevertheless, our mission is not a lost cause. In recent history, there have been a small handful of elections for the big five seats -- Governor, Lieutenant Gov, U.S. Senate (x2) and U.S. Rep., which have been relatively close: the 1990 and 1992 U.S. House races between Don Young and John Devens, the 1994 governor's race, the 2004 U.S. Senate race, and the last one, the 2006 governor's race, which was not that close in the end, but in Alaska's terms, it was somewhat close, as Democrats are nearly always crushed in these races. In this post, I am going to look most closely at the 2004 and 2006 races, and break down their results. I picked these races because they were relatively close, they are the most recent races so they say the most for where the state is now, and perhaps most important, their results are available on the web. (Though, I just want to say that because results are posted by district in 40 separate PDF files, it took me several hours to go through all of the districts and then manually tabulate the totals and percentages; can the Alaska Department of Elections make their records a bit easier to use please?) In all seriousness, I think that these two races provide strong lessons for both Mark Begich and Ethan Berkowitz as they go about trying to unseat the two longtime incumbents Stevens and Young. Because the results from the 1990 and 1992 races are not available anywhere that I could access over the web, I unfortunately cannot break them down, but I will write a bit of general commentary on them below. Finally, while the state results for the 1994 governor's race are available, because the State House lines were drawn differently in 1994 than they were in the 2000s (the lines get redrawn every 10 years), it is difficult to precisely compare the 1994 race to the 2004 and 2006 races. Furthermore, the 1994 results were a bit of an anomaly as the race was heavily impacted by a particularly strong third party candidate, and had the sitting Lt. Gov. not run as an independent, Tony Knowles would almost certainly have not pulled off his 42.3-to-42 win.
Anyway, let's first start by looking at the races themselves before we really break down the districts and voting data.
The 2004
In January of 2003, Frank Murkowski took the office to become governor of
It is probable that Murkowski did not count on the large backlash that materialized soon thereafter. He may have figured that given both his own popularity and the strong Republican bent in the state, that he would be able to tap his daughter for the seat without causing any problem at all. These likely assumptions proved to be a tremendous error that would ultimately cost Murkowski his own seat and stain his longtime good reputation in the state.
Lisa Murkowski came into office not terribly unpopular, but still engendering a great deal of resentment among the voters. As a result, she faced great challenges as
Knowles was relatively popular. Originally from
Many political observers both in Alaska and nationally believed that Murkowski's considerable problems would cost her what had been a safe Republican seat for nearly a generation (Sen, Mike Gravel had held the seat for two term before being defeated in 1980 by Frank Murkowski). In her primary, even though a particularly strong opponent did not end up emerging, she had problems with Mike Miller, a conservative former state legislator who ran to the right of Murkowski. Lisa prevailed, but by only 58-37, hardly a great showing for an incumbent (albeit a 1.5 year incumbent) with more money and near-universal name recognition in the state.
The general was viewed as a toss-up race, and one of the Democrats' best pick-up opportunities in what was shaping up to be a tough year for the Dems in congressional races (they faced the retirements of John Breaux in Louisiana, Zell Miller in Georgia, Fritz Hollings in South Carolina, John Edwards in North Carolina, and Bob Graham in Florida, as well as a brutally tough race for then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle; ultimately, Democrats would lose every single one of these seats, while adding just one: the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell in Colorado). Throughout the spring, summer, and even the fall of 2004, polls showed Knowles ahead, but always narrowly. His largest lead was probably around six or seven points, and by the time October rolled around, polls showed an even tighter contest with Knowles clinging to a three-point-or-so lead over Murkowski. Tellingly, Murkowski never polled above the mid-40s, a terrible sign for an incumbent with universal name recognition. Murkowski's campaigns signs read "LISA" in bold letters, and with tiny or no mention whatsoever of her last name. This was a fascinating fact in a state that had elected her father statewide by overwhelming margins time and again.
The result was a close one, but a victory for Murkowski, by a 49-46 margin. Knowles dominated in the Alaska Bush, and did very well in much of the Panhandle, but his numbers in these areas could not counterbalance Murkowski's wins in and around
Rather than go through what was an interesting general election campaign, it is much more valuable to talk about the reasons for Murkowski's win in 2004. So what happened? Knowles had been well-liked (particularly for an Alaska Democrat), he had terrific name recognition throughout the state from his three statewide runs for governor and two terms in Juneau, and he had been well funded and possessed the moderate views needed to win statewide as a Democrat. Every key factor seemed to be in Knowles favor, and yet he just could not close the deal in the end.
As I have said many times on this blog, there is never one single reason why an election turns out the way that it does; there are a host of reasons. This race is no different. Still, I think we can boil down this result to a couple of factors which can been well-applied to the races this November.
First, the fact that the presidential race was also on the ballot destroyed Knowles. John Kerry, untalented politician that he was, turned out to be poison not just in the national race, but to down-ballot Democrats in redder states across the country. It is hard to blame Kerry for not investing resources in Alaska -- a state which, as I noted in the first post, has not only not supported a Democrat for President since 1964, but is dominated by GOP presidential nominees -- but no one can deny the drubbing he got in the state. He lost to Bush 61-36, a 25-point loss. The likely impact of this top-of-the-ballot blowout was anything but beneficial to Knowles, as is clear if one looks at the exit polls from Alaska. A whooping 41 percent of the voters who went to the polls that strongly approved of the job President Bush was doing at that time. Murkowski won those voters 84-12. Another 21 percent of the voters in the election somewhat approved of President Bush's job, and Murkowski won that group by 63-25. So, of the nearly two-thirds of the voters, Murkowski dominated, in no small part riding on President Bush's coattails. Furthermore, of the Bush voters, Murkowski got 77 percent to Knowles 16. So, while we cannot and should not say that Bush was sole the reason Knowles lost, he played a significant role. His coattails certainly gave a big boast to Murkowski. Had the presidential race been closer, maybe if Kerry had lost by a more respectable 56-42, Knowles might have been able to close the three-point gap at the end. This is tough to prove conclusively, but the impact of a closer presidential contest would have been helpful in a close Senate contest.
