Focus on Alaska Politics, Part IV: Outlook and Predictions for November

It is my hope that our first three posts on Alaska politics have provided the necessary history, context, and recap of current conditions to draw a fairly well reasoned analysis of the Senate and House races in Alaska this November. Besides providing a history and sketch of Alaska, its people, and its politics, one of my key aims was to balance Democrats' current optimism in winning the two seats against a well-detailed history of Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young's incredible string of electoral victories and unquestioned popularity among Alaskans over the last thirty-five to forty years. While Democrats have their best opportunity perhaps ever to win either or both of the seats, given the state's past contests and its heavy lean towards right and libertarian views, both races are toss-ups.

The two races are very unique given Alaska's political nature and history. As I like to say, every single race in politics is different in some way. For that reason, comparing a race in one state to a race in another because of some broad, topical similarity is pretty useless in the long run. For example, just because Reps. Chris Cannon (UT-03), Wayne Gilchrest (MD-01), and Al Wynn (D-04) were all decisively ousted in their party primaries this year does not provide strong evidence that Don Young will be badly beaten by Sean Parnell in his August 26 primary. Yes, there is a very strong chance Young will lose next month -- in fact, as I will discuss soon, I believe he will be ousted in the primary -- but it is not because Messrs. Cannon, Gilchrest, and Wynn lost. Sure, part of the reason they were ousted was because of a general anti-congressional incumbent atmosphere permeating the nation, but each of the men had unique deficiencies which hurt them. In Young's case, he has VECO, the Coconut Road earmark, and the Abramoff scandal to contend with -- all issues unique to him. Ted Stevens has the VECO scandal to deal with, but thankfully for him, the other two do not also burden his creaky shoulders. The general point being that Young has his own problems (and big ones at that), but they must be evaluated on their own merits within the framework of Alaska. This is not to say that looking at past elections is of no value; quite the contrary: it is my belief that looking at past Alaska races may provide the best indicator and evaluating tool for examining the races this fall.

Even though, as we have discussed throughout this series that Alaska's politics and big elections have been decidedly one-sided in favor of the Republican Party since soon after Alaska's official acceptance into the Union in 1959, we are very lucky that the state has hosted a handful of close races. While all of these contests (with the exception of the unusual 1994 Governor's race) ended with the Republican winning and the Democrat losing, it is my firm belief that many of them provide invaluable lessons and instruction of how to interpret the current political environment that will help determine the outcome in this November's races. The dynamics and ultimate results of the 2004 Senate race between Lisa Murkowski and Tony Knowles, and the 2006 Governor's race between Knowles and Sarah Palin bear striking similarities to the current contests for House and Senate. It is through the lenses of these races that I drew many of the views underpinning my conclusions regarding this November's races.

After writing the first three posts, and reading about Alaska's political and electoral history, I learned a good deal and was able to develop a sharper picture in my mind of the two big races. Ultimately, I think that the elections are going to come down to a very simple thing: whether the people of Alaska are ready or willing to oust Ted Stevens and Don Young after a combined seven decades of service.

Sure, the fact that the Democrats were to recruit to strong nominees in Mark Begich and Ethan Berkowitz means a great deal, but it only gets them a seat at the table, so to speak. Probably any other nominees in any other cycle where the longtime incumbents were not badly hobbled by connection to scandal would have lost this year. Yet, Begich and Berkowitz only buy the Democrats the credibility to challenge Stevens and Young. The bigger issue now that they are at the big game is whether the voters will end up pulling the lever against Stevens and Young. It is my feeling, based on many factors, that this decision will come mostly down to Ted Stevens and Don Young themselves, and not Mark Begich and Ethan Berkowitz. In other words, while the challengers should and must run the races of their lives, the final question ringing in many Alaskans' ears will probably be "should I vote against Ted or Don" more than it will be "should I vote for Mark or Ethan?" Given the results of numerous polls over the last six months to a year, it appears that Alaska voters are ready to turn the page, but they are not quite there yet.

The race for Alaska's At-Large Congressional Seat

I am going to start on the House race first. As we discussed in the second post, Ethan Berkowitz appears to be the very likely Democratic nominee. While Berkowitz faces a challenge from Diane Benson, he has clear advantages including a large financial edge on Benson, as he had $400,000 on hand, to Benson's $47,000 on hand. While Benson ran a fairly strong race to Young in the last cycle on a small budget (she lost 57-40 in what many people believed was a strong showing and an early sign of Young's weakness), Berkowitz is the frontrunner, a point which is belied by the fact that the DCCC basically endorsed him by adding him to its Red-to-Blue list. Current polling (summarized here) has shown Berkowitz with a wide lead over Young, and this has remained unchanged for several months, indicating that no one poll showing Berkowitz ahead was a flash in the pan. The last three nonpartisan polls of the hypothetical general contest (taken in May, June, and July) showed Berkowitz with leads of 10, 20, and 11 points, respectively. While it is rare for a challenger to be leading an incumbent fairly early in the contest, it is extremely uncommon for one to be beating a 30+ year incumbent by double digits in polls spanning three straight months. There is no way to understate the dire circumstances confronting Young.

The Parnell primary challenge. The GOP side is obviously more clouded. Don Young is facing perhaps his toughest primary challenge ever from the sitting Lieutenant Governor, Sean Parnell. Young's fundraising his not been spectacular, and this has been made worse by the fact that he has had to spend (and continues to spend) enormous chunks of his campaign treasury to pay for legal fees related to a Federal probe into his activities. Conversely, Parnell has fundraised well, as indicated by his second quarter report released last week. It showed that the Lieutenant Governor brought in $266,000, a strong sum for a challenger. Approximately $112,000 of that amount came from the Club for Growth, a powerful and influential conservative anti-tax group based in Washington, D.C. The group generally gives heavily to Republicans challenging entrenched Republican incumbents who it perceives are not fiscally conservative enough. The Club has made its presence known in several key races. It gave generously to former Congressman Pat Toomey, its current President, in his primary challenge to longtime Pennsylvania GOP Senator Arlen Specter which Toomey only lost 51-49. The Club helped current Rep. Tim Walberg oust Rep. Joe Schwarz in 2006. The general point being that the Club for Growth is a powerful organization, and its support for Parnell is a sign that his campaign should be taken very seriously, and that Parnell will not be want of funds in the next month (or beyond).

