I'm going to have to link to this unfinished business of the 2010 midterms elections because....I don't understand it at all. I realized during the Stevens/Begich 2008 contest that I did not grasp Alaskan politics, and two years later, I have to confess I still don't have a really good feel for them. I had a good feeling that Begich would win based on Stevens' ethics issues, but that isn't really the same as understanding the electorate, and it was still really close.
So as for the Murkowski/Miller situation--don't blame me, I was rooting for McAdams! But I can totally understand Murkowski's write-in win as a benefit of her name recognition combined with her not being....Joe Miller. I kind of was getting the impression that Alskans were souring on the idea of support from former half-term governor Sarah Palin, who played a serious role in Miller's primary win, and I think some of Miller's campaign mis-steps that portrayed him as a bit of an authoritarian fringe/not entirely ethical kind of person might not have played well with the more libertarian/conservative makeup of the actual voters, who would prefer the "devil they knew". For that reason, Murkowski's lead did not surprise me, and it seemed to me like Miller's best option would be: concede and make new plans.
He isn't doing that, though. He's drawing this thing out, as if he could win not based on votes, but sheer force of will. I find that kind of disturbing. For one thing, his arguments seem to be about denying the validity of votes that weren't for him--nice try! And also, he seems to have this "Deus Vult" thing going on. In a democracy, I'm really thinking the voters matter. "God wills it" is not, to me, either a particularly democratic way of thinking about elections, nor a particularly great harbinger of his outlook re: actually carrying out his office of representing the people, if he happens to be under the impression he's representing God.
*Points to fans of old-school straight SF who get my reference. You totally rock!
No comments:
Post a Comment