Second, by the time the election came around, enough voters had already decided they were going to go with Lisa no matter what, and were not going to cross party lines to vote for the Democrat Knowles. The exit polls provide a fascinating group of numbers in addressing this issue. Twelve percent of voters decided who to vote for within the last week of the campaign, and Knowles won that group 51-35. However, of the 88 percent who decided before the last week, Murkowski won 53-41. Going further, Knowles won the five percent of voters who decided how to vote on election by 56-31, and even the nine percent of voters who said they decided who to vote for over the last month of the campaign, 54-34. But of the 79 percent who decided before that, Knowles lost 40-56. Even more fun evidence: of the 61 percent of voters who disapproved of the job Gov. Murkowski was doing, Knowles won 59-33 -- a 26-point advantage. But of the remaining 34 percent who approved of Frank Murkowski, his daughter won by an even bigger 86-11. These voters here represent the die-hards who had decided on Day One to go with Lisa and stick regardless of any other factor. Knowles would not have been able to win unless he could have squeezed even more support out of the anti-Frank Murkowski voters; his 26 percent win among them was shockingly not enough to seal victory.
Knowles did exactly what any candidate in a close race hopes to do: he won the late deciders, and he won them decisively. Heck, he won by 20 percentages points those voters who had decided whom to vote for over the entire last month. Unfortunately, those pools were small, as over three-fourths of the voters had decided even before then, and they supported the Republican by 16 points. These individuals make up the base of Alaska's electorate: conservative voters who went with with a fairly unpopular Republican over a very strong Democratic nominee. Many of them obviously could not bear to vote for a Democrat, even with a mediocre Republican choice.
When everything was stripped away, the race was not about Knowles, or really anyone else for that matter, even Lisa Murkowski. It was about the state's base voter not wanting to cross party lines. That, coupled with the blow-out presidential race at the top of the ticket gave Murkowski just the margin she needed to win. We will look more closely at the individual (geographic) results for this race below.
The 2006 Governor's race. I would also like to spend a little time re-capping the 2006 race for governor between Sarah Palin, and again Tony Knowles who attempted to make a political comeback by winning a third term in Juneau.
Palin had been a city councilor and then mayor of Wasilla, a small city about 40 miles north of Anchorage. Wasilla has been one of the fastest-growing communities in the state, and while Palin was mayor the economy grew greatly. As a result of being mayor at the time of this boom, Palin reaped strong popularity for her work, and became a hot political name in Alaska Republican circles, and when Frank Murkowski was elected governor, Palin took an appointment to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. However, her tenure on the body was short. She complained vociferously about corruption on the Commission, particularly about the activities by the Alaska State GOP Chairman who also sat on the body, and spearheaded an ethics investigation into her fellow Republican and board member. Eventually, she became disgusted with the lack of movement and change, and she resigned. Her complaints were later vindicated when the GOP chair was found to have committed several severe ethics problems. Palin's work irritated many Republicans, but it helped her earn her reputation as an ethics hawk unafraid to take on her party or powerful figures, even those in the GOP.
After contemplating a primary challenge to Lisa Murkowski, Palin decided against this route and waited. By the time 2005 rolled around, Gov. Murkowski's approval ratings continued to drop from his appointment to the Senate of his daughter, as well as his unpopular purchase of a state jet for his use. Palin shrewdly saw the governor's weaknesses, and announced a primary challenge near the end of the year. Despite Palin's lack of great experience, her outsider approach and, quite honestly, fresh and even attractive face made her a strong alternative to the toxic Murkowski, and in a three-candidate primary field, she won an impressive 51 percent over the sitting governor. Murkowski finished last with a shocking (though not entirely unexpected) 19 percent.
In the general election, Palin faced Knowles, who had lost that close race to Lisa Murkowski in 2004. Knowles had entered the race late, probably on the belief that he would be able to defeat the senior Murkowski. While polls indeed showed Knowles easily dispatching the governor, Knowles had not shown strong political instincts, as he underestimated the electorate's desire for change and something different, even at the primary stage. This outlook in the populace not only helped propel Palin over Murkowski in the primary, but it would also give Palin the momentum she needed to win the general election. Polls through most of the general showed Palin with a mid-to-high-single digit but nonetheless comfortable lead. Even though some polls showed a virtual tie in the days leading up to the election, the result was fairly, albeit not terribly close: Palin won 48-41 over the former governor, with a former Republican state legislator running as an independent taking close to ten percent.
Needless to say that Palin expanded on Murkowski's successes throughout most of the state. Whether Palin's numbers or Murkowski's numbers will be what Democrats see this November is up in the air. There are certainly arguments that cut both ways. On the one hand, Murkowski's win was much tighter than Palin's, even though they faced the same opponent and Lisa ran in a favorable presidential year environment, but on the other hand, Palin was able to win big in what was a strong Democratic year nationally (and one where Democrats made some modest gains in the state legislature). I think these end results could both occur: Stevens, still hurting from his problems, could end up in a very close race, and if Young is ousted in his primary, the House race might resemble the governor's race with the unpopular incumbent gone, and a newer fresh face in his place. These are themes I will look at more in the final part of this series. We will go over the race's region-by-region results below.