While only two head-to-head polls have been released on this primary match-up (given Parnell's fairly late and surprise entry into the race on March 14), the results have not been peachy for Young. In the first poll, Young led Parnell 45-42, hardly a good showing for a 35-year incumbent. The second poll by Hellenthal and Associates, published in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner on June 9 (and commissioned by Alaska lobbyist Sam Kiko) actually gave Parnell a 37-34 lead. Therefore, it is unclear that Young will even survive his primary, much less have an opportunity to tangle with Berkowitz in the general election.

Young's personal numbers are important, and not good for the incumbent. Yet, in my opinion, the most concerning numbers for Young should be his approve-disapprove (or favorable-unfavorable) numbers. Perhaps even more than head-to-head poll numbers, these numbers give a good sense of how the electorate feels about a candidate. Furthermore, there have been a plethora of polls -- both partisan and non-partisan -- which have gauged Young's personal approval numbers over the last year, and the results have been fairly consistent. To get a full sense of what they mean, let's list all of them one-by-one, starting with the oldest ones right up to the most recent ones. These numbers reflect either positive-negative, approve-disapprove, or favorable-unfavorable numbers, and in some cases, each is the combined results of very positive/somewhat positive and very negative/somewhat negative, depending on the pollster and the phrasing of the questions.

April 2007: 51% had a (somewhat or very) positive view of Young--38% had a (somewhat or very) negative view. (Hays Research (D))

June 2007: 40 percent/41 percent. (Hays)

September 2007: 33 percent/46 percent (Hays)

October 2007: 43 percent/50 percent (Ivan Moore (D))

November 2007: 34 percent/48 percent (Hays)

December 2007: 40 percent/54 percent (Research 2000)

March 2008: 40 percent/55 percent (Hays)

May 2008: 37 percent/59 percent (Hays)

May 2008: 38 percent/58 percent (Research 2000)

June 2008: 35 percent/52 percent (Hellenthal and Associates)

July 2008: 37 percent/61 percent (Research 2000)

It is important to point out that these numbers are not the same, or even gauge the same exact thing, as each pollster worded his question(s) differently. I realize this, and I know that in a way I am mixing apples, oranges, bananas, and pineapples here. My hope is that taken together, this consistent data shows a pattern.

Remember, these are Don Young's personal numbers. I am sure many people will want to disregard all of the Hays' results because they are a Democratic outfit. That is a very fair criticism, and one I might agree with in many circumstances. However, because this is Alaska, and polling here is not generally done in any races because they are all so lop-sided, I will use whatever data I can get my hands on. If they were GOP polls, or if such polls were available, rest assured I would use them. As it is, I have to rely on the data I can hold in my hands (or on my hard drive, as it were). In terms of the Research 2000 polls, as I noted earlier, I realize they were paid for by a liberal blog, but I take them as gospel. First, Dailykos has routinely commissioned polls and posted the results where they were terrible for Democratic candidates. Second, Research 2000 is a longtime pollster with a strong reputation. It would not take a job and skew the results. That would destroy the firm's reputation in a field where reputation and accuracy mean everything.

In the end, though, I do not think we need to pay much lip service to criticisms here for the simple reason that the results from nearly all of the recent polls -- again, all with different wording in their questions -- are remarkably consistent. As one can see, Young's numbers were strong in April before the VECO, Coconut Road earmark, and Abramoff scandals and their connections to Young had come to full light. In June, we see a 40/41 split, and then in the next poll commissioned in September -- after the Federal investigation first came to light -- had the split in a serious danger zone at 33/46. Despite a slight up-tick in the October Moore poll showing Young's numbers at 43/50, they continued to drop after that. The first Research 2000 poll on December showed 40/54, basically echoing Hays' findings over the second half of 2007. Hays continued to show drops in 2008, from 40/55 in March to 37/59 in May. Also in May, Research 2000 showed 38/58 -- almost identical to the last Hays poll. Hellenthal's poll found more undecided voters, but nonetheless revealed a weak 35/52 split. Finally, the latest poll, released just two days ago on July 18 put Young's numbers at their worst during this cycle: 37 percent very or somewhat favorable, and 61 percent very or somewhat unfavorable. There numbers -- from several different firms -- have shown a consistently low personal rating for the congressman, combined with a perhaps even more concerning slow, but perceptible drop which continues today. Indeed, there has been no rebound, indicating that Young's troubles are no blip, but a true warning sign that this could be the year where his electoral success may finally run out.

These numbers are important because, as I noted in the introduction, this election is going to come down to whether Alaska voters are willing to pull the plug on their 35-year congressional representative. This is no small matter, but the more that his disapproval/unfavorable number continues to rise, the easier it will be for many Alaskans to vote against Young. Breaking this kinship between Young and the voters who have put him into office will be critical for Berkowitz. And yes, despite Young's gruff manner, I think it is fair to describe the relationship as a kinship considering that voters have put him into office on 18 separate occasions.

Young v. Berkowitz. Given the head-to-head numbers for a Young-Berkowitz race, I would have to say that if the election were today, Berkowtiz would be a prime position to win, and would probably win that contest. The last thee polls taken (on each in May, June and July) gave Berkowitz leads of 10, 20 and 11 points. A prior December poll had Young down 49-42. Think about this for a moment. This is not a one or two poll blip over a few weeks or a couple of months. Rather, an incumbent first elected into office in 1973, who has had close prior races only in the year he was elected, 1990, and 1992, who racked up 70 percent in 2000, 75 percent in 2002, and 71 percent in 2004, has been down for at least eight months, and down double digits -- consistently -- for at least the last three. This is incredible. It speaks to the enormous damage that has been inflicted on Don Young's political standing in the last year. It is uncommon enough for an incumbent to be down a year, six months, or even a few months or less in an election year. It is rarer still for those deficits to be of the 10, 11 or 20 variety, and it is perhaps close to unprecedented for that incumbent to be one who has been in office for 35 years. It is not hyperbole to say, and it is certainly genius on my part to postulate that Congressman Young will lose to Ethan Berkowitz should they face off in November, barring an incredible mistake or series of mistakes by the Democrat.

