In Alaska, Senate Frontrunner isn't even on the ballot

[JimH52]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/us/politics/26alaska.html?_r=1&hp

The good old Tea Party strikes again!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/us/politics/26alaska.html?_r=1&hp

The good old Tea Party strikes again!

That's because she LOST the primary, you dumbass. She's running as a "write-in" candidate. You do know what that means don't you? It means that voters will have to write her name in if they wish to vote for her.

You liberals get dumber everyday.

 

[JimH52]

I kknow an I think it is very funny. The frigin Tea Party is a joke. But it won't be a joke when Sarah runs as a Tea party candidate for President in 2012. The GOP will be sweating an Ocean...LOL

 

[rightwinger]

People hate to do write in ballots. If you call them on the phone they may say they like Murkowsky but once they have to go through the write in process they just choose a convenient lever

 

[uptownlivin90]

Hopefully Murkowski pulls it off. I'd be more confident though if she was leading by five to ten points or more in the polls. Only because of the complications of a write-in candidacy, but it's still possible.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Murkowski is infinitely the better candidate than either of the other two, but Alaskan are known for being their own unique brand of yahoos, heavens love them.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I was reading up on this situation on the web. In Alaska, the law states they don't have to actually check the write in ballots unless there's a chance the write in is the winner, and after that it comes down to voter intent.

It's very likely that if Murkowski wins, the GOP will be sending armies of Lawyers to Alaska this year to challenge each and every misspelled ballot. That'll be tough for Murkowski to fight. You'll see a lot of calls for her to just give it up.

I'd like to see her win, but the idea that even if she does win she's facing an uphill legal battle to take her seat.... well it doesn't look good.

 

[uptownlivin90]

I was reading up on this situation on the web. In Alaska, the law states they don't have to actually check the write in ballots unless there's a chance the write in is the winner, and after that it comes down to voter intent.

It's very likely that if Murkowski wins, the GOP will be sending armies of Lawyers to Alaska this year to challenge each and every misspelled ballot. That'll be tough for Murkowski to fight. You'll see a lot of calls for her to just give it up.

I'd like to see her win, but the idea that even if she does win she's facing an uphill legal battle to take her seat.... well it doesn't look good.

Murkowski has already proven that she is a fighter.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I was reading up on this situation on the web. In Alaska, the law states they don't have to actually check the write in ballots unless there's a chance the write in is the winner, and after that it comes down to voter intent.

It's very likely that if Murkowski wins, the GOP will be sending armies of Lawyers to Alaska this year to challenge each and every misspelled ballot. That'll be tough for Murkowski to fight. You'll see a lot of calls for her to just give it up.

I'd like to see her win, but the idea that even if she does win she's facing an uphill legal battle to take her seat.... well it doesn't look good.

Murkowski has already proven that she is a fighter.

True, but to fight lawyers you need money. And if they'll make a case out of every single ballot, which they will do, that'll get pretty expensive.

She'll fight as long as she can, I'm just not holding my breath.

 

[bodecea]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/us/politics/26alaska.html?_r=1&hp

The good old Tea Party strikes again!

That's because she LOST the primary, you dumbass. She's running as a "write-in" candidate. You do know what that means don't you? It means that voters will have to write her name in if they wish to vote for her.

You liberals get dumber everyday.

When you go on and on about other people being so very dumb....who exactly are you trying to pump up....and why?

 

[uptownlivin90]

I was reading up on this situation on the web. In Alaska, the law states they don't have to actually check the write in ballots unless there's a chance the write in is the winner, and after that it comes down to voter intent.

It's very likely that if Murkowski wins, the GOP will be sending armies of Lawyers to Alaska this year to challenge each and every misspelled ballot. That'll be tough for Murkowski to fight. You'll see a lot of calls for her to just give it up.

I'd like to see her win, but the idea that even if she does win she's facing an uphill legal battle to take her seat.... well it doesn't look good.

Murkowski has already proven that she is a fighter.

True, but to fight lawyers you need money. And if they'll make a case out of every single ballot, which they will do, that'll get pretty expensive.

She'll fight as long as she can, I'm just not holding my breath.

It will be hilarious watching the "tea party folks" who hate the liberal elitist lawyers from New York pay millions upon millions to bring those same liberal lawyers to Alaska to fight for Joe Miller.

There's no doubt in my mind that Murkowski wins this. I just think America is better then Joe Miller. I also think that women care enough about there reproductive rights to go out and vote this time around.