The Young-Devens battles. I just wanted to add a quick word on the 1990 and 1992 House races. I am not going to put a great deal of time here simply because I do not have a great deal of information or knowledge of the races, and in the end, Devens' strong insurgent campaigns are not terribly instructive here; at least not as important as the 2004 and 2006 for our purposes of properly analyzing this November's races.
But anyway, as I noted above, and in early posts, Don Young faced two of the closest contests of his career in 1990 and 1992 when he was challenged by John Devens, then the mayor of Valdez, and the figure most responsible for the local response effort after the infamous Exxon-Valdez oil spill. In 1990, Devens decided to run after Young made dismissive comments about the environmental impact of the tragic spill. Predictably, Young heavily outspent Devens (by 7-to-2), who got zero support from the national party as the race not expected to be close. Even though many polls showed Young behind during the campaign, it ended up being a 52-48 finish, Young's closest race since his 1973 special election. Devens sought an immediate rematch, and again ran a largely grass-roots campaign. The issue of Young's temperament took on greater importance, and Young actually broadcast a commercial apologizing for some of his past, outlandish conduct in Congress, but at the same time touting his seniority and his opponent's perceived liberalism. Again the race was close, but with four candidates in the race instead of just two (as it had been in 1990) Young prevailed 47-43.
These races demonstrated Young's fleeting vulnerability at times during his 35-year tenure in Congress. That he had to cut an ad to explain his bad behavior back then says a lot. Perhaps things have not changed much over the years; certainly Young hasn't. His demeanor has been an issue before, and given his accompanying ethics problems this year, they may combine to knock him out of office.
Implications and lessons for this year's races. The similarities between these races and the two races this years are striking. The Republican candidates are two longtime, well-known and well-liked incumbents who have been plagued by ethical problems which have hurt their standing in the state for the first time ever (and in Don Young's case, the first time in years). While Lisa Murkowski was not plagued by ethical problems, she was badly hurt by nepotism charges, and it was her father the governor who had been badly hurt politically by the appointment after being electorally untouchable for over 20 years. Murkowski faced a strong opponent in Knowles who had moderate views and was well-known himself throughout the state.
The Stevens-Begich race presents a shockingly similar dynamic. Sen. Stevens is a longtime popular, even legendary incumbent who has been hit hard by recent ethics problems. He too is facing a general election opponent with moderate views, and who is known throughout the state (in lieu of his being mayor of Anchorage and his last name). He is also not facing very strong primary challenges, though he does have some opponents. He will obviously win the primary, but it will be very telling how many votes his opponents end up with. If Stevens is held below 60 percent, and is mired in somewhere in the low 50s, it may demonstrate strong vulnerability. Stevens' favorability is also going to be a key thing to focus on. Enough voters are going to have to be convinced to jettison the longtime Senator in order for Begich to have an opening.
The 2006 race should also provide general lessons for Ethan Berkowitz and the Democrats. Right now, and probably for some time, Berkowitz looks like a very strong match-up against Don Young. Like Tony Knowles, Berkowitz is coming off a loss in 2006 (Berkowitz was in fact, Knowles' running mate on the Democratic ticket), but unlike Knowles, he jumped into the House race very early. So, while he knew about Young's troubles, they were not as developed or obviously as impactful as Murkowski's were by the time Knowles jumped in to the 2006 governor's race (though over time, given Young's current approval ratings the impact on Young of his problems has arguably hurt his standing more than the Senate appointment hurt Lisa's standing, as opposed to her father). Bertkowitz might not have been able to anticipate Sean Parnell's primary challenge to Young either; that one was a big shock when it happened. Nevertheless, Berkowitz may see a frustrating repeat of 2006, with the unpopular incumbent Young (like Murkowski) being ousted in a primary before the Democrats get a crack at him. The result being that the general election nominee is not scarred, but rather a fresher face with less problems. While there is no guarantee that Young will lose in the August primary -- in fact, the only couple of polls of the primary have shown it close -- there is a good chance it will happen. If it does, we might see a near perfect-repeat of the 2006 GOP gubernatorial primary's dynamics. This would be bad news for the Democrats.
Alaska's districts. I want to provide a primer of sorts delineating each of the state's 40 House districts and how they voted in 2004 and 2006. This information should give some context to the races and how they broke the way they did. I am going to lift the information directly from Alaska's state elections web page. Because many of these districts are huge, I am not going to list every city, town, or village in each, but I will try to name a few and draw a distinct picture of each so that you can get a better idea of what every district looks like in order to figure out how and why it votes the way that it does. Also, I am going to link to a PDF map (careful: stupid PDF may freeze your computer) of each district, in case you want to see the lines of the district for yourself.
To give an idea of how high voter turnout is in each district, I will give the total number of voters in the district who cast votes in the 2004 U.S. Senate race and the 2006 governor's race. The turnout numbers will have a ranking in parenthesis, representing how the district ranked among the 40 for that particular race. So, for example, the #24 means that that particularly district was the 24th highest voting district in the state for tat specific race. It is important to note, however, that the range between the districts in terms of turnout can be very small, sometimes a couple dozen or a mere handful of votes; this reflects the state's small population and thus smaller overall turnouts in many of the districts (as opposed to other larger states). Therefore, do not take the ranking numbers as a be-all, end-all indicator for interpreting turnout in the districts.