Young's litany of problems will continue to follow him. Amazingly, even if Young is not charged by the Justice Department, it may not help him because he is currently embroiled in multiple scandals. So, him not being ultimately charged in, say VECO will have no impact into the investigations involving the illegal Coconut Road earmark or Young's ties to and possible work for the disgraced Jack Abramoff. Furthermore, the Justice Department, as a practice, does not release statements indicating that the subject of investigation has been exonerated or will not be charged; this is because the Department rarely (if ever) officially says who is under any investigation in the first place, surely not any high-ranking elected officials. Too much is at stake for the prosecutors to potentially blow a investigation of gigantic significance. Yes, if DOJ were to announce that the entire VECO investigation were closed, it would be very helpful to Young, but I do not see this scenario as terribly likely. By all accounts, the investigation into VECO appears ongoing, if the recent indictment of sitting Republican State Senator John Cowdery is any indication. Additionally, only recently in April did the U.S. Senate ask that the Coconut Road earmark be investigated by the Justice Department, so that could take many more months, if not years to resolve. In terms of the Abramoff mess, it is still ongoing. Finally, should Young make it to the general, he will surely be low on funds, and facing a well-financed Democratic opponent. Given the weakened state of the NRCC this cycle, the national party may not be able to greatly help Young, and he might be on his own. If he is still staring at a big deficit, national donors might also opt to sit out the race or give their money elsewhere in a tighter race. This is certainly something Young would have to contend with.

Young v. Parnell. Unfortunately for Ethan Berkowitz and the Democrats, Sean Parnell may derail Young before he ever arrives in the general election station. Since the day Parnell got into the race, and in fact even before then when it looked like Young might get a primary challenge from Parnell or State House Speaker John Harris (Valdez), I felt strongly in my belief that Young would lose his primary, perhaps badly. My gut sense was not based on any publicly-released polls (in part because there have only been two GOP primary polls, released in May and June), but rather on a couple of factors. Primary among them were Young's pitifully low approval ratings and the almost daily stories discussing his ethical problems.

Additionally, I felt (and still believe) that Parnell is a problematic opponent because of his closeness to Sarah Palin as her Lieutenant Governor. Earlier in this series, I called Parnell a "proxy" of the Governor. What I meant was simply that his success in getting elected in 2006 can be tied almost solely to Palin's popularity, not his own. In my opinion, Palin probably pushed him hard to get in to oust her nemesis Young and put him into office in Washington as a staunch ally. I won't lie: I am not impressed by Parnell, who seems to running solely on his boss's merits rather than his own in the hopes that Young's diminished standing alone can win him the primary. The fact that he is skipping debates with flimsy excuses, and almost never campaigning, is telling. Say what you will about Don Young, and I've said a lot on this blog, but at least he has a record and is running on it. Parnell has not be terribly impressive, and it shows. For his part, Young has said of his opponent: "It's amazing to me, I've never seen a candidate try to hook on and live off of someone else as he's doing." All typical Young bluster aside, he has a point.

Nevertheless, I am not saying that Parnell is "zero", as Don Young called him, at least not electorally. Parnell is a dangerous nominee because of Palin's current astronomical popularity. That he has never been in office in Washington and took his first statewide office in 2007 will further hurt Young with voters who are looking to turn the page. Looking at the current primary situation, Parnell is probably helped by the fact that neither Harris nor any other strong GOP nominee jumped into the race. That would have split the anti-Young vote, and lowered the plurality among loyal primary voters that Young would have needed in order to make it to the general. Yes, State Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux has been in the race for some time, and she has an inspiring life story, but she has very little funds and basically zero statewide name recognition. As a result, it is likely that she will not be a major factor in the primary, which will not help Young as much as having another strong primary foe in the field.

Young should not be written off in the primary just yet. Despite these factors, I am not longer so certain that Young will lose the Republican primary. I am not sure that the voters are totally ready to jettison him next month in the August 26 contest. The only two primary polls were certainly troubling for Young -- with a May poll showing him up 45-42, and a June one showing him down 37-34 -- but they are only two polls. Not a great sample to base a broad conclusion on. We are not likely to get much more help in this department: given that the race is one month away, I would guess that we will see one more primary poll, maybe two if we are very lucky. But it is important to note that the two polls of the GOP primary released no cross-tabs, so we do not know what they pegged Young's and Parnell's favorables at. This would have made them more valuable to look at. As it is, the polls are fairly incomplete in the picture they paint.

l acknowledge polls are not gold: just a few weeks ago, a poll showed Rep. Chris Cannon up four points two days before his primary, and he ultimately lost by 20 points to a young upstart opponent. When a challenger has the momentum at the end, sometimes there is nothing that can stop him. (See also Donna Edwards, who beat Rep. Al Wynn by 61-35 in their February 12 primary match-up.) A question may be then, whether Parnell had momentum early after his announcement in May or June, or whether he is able to ride momentum into late August. Perhaps his momentum will peak early, thereby aiding Young. Should the recent scandal allegations against the up-to-now untainted Governor Palin get more exposure in the month, and hurt her image, it would probably hurt Parnell a bit as well. Over the coming days and weeks leading up to August 26, it will be important to see if this developing scandal gets media attention in Alaska or the announced State Senate probe goes anywhere.

Parnell's run to the right of Young may not work. Furthermore, while Parnell is running as a change agent against the longtime incumbent, he has tried to run to the right of Young, particularly on fiscal areas and the earmark issue which Parnell criticizes on his website as contributing to the Federal Government's "out of control spending." He has called for a one-year freeze on all Federal earmarks, a position which is apostasy to Young. Yet, despite the strong financial backing of the Club for Growth, it is not clear that this latter strategy will be effective against Young, particularly among Alaska's more Republican and conservative voters. These voters have been backing Young for decades, and it may not be easy for Parnell to convince them that Young is not conservative enough or a wasteful spender. If I was advising Parnell, I would tell him to take the money of the Club for Growth and its allies, but to stick strongly to a change argument. As we keep emphasizing, the voters' decision to oust Young will be based more on emotion than cold calculation. He has a long record of work for Alaskans. Parnell (and Berkowitz as well, of course), will only win if they convince the voters that it's time for a change based on Young's embarrassing ethics scandals. If Parnell runs to out conservative-Young, he is not going to make headway as easily. Based on his lack of a real campaign up to this point, it is not clear that Parnell is doing even this the way it should be done (albeit he may not have to in the end, given the depth of Young's problems). Fortunately for us, some of the other provided this exact data.

