Weak Parties and Dirty Tricks
The Dan Sullivans saga.
AP (“GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan draws an unusual opponent in Alaska’s primary — and he’s not happy about it“):
Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan is running for reelection in Alaska and faces a field of 15 competitors. One of them is Dan Sullivan.
The senator told reporters in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday that he thinks the appearance on the state’s primary ballot of another Republican with the same name is a dirty political trick coordinated by Democrats and the campaign of his chief rival for the seat, former Democratic U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola. He threatened a lawsuit to get to the bottom of it.
“Everybody in Alaska knows I’m Dan Sullivan-R. So he’s trying to do that. Why?” the senator said of the other Dan Sullivan. “He’s not an R. He’s purposely trying to trick my constituents to rig the election for Peltola.”
A spokesman for the Peltola campaign, Harry Child, said it “has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign.” Jenny-Marie Stryker, executive director of the Alaska Democratic Party, said her organization “is in no way affiliated with either Dan Sullivan.”
The kerfuffle over the dueling Dan Sullivans on Alaska’s August primary ballot has drawn the attention of state and national Republicans. They claim that adding a second Dan Sullivan to the ballot will sow confusion among voters who support the incumbent and help Peltola.
In Alaska’s primary, the top four vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the ranked-choice general election.
Blake Murphy, an attorney for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, sent a letter dated Monday to Alaska election officials outlining concerns about the potential for voter confusion. Murphy also raised questions about the party affiliation of the challenger, calling the other Dan Sullivan a “sham” candidate.
Murphy wrote the NRSC could consider legal action “to ensure that the Alaska electoral process remains fair.”
Carmela Warfield, the state Republican Party chair, said in a statement accompanying Murphy’s letter that until recently, the challenger was registered as undeclared. In previous years, ballots have not identified which candidates were incumbents.
A spokesperson for the Alaska Division of Elections, Steve Kirch, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter and said a records request would be required to get details of the challenger Sullivan’s voter registration history.
I don’t know enough about Alaskan politics or the non-incumbent Dan Sullivan to have a definitive opinion, but this certainly looks like dirty pool on the part of the Peltola campaign. Sowing confusion in voters is a time-honored tactic of both parties, alas, however despicable it may be. And, certainly, this is an easy way to game a jungle primary.
Of course, it would be much harder to do this if the Alaska Republican Party could control who runs on their ballot line. They would be unlikely to allow anyone other than the incumbent to do so, virtually assuring Senator Sullivan’s re-nomination and re-election. Certainly, they wouldn’t allow a previously unregistered rando with no prior political experience to run for Senator on their line.
This is what we mean by “weak parties” in political science. Because the two major parties choose their nominees through primaries, and anyone can vote in any party’s primary* (or, in this case, the nonpartisan primary), neither the Democratic National Committee nor the Republican National Committee or their state equivalents have the ability to vet candidates or punish those who run under their banner for deviating from the party platform. In the extreme case, as with Donald Trump’s winning the GOP nomination in 2016, the nominee can remake the party in their own image.
*Some states require party registration, but citizens are free to register for whichever party they want before each election. Most are “open,” allowing voters to vote in either party’s primary. Most (if not all) states don’t allow switching parties in the runoff.
In states that are essentially locked into a single party, strategic voters will often vote in that party’s primary even though they intend to vote for the opponent in a general election. This creates perverse incentives, to say the least.
There was a Barack Obama namesake on the California Governor’s ballot for yesterday’s election.
In fact, we had dozens of candidates for Governor on that ballot, which was ridiculous on its own – maybe the bar is too low to qualify for the ballot here.
@Tony W:
There were 61 – yes, 61 – candidates for the Governor’s race in California. It’s obscene how easy it is to become a “candidate”.
It’s a testament to the stupidity of the American people – and I do mean stupid – that a clown like Spencer Pratt can get 30% of the voters to pick him as the Mayor of a city with 13M people and a budget of billions of dollars. He’s never managed anything larger than his crystals business, which had one employee – himself, has never managed people, and he’s never managed a budget. It shouldn’t be, but it’s still shocking to me that so many people can look at this guy, with his history, and say “Yeah! That’s the guy I want to lead this city!!!”