District One. This district lies near the southern most point of Alaska, in the south of the Panhandle which hugs British Columbia. In the west, it starts at Coffman Cove in the north to Prince of Wales Island and the south, extending through Ketchikan Island east, going south to include all of Gravina Island. Its main population center is Ketchikan, a large fishing town, which has a population of about 8,000, and also includes Saxman and Kasaan, and an assortment of tiny towns and villages. This district leans to the right. It is represented by a Republican State Senator and a GOP State Rep. Palin beat Knowles here 50-37, and Murkowski beat Knowles here 53-43. Turnout. 4,956 in 2006 (#29), and 9,721 in 2004 (#35). Turnout in the district is fairly low in comparison to the rest of the districts.
District Two. This district is centered around the huge island of Sitka (population 8,900), as well as Wrangell (2,000), Petersburg (2,900), and a number of surrounding islands including Kuiu and Zarembo. The district leans towards the Democrats, although it has a GOP State Rep. Knowles beat Palin here by 52-36, and defeated Murkowski by a closer 53-42. Turnout. 5,760 in 2006 (#20), and 10,775 in 2004 (#29). Turnout is thus average to lower here.
District Three. The third district includes a portion of the city and borough of Juneau (population 30,700), the capital of the state. It also includes the town of Douglas, which is just next to West Juneau. Juneau is arguably the most Democratic part of the state. It has a Democratic State Senator and State Rep. Knowles carried the district 66-31 in 2004, and bettered his margin in 2006, besting Palin 71-18 here. Turnout. 7,222 in 2006 (#10) , and 11,143 in 2004 (#24). Turnout in the district varies, as these numbers demonstrate. Turnout was relatively high in 2006, but surprisingly low in the presidential year of 2004. Juneau is arguably the keystone center for any winning Democratic statewide strategy.
District Four. The district includes the rest of Juneau not in the third district, most of it in the northern part of the area. It also includes the Mendenhall Valley. The district leans fairly heavily towards Democrats, but not as much as the Third District. It has a Democratic State Rep. Knowles won here 61-27 in 2006, and 56-40 against Murkowski in '04. Turnout. 6,789 in 2006 (#14), and 10,379 in 2004 (#31). Turnout in the district is pretty low for a part of Alaska's third biggest city.
District Five. This is a big district. The Fifth District includes Cordova (2,300 people) and Chenga in its western part, running along and including Yakutat, and it extends all the way along the Panhandle including Angoon, Hobart Bay, Hoonah, and Kake, to Hyder, Metlakatla, and Hydaburg, encompassing all of remaining areas not in the Districts 1-4. Despite having a huge cross-section of tiny villages and islands, it leans fairly strongly to the Democratic side. It has a Democratic State Senator, but a GOP Rep. The district supported Tony Knowles over Sarah Palin by 51-39, and Knowles over Murkowski by a slightly better 54-40. Turnout. 5,546 in 2006 (#21), and 10,012 in 2004 (#34). Like much of the rest of the Panhandle, turnout in District Five is pretty low, but it is not awful here.
District Six. The district includes a host of towns known collectively as the Interior Villages. It is massive: physically, probably the largest of the State House districts. It extends from borders touching the Kenai Peninsula Borough and the near Bethel, up to Northwest Arctic Borough and the North Slope Borough, all the way to the Alaska-Canadian border in the east. Politically, the district is fairly centrist. It has a Democratic State Senator (who is from Angoon, far, far away from most of the district), and a Democratic State Rep. Knowles and Palin tied here 46-46, and Knowles narrowly carried the district 49-46 in 2004. Turnout. 5,355 in 2006 (#24), and 10,020 in 2004 (#33). Turnout here is, probably predictably, low. Given the rural nature of much of this district -- which is probably better than some states -- it is not surprising that turnout here would be low, and reaching out to many of the district's voters difficult. This is a place Begich and Berkowitz should focus on, but because it is so vast, it would hard to effectively campaign here for votes.
District Seven. The Seventh District is made up of a large part of the Fairbanks North Star Borough, just north of Fairbanks city and North Pole. The Streese Highway goes through a large part of the district. The district leans to the Republican side, but not overwhelmingly. It has a Dem State Senator, but a GOP Rep, both from Fairbanks. Palin beat Knowles here decisively, 51-35, and Knowles lost here in 2004 by a closer 50-45. Turnout. 8,261 in 2006 (#2), and 12,970 in 2004 (#13). If the last two major elections are any indication, turnout in this area north of Fairbanks is high, but it was low in 2004 (in comparison to some other, higher-turnout districts) -- a year where there was a presidential contest and a close Senate race. Despite its closeness to GOP-leaning Fairbanks, this is another area Democrats can conceivably improve their numbers in.
District Eight. House District Eight, known as the Denali District, lies just northwest of Fairbanks city, and west of the Seventh District. It includes the Fairbanks International Airport and the University of Alaska's main campus, and a large portion of the area just west of the city. The district has a Democratic State Rep. from Fairbanks, and leans slightly to the Democrats. Knowles won both times here, 46-42 against Palin, and 51-43 against Murkowski. Turnout. 7,811 in 2006 (#6) , and 12,684 in 2004 (#16). Based on the last two election cycles, turnout is good. As can be seen, it was relatively high in 2006, but lower in 2004. I am going to guess that being near the city and encompassing the university, it will be high this November, and will be won by several points by Obama, Begich, and Berkowitz.