Young's ratings with Republicans are still good, but not outstanding. One thing that might go in Young's favor, at least for the primary, is that these polls measuring Young's approval ratings gauge the state at large, not registered Republicans or likely Republican primary voters. I left those out deliberately so we could just focus on Young's favorables and how they may impact his general election. For the primary these ratings may not matter much since Young may be posting stronger numbers among Republicans. Because only the three Research 2000 poll provided Young's favorables by party affiliation, we can only rely on them here. This should not be a problem because, as I have emphasized, they might be the best, most detailed polling data we have for the House race. The following numbers are Young's favorable/unfavorable ratings among Republicans and independents polled in the three Research 2000 polls, and in parenthesis I will note what percentage these voters made up in the overall sample:

December 2007: Republicans (33 percent of the sample): 62 percent (somewhat or very) favorable view/32 percent (somewhat or very) unfavorable. Independents (48 percent of the sample): 36/59.

May 2008: Republicans (32 percent of the sample): 62/34. Independents (48 percent of the sample): 34/63.

July 2008: Republicans (31 percent of the sample): 62/35. Independents (49 percent of the sample): 33/65.

These are important numbers for evaluating the Young-Parnell contest. Clearly, while Young's popularity among Democrats is awful, he remains popular with Republican voters. His numbers with independents -- who make up about half of Alaska's registered voters -- are also awful, which will not bode well for Young in the general election, should he make it there. However, this will not matter. Alaska has a very unique primary voting system. Rather than butcher its description, I've cut and pasted the one provided by the Alaska Division of Elections:

The state in 2001 switched from a blanket primary -- where all candidates are on a single ballot -- to allowing political parties to choose whether they want a closed primary, an open primary or something in between. The new law required each political party to have its own ballot on which only its candidates could appear. A voter had to choose one ballot out of all those available.

For the 2006 Primary Election, there were three ballots to choose from: a Combined Party ballot, Republican Party ballot, and Ballot Measures Only ballot.

The combined ballot had Alaska Democratic, Alaska Libertarian, Alaskan Independence and Green Party of Alaska candidates. The combined ballot was available to all registered voters.

The Republican ballot had only Republican candidates and was only open to registered Republicans or voters who were registered nonpartisan or undeclared. Both the combined and Republican ballots also had the two primary ballot measures.

In other words, unlike the political parties in the state, the Alaska Republican Party only allows registered Republicans and those unaffiliated voters who specifically request a GOP primary ballot to vote in the August 26 primary. Everyone else is ineligible.

Given Young's good support among the Republican voters who will make a large share of the primary vote in what is likely to be a lower-turnout primary, his chances of surviving to the general election are good, at least if these numbers are accurate. This also perhaps explains why Young recently sounded so forward-looking in speaking about the general election (along with arrogance by the incumbent). The wild card is the independent vote. If a large number of unaffiliated voters were to jump into the GOP primary by a requesting a ballot with Young, Parnell and LeDoux's names on it, it would likely hurt Young. Young wants registered Republicans -- his most loyal base over the years and today -- to make up the majority of the Republican primary. The more unaffiliated voters that cast a ballot in the primary, the worse it is for Young. Given that this is a late-August primary, and the nature of the procedures for casting a Republican ballot, I would imagine that turnout will be low overall. This is common everywhere, given the time of the primary as well as the fact that less money, ads and media coverage are reserved for a primary in comparison to a general election campaign. As a result, I would guess that unaffiliated participation in the primary will not be enormous; the primary should be dominated by the hardcore Republicans. And if the above cross-tabs are accurate, that group favors Young.

Still, this arguments cuts both way. While 60+ percent approval is a high rating, this is just among Republican partisans. In two of the polls, just over one-third of Republicans disapprove of Young. This might not seem like a big deal, but a longtime incumbent would probably have approval ratings in the 70s if not 80s among his or her party's faithful. Here, there is a strong bloc of the Republican electorate in Alaska that does not approve of Don Young. If Parnell can cobble together enough those voters and affiliated voters voting in the primary, then he can win. So, while I think having over 60 percent support among GOP voters in a closed primary is positive news for Young, it is not fabulous news.

Conclusion. There is certainly a lot to consider here, and there are strong arguments for Young losing to Parnell, and some other ones which play to Young's favor for the August 26 primary, with the general election being a different story entirely. If Young does end up surviving, I will obviously stand by my analysis proffered above.

If Parnell wins the primary, I am not sure I have a good prediction right now. I feel confident in saying that I think it would be a close race, but there are concerns for Berkowitz. Remember our discussion on the 2006 Governor's race? Before Palin won the GOP primary, many perceived Knowles as the overall frontrunner, and it looked likely he would crush Gov. Frank Murkowski. However, after Palin scored her primary victory, the entire dynamic changed. The unpopular Murkowski was gone, out of the picture, and in his place was the young, attractive, untainted outsider, Sarah Palin. As a result, many Alaska residents who wanted change, and were thus strongly considering voting for the Democrat Knowles switched and ended up backing Palin and helping her to a 48-41 win over the former Governor Knowles. There are strong similarities to this contest. Berkowitz looks great against Young, but against Parnell the calculus could once against drastically change. As the GOP nominee, Parnell could undercut Berkowitz's change argument and neuter it as a theme for the Democrat. This would hurt, and coupled with having a presidential race at the top of the ballot, could be fatal for Berkowitz's chances.

Of course, there are important differences between this race and 2006. First, Parnell is not nearly as strong a nominee as Palin. She was something different and more dynamic than the vanilla and largely undistinguished former state legislator Parnell. Second, where Knowles was over 60 years old and had been in the Alaska political sphere from over 15 years in 2006, Berkowitz is younger, despite he himself being a longtime legislator. Plus, Berkowitz's work in the state legislature to combat the influence of corrupt lobbyists will undoubtedly be a great asset for him campaign.

In sum, I will stick with first instinct that Parnell will beat Young. If it is Young v. Berkowitz, I go with Berkowitz to take the big prize. I would give Parnell a slight advantage over Berkowitz given his ties to Palin and the presidential race, but Berkowtiz would have a good shot to win. Let's wait until after August 26. If Young wins, this is all moot anyway, and I will stick to my arguments above. If Parnell wins, then I will revisit this subject and more fully evaluate a Berkowitz-Parnell match-up.