We are so screwed.
Hang on a second. The AP article you’ve cited doesn’t have direct reporting from the non-incumbent Sullivan (which is odd & bad reporting from AP – they merely quote from other-Dan’s website). You admit you don’t know anything about the guy or Alaskan politics.
Yet, when the article has direct denial from Peltota’s campaign and speculative accusations from the incumbent Sullivan, you choose to believe the Trumper?
The Republicans of Alaska have all the agency here. Don’t bring Peltota into it without some evidence.
@Scott F.:
Exactly. How hard is it to find the other Sullivan, interview him, and dig into his past and associations?
In any case, if that’s his legal name and he chooses to run in the Republiqan party, I don’t see what can be done. Other than list the middle initial of each in the ballot.
@EddieInCA:
Yet, it’s already come down to 3 and the top two are surely going to be a Republican and a Democrat whether Steyer catches Becerra or not.
Yes, it is absurd that it is so easy to make the primary ballot for Governor. Yes, the jungle primary should be killed as it has proven itself to never work as sold by ex-Gov Arnold (the Spencer Pratt of his day???). But we are so screwed because having buckets of money is still the driving force in statewide and federal elections. Until we do something about that, the oligarchs will remain in charge – weak parties or otherwise.
I wholeheartedly agree. It’s easy to *assume* that it’s the Democrats, but unless you, or anyone else has solid evidence, saying “this certainly looks like dirty pool on the part of the Peltola campaign” is completely subjective and unfounded.
There are PLENTY of Republicans who like to cause shenanigans as well, along with just random sh!t-disturbers, which, if this is the 2nd “Dan Sullivan’s” real name, could well be the case.
I point this out as a resident of the state which routinely includes a presidential candidate by the name Vermin Supreme who has as his platform a pony-based economy, with a focus on time travel research.
@Scott F.: Yeah, it’s kind of a relief and also kind of a validation of my understanding of current California voters as not as naive as many feared. I have talked to people who said, “Well, I would have liked to have voted for X, but they weren’t doing well enough.”
We can read polls. Republican voters also realized that splitting their vote was a bad, bad idea. Honestly, it’s a classic sort of game theory outcome – this is basically the equilibrium outcome.
OK, it’s entirely possible Peltola’s campaign, or someone affiliated with the Dem Party pushed Dan Sullivan the Lesser into the race. And yes, the main point that this illustrates party weakness is entirely valid. But I’d have to say bringing Peltola into it with no evidence is of a piece with the lazy bothsides so common in media. Yes both parties lie, cheat, and steal. But it’s hardly at equal scale in our benighted era. And it’s very lazy of both AP and the AL R party to not present any facts about Sullivan the Lesser.
I’m old. I’m old enough to have lived through the transition from conventions and smoke-filled rooms to wide open primaries. But I admit I’m vague on how it happened. Would it not be possible for a party to change its rules and regain some control?
Also, too, the site seems fast today. Thanks.
I wouldn’t put it past the Republiqans to have dug up a second Dan Sullivan so the first can complain over dirty tricks, and attack the Democrats on it.
After all, it’s what would happen in a B-movie thriller.
This is hardly the first time something like this has happened. For example, see the 1978 PA governor’s race
“The race began with a primary that slated an impressive field of candidates. Flaherty, the former Mayor of Pittsburgh who was known for providing a progressive challenge to urban machine politics, bested State Auditor General Bob Casey, who had lost the Democratic nomination for this office twice before. Casey’s campaign was greatly hurt by the presence of another Bob Casey who was running on the ballot for Lieutenant Governor; voters believed they were selecting a ticket of Flaherty and the Auditor General when they chose the Pittsburgh teacher as the Democratic running mate.”
Note — the Bob Casey who came in second in the 1978 primary was the same one who was governor in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. His son is the one who was a senator until losing reelection in 2024.
I recall Republicans did the same thing even more blatantly a few years back in a Florida house seat election. The no-unilateral-disarmament principle applies here too.
In any event Republicans can just find another candidate named Mary Peltola to run and the problem is solved!