District Nine. The district includes a large piece of the City of Fairbanks, encompassing the western part of the city up to Fort Wainwright Military Base in the east. The district has a longtime GOP State Senator, and a new Democrat State Rep., but leans more to the Republican side. Palin beat Knowles 50-40 here in 2006, and Murkowski edged the Democrat 49-47 in 2004. Turnout. 5,155 in 2006 (#27) , and 10,814 in 2004 (#28). Fairbanks city generally has low turnout, as these results evidence. Despite being Alaska's second largest city, these turnout numbers are (surprisingly, at least to me) pretty poor.
District Ten. This district includes the other (eastern) part of the City of Fairbanks not in District Nine. It also includes the large Fort Wainwright Military Reservation. The district has a GOP State Rep, and it leans fairly sharply to the right. Palin won here 55-35, and Murkowski won by a solid 51-44. Turnout. 3,271 in 2006 (#39) , and 10,041 in 2004 (#32) . Like its counterpart District Nine, turnout in this district is also generally low, even worse than in the other half of the City of Fairbanks.
District Eleven. The district includes the town of North Pole (population 1,800), and is centered around it. The district and North Pole are strongly Republican. It is represented by Republicans in the State Senate and House. Both Palin and Murkowski romped to victory here in their overall victories, winning 64-25 and 60-34, respectively. Turnout. 5,534 in 2006 (#22), and 12,316 in 2004 (#20). Turnout is pretty average here, but not awful. It is clearly not a place Democrats have done well in.
District Twelve. This is another huge district is ranges from southern part of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough just east of the Anchorage Municipality including the City of Valdez, all the way up to the Fairbanks North Star Borough. It includes Delta Junction, Fort Greely, Eilson Air Force Base and of those towns within the boundaries. The district is heavily Republican. It has a GOP State Rep from Valdez (the House Speaker). Palin won here 67-24, ditto Murkowski 57-37. Turnout. 5,089 in 2006 (#28), and 11,469 in 2004 (#23). Turnout is nonetheless mediocre here.
District Thirteen. This district includes much of Palmer (7,000 people), a city 40 miles northeast of Anchorage, and the surrounding areas west and northwest from there. It is one of the more fast-growing areas of the state. The district is heavily Republican, with a GOP Rep and Senator. Knowles lost here 67-25 to Palin, and 55-39 to Murkowski. Turnout. 8,082 in 2006 (#3), and 15,448 in 2004 (#7). This district has one of the highest turnout rates in the state, and it looks to only grow as the area gets bigger and more people move in. This is good news for the GOP, and more bad news for Democrats running statewide.
District Fourteen. The district encompasses the greater Wasilla area just west of Palmer. This is another fast-growing community suburb of Anchorage. Like Palmer, Wasilla is strongly Republican. Gov. Palin's hometown, she carried it 72-20, and Sen. Murkowski won it 56-37. Turnout. 7,335 in 2006 (#8), and 14,992 (#3). This is one of the highest turnout district in the state, though somewhat puzzlingly, turnout was down in 2006 (as opposed to 2004), when Wasilla's favorite daughter and former mayor Palin was on the ballot. Still, this looks to be a GOP stronghold in November, though probably not at the same margins as Palin held in her race versus Knowles.
District Fifteen. The district includes a large part of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough just northwest of Anchorage, Wasilla, and Palmer, and includes Houston, Willow, Chase, Susitna, Petersville, Skwentna, and Talkeetna. Another Republican stronghold, it supported Palin 70-21, and Murkowski 53-39. Like the 14th, it has an all GOP-state legislative delegation. Turnout. 7,571 in 2006 (#7), and 14,822 in 2004 (#6). The district is one of the very highest in terms of turnout. Both Begich and Berkowitz need to find a way to make inroads here.
District Sixteen. The district is pretty large, starting south of Wasilla, moving across past Palmer, and taking up a large chunk of land down to east of Anchorage Municipality. The district might be the most Republican in the state. It supported Palin 65-25, and it gave Murkowski won of her very best showings in the state, 56-38. Turnout. 8,028 in 2006 (#4), and 15,282 in 2004 (#2). This is probably also one of the highest turnout districts in Alaska.
District Seventeen. The district lies west of the City of Anchorage and Fort Richardson, encompassing most of Eagle River (23,000 people). The Seventeenth District runs to the GOP. It has a Republican state sen and rep. It went with Palin 61-29, and Murkowski 56-39. Turnout. 6,794 in 2006 (#13), and 14,919 in 2004 (#4). Another suburb of Anchorage with tremendous turnout rates.
District Eighteen. District 18 includes the large slice of land from north of the City of Anchorage up the coast along the Knik Arm to and past Eagle River, and encompassing Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson. GOP bastion: backed Palin and Murkowski 62-30 and 54-40. Turnout. 2,640 in 2006 (#40), and 12,248 in 2004 (#22).
District Nineteen. The district covers west of Fort Richardson coming close to Anchorage city. Like the surrounding areas, it leans Republican, but not nearly as heavily. Palin won the district 50-40, but the district vote in 2004 was about tied, just favoring Murkowski 48-47. It also has a GOP State Rep, but a Dem Senator. Turnout. 5,252 in 2006 (#25), and 12,883 in 2004 (#14). Turnout is about average in this closely-divided district.
District Twenty. This district lies south of Elmendorf AFB, and is made up of the northern part of the City of Anchorage. Electorally, it leans slightly to the Democratic side. Tony Knowles won the district both times, albeit by narrow margins: 47-44 in 2006, and 50-45 in 2004. Dem. State Rep. Turnout. 3,363 in 2006 (#38), and 10,915 in 2004 (#26). Turnout is this district is pretty mediocre, somewhat mirroring the poor turnout the City of Fairbanks. Democrats need to find a way to jack up their strength here, as it would be to their advantage. The fact that the district held for Knowles in the face of a near-statewide Palin onslaught is salient.