At this point, let's move on to the Senate contest.

The Stevens-Begich race

The Senate race involves many of the same themes that the House race brings up, with the key one being whether Alaskan's are willing to vote out of office their longest-serving and perhaps most important public servant in the state's history. For reasons I will get explore, I think that defeating Ted Stevens will be much tougher for the Democrats than beating Don Young.

This view is predicated on the simple belief that Ted Stevens is more well liked and respected than Don Young, both now and even well before all of these scandals tarnished the political credibility of both men. This is not based on any one or handful of polls, just on my gut sense of things. Both men have been representing Alaska in Washington for many, many years, but Stevens has been there for even more years, as he was put into office in 1968, and Young was first elected five years later in 1973. But I feel that Stevens has a more cherished place in the state's heart. After all, who was named Alaskan of the Century? Ted Stevens. Who had the state's largest airport named after him? Ted Stevens. Who probably ended up bringing even more money back to the state (though both brought back plenty)? As a former chair of the Appropriations Committee, I feel confident in saying that the answer is Stevens.

The reasons for this view are based on both personal and circumstantial factors. I think part of Stevens' most cherished status is based on him being on the Senate instead of the House. In the Senate, where there are 100, as opposed to the House where there are 435, it is easier to stand out, easier to get choice committee assignments, and easier to wield great power. This is not to say that Young was not powerful; as a former six-year chairman of not one, but two key committees (Resources and Transportation and Infrastructure), he held enormous power, matched by only a few men and women in the House. But Stevens was one of 100, and arguably the top dog in the upper body for a period of time. He chaired Appropriations, Defense Appropriations, and Commerce. As President Pro Tempore of the Senate, he was third in line for the presidency, and for a couple of times, he sat (or at least could have sat) behind the President during the State of the Union.

Furthermore, even though both men have well-earned reputations as cantankerous, my sense is that Stevens' has always been seen as a bit of a curmudgeon, whereas Young is seen as more unstable and out there. It is a key distinction, and one that I readily admit is based solely on my own personal reading. But I think it plays into why Stevens has a more cherished place with many in the Last Frontier than Young.

Finally, whereas Young has a near perfect record, and has only faced three serious challenges in 35 years, Stevens has been absolutely electorally untouched since 1970. As I noted in one of the earlier posts, his election victory totals were as follows: 60 percent in 1970, 77 percent in 1972, 76 percent in 1978, 71 percent in 1985, 66 percent in 1990, 77 percent again in 1976, and 78 percent in 2002. Am I am splitting hairs here? Sure, but it fits into the narrative of Don Young being very well liked, and Stevens being beloved.

The point of all of this is that I think the voters of Alaska will have less qualms with voting out Don Young than they will Ted Stevens. Uncle Ted is a whole other ball of wax entirely. The existing polls certainly bear this out. While the June Hellenthal poll gave Begich his largest lead to date -- 51-44 -- all of the other head to head-to-head numbers appear a bit closer. Both Research 2000 and Rasmussen have released numerous polls on the contest.

Research 2000 head-to-head

December 2007: 47-41 Begich

May 2008: 48-43 Begich

July 2008: 47-45 Begich

So, between the polls, Begich lead has slowly eroded from six points, to five, to two in the latest poll released just last week. Let's turn to Rasmussen:

Rasmussen head-to-head

April 2008: 46-45 Stevens

May 2008: 47-45 Begich

June 2008: 46-44 Stevens

The first two things that jump out at me are one, the similarities between the polls by the two outfits, and two, the sheer closeness of the race. Neither candidate has been able to pull away.

There are pluses and minuses that Stevens can take away from this closeness. For Stevens, that the race is so close despite all of his ethical problems says a lot about his enduring popularity in the state, and the good will he has built up with the voters. Conversely, any time a 40-year incumbent is tied or down in a campaign, particularly with months to go, it is not a great sign on its face. To get a better picture of what these numbers mean in the scheme of things, let's look at Stevens' own favorables (or approvals, depending on how the pollster phrased its questions) which were included with these polls, plus some other numbers from earlier polls.

Hays Research, the Democratic pollster we mentioned in looking at Don Young, did a series of polls on Stevens in 2007.

A June 2007 poll found Stevens' approve-disapprove at 46-36. The poll also found that 50 percent were likely to support Stevens' re-election and 43 percent were not likely to supporter re-election. The poll noted that 49 percent were unfavorably influenced by Stevens' alleged ties to VECO, but 45 percent were not influenced -- demonstrating a solid base of voters loyal to Stevens. Further, whereas 39 percent said that they would be somewhat or a lot more unlikely to vote for Stevens because of the VECO investigations, 40 percent said the investigation would make no difference in whether they voted for Stevens.

A September 2007 poll set Stevens' approve-disapprove at 40-38, a drop from the previous poll. It also revealed Stevens' re-elect numbers at 43-45, another drop from the June poll.

A November 2007 poll found Stevens' approval numbers back up to 44 percent positive/38 percent negative.

A March 2008 poll showed another rise in the numbers, putting them at 49/46.

A final May 2008 poll found yet another boast, and had them up to 53 percent positive-43 percent negative for Sen. Stevens.

These numbers demonstrate first, that Stevens had a low point of personal support around September, but then began to rebound by November, and steadily rose until at least May, when his approval rating was back above the magical 50 percent threshold. The numbers in the June 2007 poll are also very interesting. In June, it was first revealed that remodeling at Stevens' house may have been supervised or financed by VECO, probably resulting in a drop in his numbers shown in the September poll. Yet, in the June poll, 50 percent still supported Stevens' re-election, and a solid bloc of 40 percent said their decision to vote or not vote Stevens would not be impacted by the VECO investigations.

This all shows that a key segment of support for Stevens that is pretty rock-solid. This is a key theme I will return to shortly when talking again about the 2004 Senate race.

Let's first look at the numbers that accompanied the Rasmussen and Research 2000 head-to-head polls.

Rasmussen Stevens' favorables

April 2008: In their poll showing Stevens at +1 over Begich, Stevens boasted 50 percent favorable, and 47 unfavorable ratings.