I just wish Mike Castle would have done the same thing in Delaware. He could have had a chance himself.

 

[Revere]

The only thing she is "fighting" is the perception she's really a Democrat.

 

[uptownlivin90]

The only thing she is "fighting" is the perception she's really a Democrat.

Really? I thought there was already one of those in the race?

Or is it just that she has some positions that you don't necessarily agree with and in your own sick twisted little world everyone in the Republican Party has to agree with you?

 

[Revere]

The only thing she is "fighting" is the perception she's really a Democrat.

Really? I thought there was already one of those in the race?

Or is it just that she has some positions that you don't necessarily agree with and in your own sick twisted little world everyone in the Republican Party has to agree with you?

Uh, no. The Democrat can't win, so the unions and all the other usual Democrat suspects are throwing in with Mirkuwskee.

 

[uptownlivin90]

The only thing she is "fighting" is the perception she's really a Democrat.

Really? I thought there was already one of those in the race?

Or is it just that she has some positions that you don't necessarily agree with and in your own sick twisted little world everyone in the Republican Party has to agree with you?

Uh, no. The Democrat can't win, so the unions and all the other usual Democrat suspects are throwing in with Mirkuwskee.

I'm a republican. I liked Murkowski as a senator. Simply because we're both pro-choice and she's got a great regard on second amendment rights.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I was reading up on this situation on the web. In Alaska, the law states they don't have to actually check the write in ballots unless there's a chance the write in is the winner, and after that it comes down to voter intent.

It's very likely that if Murkowski wins, the GOP will be sending armies of Lawyers to Alaska this year to challenge each and every misspelled ballot. That'll be tough for Murkowski to fight. You'll see a lot of calls for her to just give it up.

I'd like to see her win, but the idea that even if she does win she's facing an uphill legal battle to take her seat.... well it doesn't look good.

Murkowski has already proven that she is a fighter.

No she's proved she's a sore loser. The people had a choice between her and Miller, the people chose Miller.

 

[del]

I was reading up on this situation on the web. In Alaska, the law states they don't have to actually check the write in ballots unless there's a chance the write in is the winner, and after that it comes down to voter intent.

It's very likely that if Murkowski wins, the GOP will be sending armies of Lawyers to Alaska this year to challenge each and every misspelled ballot. That'll be tough for Murkowski to fight. You'll see a lot of calls for her to just give it up.

I'd like to see her win, but the idea that even if she does win she's facing an uphill legal battle to take her seat.... well it doesn't look good.

Murkowski has already proven that she is a fighter.

No she's proved she's a sore loser. The people had a choice between her and Miller, the people chose Miller.

and so she can't run as an independent or she's a sore loser?

 

[uptownlivin90]

I was reading up on this situation on the web. In Alaska, the law states they don't have to actually check the write in ballots unless there's a chance the write in is the winner, and after that it comes down to voter intent.

It's very likely that if Murkowski wins, the GOP will be sending armies of Lawyers to Alaska this year to challenge each and every misspelled ballot. That'll be tough for Murkowski to fight. You'll see a lot of calls for her to just give it up.

I'd like to see her win, but the idea that even if she does win she's facing an uphill legal battle to take her seat.... well it doesn't look good.

Murkowski has already proven that she is a fighter.

No she's proved she's a sore loser. The people had a choice between her and Miller, the people chose Miller.

No, republicans had a choice about who they wanted to nominate.

Now "the people" have a choice between her, Miller, and the Democrat. It looks like Murkowski has a chance to be that choice.

Or did you forget that there were people other than republicans in Alaska?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Murkowski has already proven that she is a fighter.

No she's proved she's a sore loser. The people had a choice between her and Miller, the people chose Miller.

and so she can't run as an independent or she's a sore loser?

Fact is, if the people wanted her to represent them, she would have won the primary. Had she ran as an Independent from the start, you may have a point. Yes. she's a sore loser a person that cannot accept that she wasn't the people's choice. She won't win and I wouldn't put it past her to contest the election results when she loses.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Murkowski has already proven that she is a fighter.

No she's proved she's a sore loser. The people had a choice between her and Miller, the people chose Miller.

No, republicans had a choice about who they wanted to nominate.

Now "the people" have a choice between her, Miller, and the Democrat. It looks like Murkowski has a chance to be that choice.

Or did you forget that there were people other than republicans in Alaska?

Why do you liberal fucks even care? You do know that Murkowski isn't as Democrat, don't you?