District Twenty-one. The district makes up the southeastern part of Anchorage City, with Fort Richardson beginning at the end of its eastern boundary. This is one of the state's toss-up districts: it narrowly went for Palin, 47-44, and backed Murkowski in 2004 by 49-47. Dem State Rep. and Sen. Turnout. 6,463 in 2006 (#17), and 14,092 in 2004 (#10). The district has pretty high turnout. This part of Anchorage will be one of the battlegrounds in the state's elections the November.
District Twenty-two. The district is just west of the 21st, and includes the center of Anchorage, including the University of Alaska-Anchorage campus. Represented by two Dems in Juneau, Knowles won it both times fairly convincingly: 51-38 and 52-43. Turnout. 4,644 in 2006 (#33), and 12,460 in 2004 (#18). Turnout in the district is fairly moderate, much like the immediately above districts.
District Twenty-three. The district is made up of the northwestern chunk of Anchorage. Knowles won two big victories here as he beat Palin 58-30 in 2006, and 54-41 over Murkowski two years earlier. It also another area with all Dem representation in the legislature. Turnout. 5,214 in 2006 (#26), and 12,524 in 2004 (#17). A decent turnout district, but not spectacular.
District Twenty-four. The district makes up the central part of the City of Anchorage. Interestingly, it is basically a toss-up district, with Knowles carrying it 45-43 and 48-47 against Palin and Murkowski. Turnout. 5,408 in 2006 (#23), and 12,807 in 2004 (#15). Turnout in this part of the city is pretty decent, and better than other parts of the city.
District Twenty-five. The district is made up of central and southern parts of Anchorage. It is fairly strongly Democratic: Knowles carried it 50-39 and 51-44, and it has a Dem sen and rep. Turnout. 4,656 in 2006 (#32), and 12,339 in 2004 (#19).
District Twenty-six. This district is made up of most of northwest and western Anchorage, including the Ted Stevens Airport. It is fairly reliably Democratic (52-36 in 2006 and 52-45 in 2004). Furthermore, turnout is also fairly strong, as 6,873 voted in 2006 (#12), and 14,223 (#8), making it one of the best turnout districts in the state. Begich must be looking hard as a place to squeeze as many Democratic voters as possible.
District Twenty-seven. This district is the western-most part of Anchorage. Unlike the rest of the city, it is Republican-leaning. Palin carried the district 49-38, and Murkowski did the same, albeit by a 50-45 split. Though, it did just elect a new Democratic state rep to go along with its GOP state sen. Turnout here was 6,355 in 2006 (#18), and 13,651 (#12) -- making it a fairly high turnout district.
District Twenty-eight. The district is the southeastern part of the city, buttressing the Cook Inlet. Like the 27th, it is GOP-leaning, and probably a bit more so: 49-33 and 53-43 splits for the GOP. It also has a Republican rep. 7,235 voted in 2006 (#9), and 14,218 in 2004 (#9), making it one of the highest turnout districts in the Last Frontier.
District Twenty-nine. The district takes up a chunk of southern Anchorage. Palin and Murkowski both carried it closely to what their statewide numbers were: 50-39 and 49-46. The district sports GOP representation in the House and Senate (though he was recently indicted in the VECO Federal corruption probe). Turnout ranges from poor to mediocre: 4,847 voted in 2006 (#30), and 12,270 in 2004 (#21).
District Thirty. Also in Anchorage. Palin and Murkowski sported margins here very close to their statewide votes. Palin won 49-40, with turnout at 6,714 (#16), and Murkowski took the district 50-45, with turnout at 13,927 (#11).
District Thirty-one. This is the last district including the City of Anchorage, this one leaning more sharply to the right. With an all state legislature GOP delegation, Palin won 52-36 with 7,901 voting (#5), and with Murkowski taking the district 54-43 with 14,903 (#5) going to the polls. This is a a very high-turnout district that leans right.
District Thirty-two. This is the region southwest of the city and Fort Richardson covering Chugach State Park. This is a toss-up district that slightly leans to the GOP and is unquestionably the highest turnout district in Alaska. Palin won 45-42, with 9,305 going to the polls (#1), and Murkowski bested Knowles here 50-46 with 16,429 (#1) casting ballots in the election. This will be hotly-contested by both sides in November.
District Thirty-three. This district is Soldotna (population 4,000) and Kenai (7,500), and is strongly Republican. Palin won here 62-26, and Murkowski, 54-39. Turnout here is ok, with 6,306 voting in 2006 (#19), and 10,503 in 2004 (#30).
District Thirty-four. The district takes up a big piece of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, being made up of mostly rural Kenai. Like the next-door 33rd, the district is strongly Republican, perhaps overwhelmingly so. It favored Palin 69-20 (turnout 6,757 #15), and Murkowski 57-34 (turnout 10,911 #27).
District Thirty-five. The district is expansive, and wraps along both ends of the Cook Inlet, including Seward (population 3,000) and Homer (5,400), as well as Bear Creek, Halibut Cove, and down to Nanwalek. While Palin edged out Knowles here by 45-43 (turnout 6,936 #11), Knowles beat Murkowski convincingly here 52-41 (11,138 #25). This should be a key area for Democrats this November, and it will be interesting to see if Palin's victory was an anomaly or sign of the district moving towards the GOP.
District Thirty-six. The district is centered around the Lake and Peninsula Borough and the Kodiak Island Borough, and it tilts to the Republican Party. It supported Palin by a big 52-35 margin, but it went with Murkowski by only 48-46. Turnout here is pretty poor: 4,689 voted in 2006 (#31), and 8,789 in 2004 (#36).