May 2008: In their poll showing Begich at +2 over Stevens, Stevens boasted 46 percent favorable, and 50 percent unfavorable ratings.

June 2008: In their poll showing Stevens at +2 over Begich, Stevents boasted 51 percent favorable, and 44 percent unfavorable ratings.

These numbers tell an interesting story. With the race basically tied, Stevens has numbers at or around the key 50 percent mark for incumbents, though they are clearly not great for him. Given his own personal numbers, they make plenty of sense; indeed, if his approval ratings were as high as they have been for him in the past, he would probably be ahead by a great deal more. It is worth noting that Begich's splits in the polls were 56/35, 54/38, and 55/36. They also show steady support from a large bloc of voters. Let's compare them to the Research 2000 findings.

Research 2000 Stevens' favorables

December 2007: In their poll showing Begich at +6 over Stevens, Stevens boasted a 39 percent (somewhat or very) favorable and 58 percent (somewhat or very) unfavorable split.

May 2008: In their poll showing Begich at +5 over Stevens, Stevens boasted a 38 percent (somewhat or very) favorable and 58 percent (somewhat or very) unfavorable split.

July 2008: In their poll showing Begich at +2 over Stevens, Stevens boasted a 36 percent (somewhat or very) favorable and 61 percent (somewhat or very) unfavorable split.

Hellenthal and Associates findings

It is worth quickly noting that that the June 2008 poll published in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner which gave Begich a 51-44 lead over Stevens, found Stevens' numbers at 49 percent positive, 40 percent negative, and Begich's split at 58/16. Taken by themselves, these numbers make complete sense. Begich has a healthy lead in great part because his positive rating is +42, where Stevens' in a mere +9. However, taken together with the findings by Rasmussen and Research 2000, they seem a little more outlier-ish, as here Stevens boasts strong numbers, at least in comparison to Research 2000, and yet he is down seven. Is it wrong? We can never know, but I would wager that the seven points are a bit high. Given the comparison to the above breakdowns, I think a Begich 3-5 point lead is more likely, though it may be higher as Begich has been on the air with two new commercials for the last couple of weeks.

Digging deeper into he Research 2000 numbers. Nevertheless, I think the Research 2000 findings are the most telling numbers of all. What do they say? Well, compare the first numbers -- Begich's lead(s) -- with Stevens' personal numbers in the respective polls. The first and second polls, if correct, are pretty much identical, with Begich boasted six and five point leads, and Stevens numbers staying almost exactly the same.

The third poll is extremely interesting. Begich's lead dropped to just two points over Stevens, but Stevens' disapproval number rose three points to a whooping 61 percent disapprove. Personally, I find this hard to believe. It is worth noting that the margin or error in the last poll was +/- four points, and perhaps that could account for it. But even assuming that Begich's lead is two points, collectively, the three polls, and the last one in particular establish one clear fact: despite Stevens' enormous disapproval ratings, he remains well within striking distance of Begich, who, incidentally boasted splits of 48/19 (December), 52/25 (May), and 52/27 (July).

Alaska voters may be showing incredible loyalty to Ted Stevens. These numbers are a bit more puzzling. The polls show the race relatively close, yet, Stevens' favorability rating is positively awful. And the race actually tightened between polls as that unfavorable number rose. This is a bit tougher to explain. What this all means, at least to me, is that Stevens has a huge base of support in Alaska. Voters disapprove of the corruption stories, and the ethics scandals, and his son's office getting raided by the Feds, and his massive legal fees, but a good number of them are sticking with him right now, and may stay with him all the way up to November. A great number of voters are unhappy with Stevens personally, there are many of them who are not ready -- and may never be ready -- to vote against Uncle Ted.

The 2004 Senate race shows how hard it is for a Democrat to win statewide in Alaska. On this issue, I keep thinking of the 2004 Senate race between Lisa Murkowski and Tony Knowles. When evaluating Mark Begich's chances, I cannot get that race out of my head. Knowles led the contest from basically the moment he got in. Granted, he was never ahead by a large margin -- I believe his biggest lead was around six or so points -- but he had a steady and constant lead. And on election day, he won late-deciding voters who decided in the last week, in the last three days, and on election day itself by decisive margins. But he lost 49-46. He lost, at least according to the exit polls, because most of the voters had decided long before election who to vote for, and by a decisive margin, they broke for the Republican candidate, Lisa Murkowski, despite the controversial nature of her appointment to the Senate by her father. The end result also seemed to fly in the face of the handful of polls on the race which showed Knowles with a slim lead in the closing months and weeks in that he had already been in the mid-to-high 40s prior to election day and he also won late-deciding voters by a big margin.

Taken together, my conclusion is that a great many voters who may not have liked how Murkowski, how she got her Senate in the first place, or even her father the governor, decided early on to stick with Lisa in November. Furthermore, there were voters who said they were voting for Knowles who ended up voting for Murkowski. How do we know this? Well, assuming the polls are accurate, and assuming Knowles was in the mid-40s in late polling, and assuming he did win late-deciders by a good margin, he still finished at 46 percent. The explanation cannot be that all of the undecided voters went against Knowles since he won them. And keep in mind that the exit poll showed 79 percent said they had decided who to vote for prior to one month out. What had to have happened was that there was a bloc of voters who said they were voting for Knowles, but in the end voted for Murkowski anyway out of loyalty to the GOP, and because of the Bush-Kerry race.

I realize I am basing a lot on a handful of polls which could have been dead wrong. But I am going to trust them because they make sense in the narrative we have been drawing about Alaska. There are a great many Alaskans who could not vote against Lisa Murkowski, despite their misgivings. I fear that there will be a similar, if not greater number who will feel the same way about Ted Stevens. This is why at this stage, Begich's high approval ratings are almost irrelevant. It will come down to whether enough people can vote against Ted. If the 2004 race is an indicator, the answer is 'no', especially given that Stevens' has a much greater place in Alaska than Lisa or Frank Murkowski ever have.

Begich still have great strengths. Does this mean that Begich is toast regardless of what he does? Probably not. Begich has a lot going for him. His approval ratings are very strong despite him being an official candidate for only a few months, he has fundrasied well, he has a great last name, a solid geographic base of support in Anchorage around which 61 percent of the state's population lives, and he is either tied or slightly ahead of an incumbent who, in those words of one analyst, is viewed as one rung below God in Alaska. Collectively, this is not a bad place to be for the challenger. In fact, it is tough to say that he could be in any better place at this stage of the game. He really could not be expected to be doing any better.

