Replies

Why is it strange that Murkowski got 98% of write-ins? Normally write-ins get less than 1% of thd vote in Alaska. This year it was 40%. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure the difference is Murkowski.

Yes, but these are Tea Partiers of the most ardent sort -- facts don't really matter. If things don't go exactly their way, it's due to fraud or worse. Couldn't possibly be the candidate himself...

The real story here is the sheer magnitude of the write-in vote, which is a clear sign that Alaskans didn't much like Mr. Miller after all.

And there are a couple of corollaries. First, it's a failure of the so-called "Palin effect." -- and she couldn't close the deal in her own stomping grounds. Second, it's proof (as if more were needed) that winning the primary is not the same as winning the general election.

The fact is that 'Murk' ran as a 3rd Party candidate despite losing the primary.

Democrats saw that she could win and voted for her rather than have a REAL Conservative as a Senater.

That was why she was able to beat Miller.

Miller would have easily won in a two man race.

'Murk' betrayed the commitment which was implied when she ran in the primary, that she would abide by it's results.

“The real story here is the sheer magnitude of the write-in vote”

Sorry, the real story, at the moment, is that this election is not yet over. Goodness, can the military get their vote, not due til 11/17, before you pronounce Miller’s last rights, his ‘murky’ qualifications, and get your digs in on the Tea Parties?

Thanks.