District Thirty-seven. This district is fairly expansive, covering from Bristol Bay in the east through the Aleutian Island chain. It is pretty strongly Democratic: Knowles won 52-39 over Palin (4,044--#35) and 51-44 over Murkowski (turnout 4,725 voted-#39), demonstrating the district's low general turnout compared to the rest of the state. This is not a surprise given the district's rural nature.
District Thirty-eight. The district is centered around Bethel (population 6,500). It is probably the most Democratic leaning district in Alaska: Knowles carried in 80-14 over Palin and 73-23 over Murkowski. That being said, it has perhaps the worst turnout in Alaska, with just 3,928 coming out in 2006 (#36) 4,618 in 2004 (#40).
District Thirty-nine. This district covers the Bering Straights, and includes most notably Nome. It is also a Democratic district with bad turnout: Knowles won 72-19 (turnout 4,382-#34) and 66-29 (5,100-#38).
District Forty. Finally, this is the northern-most part of the northern-most state, including the North Slope Borough all the way to Barrow at the top. The Bush is also strongly Democratic, as it favored Knowles 72-21 and 66-30. Unfortunately for Democrats, turnout in the district is extremely low, with just 3,897 voting in 2006 (#37) and 5,323 voting in 2004 (#37). There simply are not a lot of people living up here.
Evaluating these past results and applying them to the November races. The snapshots of Alaska's 40 State House Districts and how they voted in the 2006 governor's race and the 2004 Senate race provide a wealth of information to help us analyze the races for House and Senate this fall. While they only provide a small picture of the state's politics, they are probably the best we have, as they are both (1) recent results; and (2) and fairly close, thereby demonstrating some of things a Democrat can and should focus on in order to have a chance at winning statewide in the Last Frontier. Let's cover the obvious, general conclusions before we get to some more specific, nitty-gritty stuff.
It is pretty clear that there are certain areas where Democrats run strong in, and others where the Republican candidate has a clear edge. As demonstrated by Knowles' showings, the Panhandle is fertile territory for Democrats. Juneau is not just Alaska's capital, but it is the state capital for Democratic strength. In the two districts which encompass the capital -- Three and Four -- Knowles dominated his Republican opponents. Similarly, Knowles posted good wins in Sitka-based District Two. Democratic results in Codova and the Southeast Islands (District 5) are also very positive, with Knowles posting 12 and 14 point victories over two tough opponents. The Denali/UAK-Fairbanks district also seems to favor Democrats by a decent margin, though Sarah Palin certainly held her own there. Going to Anchorage, Democrats have a decisive advantage in numerous sections. They are strong around the university campus and areas in the central part of the city, as well as parts of downtown, northwest and around the airport. Around Seward and Homer seems to be a wild card, as Knowles did very well there against Murkowski, but less so against Palin, nonetheless squeezing a tough victory in District 35 in 2006. Finally, Democrats own the Alaska Bush, the arctic region, the Bering Straights and Aleutian Islands, and around Bethel, Bristol Bay and Nome.
Unfortunately for Democrats, Republicans seem to have a tight hold on more strategic and valuable population centers in the state. IThe GOP derives its greatest strength from pockets in and around Anchorage and Fairbanks. First, in the Fairbanks region Republican candidates do well in the North Star Borough north of the city, and they run generally even (in Murkowski's case) or ahead (in Palin's case) in the city. They absolutely dominate in North Pole, and from the southern part of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough just east of Anchorage Municipality including the City of Valdez, all the way up to the Fairbanks North Star Borough is strongly GOP. Where I think Palin and Murkowski clinched their seats was in the areas around the City of Anchorage -- Wasilla, Palmer, Eagle River, and elsewhere. The margins in these districts are enormous -- check out those numbers for Districts 12 through 18 -- and unmatched anywhere by Democrats given the huge turnout in these areas. Republicans top it off by doing well in parts of Anchorage city in the south, and Kenai and rural areas around there.
The handful of swing districts -- 19, 20, 21, and 24 -- in Anchorage look like they could swing either way, and they should be top targets for Begich and Berkowitz.
It's interesting. When I looked at Alaska, I wondered to myself how any politician could actually campaign all around the state, as it is not only massive, but many of the areas such as the Northern Slope, the Interior and the Panhandle are incredibly hard to get to. In the end, these issues are irrelevant because of how the population centers break down. In the beginning of this series, I mentioned that 61 percent of the state lives and around the Anchorage Municipality, 13 percent lives in and around the City of Fairbanks, and 11 percent lives in the Panhandle, particularly in Juneau and Ketchikan. Republican success in elections comes down to the simple fact that Republicans dominate so much in key parts in Anchorage and Fairbanks, making it almost impossible for Democrats to win statewide elections.
Look closely at the voter turnout rankings. There is an important reason I took the time to tediously go through them all, tabulate the totals, and then ranks them. The fact is that voter turnout in the state is highest in GOP-dominated areas: the North Star Borough, Palmer, Wasilla, and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, to name a few. Not only are many of these the highest-turnout areas in Alaska, but the Republicans dominate in them. What else do they have in common? They are wrapped around Anchorage and Fairbanks -- the two biggest population hubs in the state. So the GOP is getting the best of both worlds: they are doing great in the highest turnout areas, and have been for some time. This, at least from a geographic electoral standpoint, explains why Republicans win all of the statewide offices in Alaska just about every single time.