Furthermore, Barack Obama looks poised to do much better in Alaska than John Kerry did. Numerous polls have shown Obama within low-to-mid-high single digits of McCain. If Obama can end up losing the state by single digits, it would be immensely helpful to Begich (and Berkowitz), and lift the burden off their shoulders that John Kerry placed on Tony Knowles, thereby helping doom Knowles' chances in 2004.

Comparing Begich to Knowles shows good and bad things for the mayor. There are some concerns worth highlighting. Unlike Tony Knowles, who had been elected statewide in Alaska twice (and ran a third time in 1990), Begich has never run statewide in Alaska. Additionally, unlike Lisa Murkowksi who was more or less unknown herself, Ted Stevens is Ted Stevens. Now, there are decent counters to both of these points. First, in the case of Knowles, he won his first race by less than one percent, and may not have boasted the same high personal numbers as Begich. Furthermore, Begich has a last name that is still well known throughout the state by people who remember his father and his tragic death. This latter fact might equalize things between the two of them. In terms of the Murkowski-Stevens comparison, as we have discussed, Lisa's own personal ratings were not that low; rather her father's approval ratings were bad. Conversely, this year, Stevens' own ratings are awful. Therefore, he may not turn out to be as tough as Murkowski given his scandal problems.

Begich's past victory margins might be a bit concerning. Despite being twice-elected mayor of Anchorage, Beich did not exactly have a landslide victory total either time, winning 45 percent in 2003, and 56 percent in 2006. I am not trying to downplay his wins, which came in one of the nation's most conservative states. His showings merely demonstrate that he might not have an unbeatable coalition in his base. Now, perhaps since he was elected he has built up an impressive organization for himself to get out the vote in future campaign. I don't doubt it, and I would sincerely hope that he has done exactly this. But his two showings raise a wee bit of concern from me. That being said, his work to become mayor should be a big asset I will discuss very shortly.

Stevens has never had to run a tough race. For Stevens, I have another major concern about his campaign. Clearly, the VECO issue is #1 on the list of his problems. His ties and his son's ties to VECO, and the FBI raids are what started Stevens' tumble in the polls and made him politically vulnerable for the first time in his life. But there is another enormous issue which has not really gotten a lot of attention among all the VECO stories.

Not only is Stevens close to 85 years old, but he has never once had a close race. As a result, he has probably not run hard and campaigned for his life, in his entire political life. Since he got his seat in 1968, the re-elections have come easily for him. More or less, he has not had to lift a finger. Of course there has been some campaigning over the recent years, but let's be realistic: going to handful of soft little appearances a few times a year is not really campaigning. In a close race like this, where the margin is no more than a handful of points, you need to work you butt off and get all over your state, and in this case, the state happens to be the largest one in the nation.

This is where Begich's hard work to become mayor over the years, and his work as mayor will pay off handsomely. Begich first ran for mayor in 1994, finished second, and then badly lost a run-off. In 2000, he narrowly lost again, this time by 52-47. In 2003, even though his margin was not incredible, Begich got the office he had long been seeking, winning 45-37. He was re-elected in 2006 by a stronger 56-41 margin. As mayor, he has no doubt had to be more of a retail politician than Stevens or any other Member of Congress who lives far away out of state in Washington, D.C.

My whole point being that Begich is ready to run a statewide Senate race; Ted Stevens likely is not. Stevens is 84 years, and despite the fact that he appears cogent, lucid, and vigorous, running a rough statewide race is an incredibly difficult thing for any man, young or old. The fact that Begich is only 45 years belies this point. Furthermore, Stevens has to work in Washington, and has not spent much time at home over the many years. Indeed, he has not had to: he is an Alaska institution, and has run solely on his solid-gold reputation with Alaskans. Times have changed, however, for Uncle Ted. His latest approval is 36 percent, with over 60 percent disapproving of the Senator. Is Ted up to going back to Alaska and making his case to the people one at a time? This is a big question.

Traveling is also difficult for Stevens. Stevens also has to rush to and from Alaska until the end of the congressional session. If anyone does not think this will play a toll on a 84-year old, is nuts. With a congressional recess looming for all of August, Stevens will no doubt head home, but he will have to head back to Washington when it is done. Begich can stay in and around Anchorage and can continue working. This is an advantage he has no doubt been exploiting for the last few months.

The fact is that Stevens has gotten fat and no doubt lazy over the years. And who wouldn't have done the same? Because of his age, the distance between Washington and Girdwood (where Stevens lives), and the fact that he has basically run unopposed every six years since 1970, he has had no reason to run hard for re-election. But it is a fact, and his drop in popularity has come at perhaps the worst time for him, as this was probably going to be his last run (assuming he was not planning to retire this year, at least before his son, former State Senator Ben Stevens' office was raided by Federal agents). Most other politicians in his position would have likely retired this year, and eased into a lucrative lobbying career, or perhaps more likely, moved to a cabin by the lake to fish for the rest of his days. Stevens stayed on because of his immense pride, and probable arrogance.

Maybe Stevens is ready, willing and able to go. Personally, I just doubt it. I've been struck by a couple of Youtube clips of the Senator in the last couple of months. In both of them, Stevens reacts angrily to some questions, alleging that his opponents' campaign and the Alaska Democratic Party are being run by Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Senator and head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In one the clips, he angrily reacts to being followed by a young man hired by the Democratic Party to tape all of his public appearances, harshly criticizing Schumer's "dirty, dirty New York politics."

Schumer is indeed seen as one of the Party's top strategists and political minds (personally, I think he the smartest politico in the entire national party), and he took an active role in recruiting Begich into the race in the first place. And I have no doubt that Schumer, a hands-on and aggressive leader, is taking an active role in advising the Begich campaign. So, from that perspective, Stevens is not entirely wrong.

What is salient to me is the timing and tone of these outbursts by Stevens. They make Stevens look paranoid, and almost obsessed with Schumer. (For what it is worth, national Republicans have long been weary of Schumer's huge success in fundraising, recruiting top-flight candidates, and overall strategizing.) His obsession with Schumer, to me at least, shows not so much that he is worried, just completely unprepared to face the new type of politics that Schumer embodies. The campaigns of old are long gone. In their place today are campaigns that are non-stop, 24/7, bare-knuckle affairs that Schumer has made his bones in. "New York" style races, if you will. Stevens has never had to deal with a campaign at all, much less a campaign style with this frenetic pace. His bizarre outbursts at Schumer might be par for the course for a man famous for his volcanic outbursts, but they are telling of a man who might not be ready to run the fast-paced campaign it might well take to beat Begich this year.

In closing on this issue, I keep thinking about something Stevens said to a reporter at the beginning of the year. In an article in the Anchorage Daily News, Stevens was quoted as saying about his upcoming campaign, "I'm not worried about this campaign. Not in the least." I am not sure if this quote was the product of false bluster, but I think Stevens meant it. To me, it demonstrated incredible naivety, the same naivety he exhibited in going after Chuck Schumer. Whether Ted Stevens is up to the challenge of running against Mark Begich will be apparent as summer leads into fall. In the end, it may not even matter given that he is a state institution, but if it is a factor, Stevens will have some trouble.

ANWR is unlikely to be an election issue. While Begich supports opening up ANWR to drilling, so did Tony Knowles, and he was hammered by many who pointed out his party's general national position on the issue. Clearly, Stevens would use a similar line of attack on Begich, probably contending that even if Begich supports drilling, he would not likely make any headway with his more environmentally-friendly colleagues in the Senate Democratic caucus. While this could also come to hurt Begich, it is less likely this year, for whereas in 2004 Kerry opposed driling and President Bush supported it, neither Obama nor McCain support drilling in ANWR. As a result, while the issue will naturally get some ink in the run-up to the general election, the issue will likely to not hurt the Democrat as much as it has in the past. This will be welcome news to Mayor Begich.

Conclusion. Yet, despite all of these negatives facing Stevens, I have my doubts on his vulnerability. When we set out everything we have discussed over all of these posts and words on this race, the thing that keeps sticking out in my mind is the 2004 Senate race. At this point, I am not convinced that Alaska is willing to throw Ted Stevens out after all of these years. Tony Knowles boasted a lead over Lisa Murkowski throughout their entire campaign, and in the end he lost in part because many Alaskans could not bring themselves to voting against the Republican. And, need I remind you, Lisa Murkowski is no Ted Stevens in Alaska.

Alaskans could decide to re-elect Ted and retire Don, badly hurting Democrats' arguments. Another concern I have relates to the House race. For some time I have felt in my gut that many Alaskans may be willing to dump one of Stevens and Young, but not both. I believe that if faced with the choice of jettisoning one of them, more Alaskans would opt to keep Ted and dump Don. Should Young lose his primary next month, that might quench many Alaskans' desire for change, bringing more voters back into the fold for Stevens.

This would be bad news for Begich and the Democrats. It is very tough for many voters to dump a longtime incumbent. The 2006 Montana Senate race is very instructive on this general point. In that campaign, three-term Republican Senator Conrad Burns was down the entire general election campaign to Jon Tester, facing deficits ranging from a handful of points to no more than around a dozen. During that time, his disapproval rating was generally in the low-to-mid 50s. However, the final tally was Tester: 49.2 percent, Burns 48.3 percent. Only one poll in the final weeks showed the race that close. Conrad Burns was a lot like Ted Stevens: folksy, kind of profane, from a strong red state, and fairly well-liked. I believe that when the election came, a lot of voters who intended to vote against Burns for his ethical and other problems, could not go through with it. When the votes were counted, Burns came up just short, but comparing the polls to the ultimate results bear this conclusion out.

Stevens is facing a handful of primary opponents, none of them serious, so he is going to win. It will be important to see how much he wins by. If he fails to crack 60 percent in the GOP primary, that would be a sign of weakness for the Senator, but only time will tell. From what we know now, Ted Stevens is going to be very hard to topple in November.

In Stevens' case, his numbers approval numbers now are probably about as bad as Burns' (Rasmussen says they are slightly better, and Research 2000 says they are worse), he is also in a red state, but it is a presidential year and Stevens is the Alaskan of the Century. I know that this is the last thing Democrats want to hear, but taken together I think Stevens will hold on, unless of course he is indicted. If the 2004 race gave any strong hint of political reality in the state, Begich's leads might well dissolve at the last minute when Alaskans are in the voting booth. The only way for Begich to win is to maintain Stevens' low approval numbers and try as hard as possible to make them worse. The more Alaskans turn on Stevens personally, the fewer loyal voters there will be for him on election day. This might not be impossible given the cheapness of the Alaska media markets, and the DSCC's huge cash advantage over its Republican counterpart the NRSC and Schumer's willingness to spend big in close races.

When everything is stripped away, this election will come down to one, simple question: are the voters of Alaska ready to vote out Ted Stevens? I am open to changing my mind -- it is something I have been known to do -- but right now, I do not think they will be.

Note: Just as I finished my post, Rasmussen released a new poll of the Stevens-Begich contest, finding Begich leading 50-41 (52-44 when leaners are included). The poll set Begich's favorables as 53/34, and Stevens' as 50/48.

Wow. Is this is an omen that my current conclusion above regarding the Senate race is dead-wrong? Maybe. This is an impressive showing for Begich. It is kind of weird how the Research 2000 poll released on Friday found the race 47-45, but set Stevens' unfavorable number at 61 percent, and this poll shows Begich up 50-41, but also finds Stevens' personal disapprove number at 48. One of the polls is off somewhere, not so much with the head-to-head number, but with the all-important Stevens' favorable/unfavorable. The previous Rasmussen poll released one month ago had found Stevens ahead 46-44, and had set the Senator's own split as 51/44.

Also, it is worth noting (and Rasmussen mentions this) that the poll was taken close to a week and a half after Begich put up his first TV ads of the race. This certainly had something to do with Begich's boast. The race is still tight. But let me say that if Begich can find a way to open up an eight or nine point lead and hold it, that would give him the big cushion he needs to withstand the loyal Stevens vote push at the end. Yeah, I know: some insight right there.

Rasmussen also finds McCain ahead of Obama in Alaska by just 50-45. This is certainly good news for Mark Begich and Ethan Berkowitz.