This is not to say that Democrats do not do well in areas; as I noted above, they do quite well in several areas. They have dominating numbers in Juneau, Bethel, the Bush, and downtown Anchorage City. The problem is that aside from their pockets in Anchorage and Juneau, they are not doing well in population hubs and areas that boast high turnout. Sure, Democrats own the arctic towns, but as you can easily see, Districts 36 through 40 all have low voter turnout versus the rest of the state. It's a plain fact. Democrats' dominance in those districts plus their strong results in the Panhandle in Districts Two through Five (the Panhandle region generally seems to boast decent overall turnout, but not spectacular numbers) is out-distanced by routinely-good GOP results in Districts 11 through 18.
A Democratic plan of action. It is certainly much easier to identify a problem than it is to correct it. It is one thing to state that the Democrats need to find a way to match Republicans' strength around Fairbanks and Anchorage, and it is quite another to figure out exactly how to do that. I would be lying or ignorant if I said I had the silver bullet; I do not. But we can put together a general geographic plan that succinctly sets out the right course.
(1) Democrats need to maintain and perhaps even increase their success with Alaskans particularly in the Bush, around the Arctic, Bethel, Bristol Bay, and elsewhere. These are regions that are big Democratic bases, but they hold less potency because of turnout. Obviously, this is in part because of the simple fact that less people live in the Bush than in other areas. But if Begich and Berkowitz establish as strong a presence as possible in the region, maybe they can get more voters out, voters who will likely vote Democratic. This might be boasted if Obama were to hit the airwaves, and tried earnestly to win Alaska, as his campaign has promised. Jacking up turnout even more among Democrats would almost certainly boast the down-ballot Democratic nominees.
(2) Ditto in the Panhandle. Like in the Bush and around Nome and Bethel, Democrats traditionally do well in most of the Panhandle (though not as well, as the numbers show, as in the Bush). While Ketchikan clearly favors GOP candidates (Palin and Murkowski won the First House District by 13 and 10 points, respectively), Democrats do well in Sitka and Juneau. Knowles won the Second District by a very telling 52-36: the fact that he did so well against Palin when she was riding on top of so much momentum statewide says a lot. The problem is that turnout was 20th overall in 2006, and 29th in 2004. If turnout can driven up there, more votes can be had. In Juneau, turnout is generally pretty good, so that should not be a problem. Knowles blasted Palin in the Third District 71-18, bettering his 66-31 win in 2004. Begich and Berkowitz should set a goal to do even better, maybe aim for 75 or 80 percent here (and 65 to 70 percent in the Fourth District). Their job should be made easier if Obama were to buy TV time in the cheap Juneau market.
(3) Don't give up the Anchorage arc. The reason Palin and Murkowski were able to win is because of their margins in the cities and towns arcing around the City of Anchorage. In Districts 12 to 18, and even beyond, both of them largely walloped Tony Knowles. Democrats were not even competitive in Wasilla, Palmer, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and Eagle River. The Democratic candidates absolutely have to make some inroads in these areas. Obviously, Palin's numbers were inflated in some of these districts because she hailed from Wasilla, but in the 14th district, for example, Murkowski won by 19 points. What makes these bases so potent is that they are also the highest turnout areas in the state. These are both voter-rich areas, and segments of the state where they are politically engaged. Clearly, Democratic candidates are not going to turn around and win in Palmer, but they cannot lose by 20 pts in this ring, and hope to make up for the losses in the Bush.
(4) Pound District 32. This district very narrowly favored Palin (45-42) and Murkowski (50-46), and boasts the highest turnout in the entire state. In an election where Democratic turnout should be higher than usual with Obama on the ticket (as opposed to the odious Kerry), this is a district that would deliver enormous numbers of voters to the polls. Clearly it will be a top target for both parties, but the Democrats need it even more given their deficits around Anchorage and Fairbanks.
(4) Focus on the toss-up districts. House Districts 20, 21, 24, and 29, for example, were fairly close in 2004 and 2006. These are regions where big GOTV efforts and focus from Begich and Berkowitz could pay the biggest dividends.
Conclusion. As I said, these are not much specific solutions as they are broad plans of attack. Assuredly the more Alaska-knowledgeable individuals running the Begich and Berkowitz campaigns already know the lay of the state and where they need to focus on to win. Still, having some information on the structure of the state is pretty valuable for appraising the races and their likely outcomes to laymen like myself.
We can divine several salient points from a lot of this discussion. First is that the 2004 and 2006 campaigns provide huge lessons for the campaigns this year. As Knowles showed in coming very close to winning against Lisa Murkowski, Alaska's voters are willing to pull the lever for a Democrat in a big race, but probably only in those cases where the Republican candidate brings a lot of baggage. Knowles was as good as it was going to get for the Democrats, and Murkowski had problems (though, I am not sure we can say conclusively that voters strongly disappointed of her personally), but he was badly hurt by being on a presidential year ballot where the Democratic candidate got beat by 25 points. Mark Begich has hopefully looked very closely at this race.
In terms of 2006, the lesson is that a fresh face can erase a lot of problems. Knowles would have easily beaten Frank Murkowski, but when Sarah Palin won the right to face him in the general, Knowles was in huge trouble from the start, and the polls showed it. There is no doubt in my mind that Ethan Berkowitz is considering this as he watches to see if Sean Parnell can topple Don Young next month.
In the next and final look at Alaska politics in this series, I will do an overview of the two races, using the information we have gone over in the first three posts. Can Mark Begich and Ethan Berkowitz do something no Democrat has done in decades? Stay tuned. (And I won't have anyone waiting as long for the post.)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment