Begich Pulls Ahead of Stevens In Alaska Vote Count
Hmm, maybe convicted felon Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) didn't get re-elected last week.
Stevens shocked the political world when the election-night tallies showed him leading Democratic opponent Mark Begich by about 3,000 votes, despite the fact that he'd just been convicted on multiple felony counts and several polls showed him trailing Begich by double-digits.
But now the remaining votes -- about 95,000 of them, including both absentees and provisional ballots, according to the Anchorage Daily News -- are being counted, and it looks like Begich could be pulling ahead after all.
The current count puts Begich ahead of Stevens by three votes -- not three percent, but three raw votes, with nearly 50,000 more ballots to be counted.
The remaining ballots will provide us an answer as to whether Alaska is so corrupt that they would re-elect a convicted felon. But the trend so far appears to be in favor of a Begich win.
Late Update: Begich now leads by 814 votes. Things are looking a whole lot better for him right now than they were on Election Night.















"The remaining ballots will provide us an answer as to whether Alaska is so corrupt that they would re-elect a convicted felon. But the trend so far appears to be in favor of a Begich win."
Eric - cupcake - COME ON!!!! Stop promulgating this nonsense.
People voted for the PARTY - not the CANDIDATE.
The ONLY hope they had for a Republican to retain the seat 9since they knew Stevens would be expelled if he won) was to VOTE FOR HIM - and thereby force a runoff election in which ANORTHER GOP candidate would be offered.
I mean, really, what is so difficult to understand about this????? Most were NOT voting for a 'felon' - but a seat they want occupied by a REPUBLICAN at a later date.
November 12, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean, really, what is so difficult to understand about this????? Most were NOT voting for a 'felon' - but a seat they want occupied by a REPUBLICAN at a later date.
Calm down. Everyone understands this.
But even if you were voting tactically, it still doesn't change the fact they were literally voting for a felon. They still checked the box by "Ted Stevens (R)."
That doesn't mean we should necessarily judge. If the situation were reversed and it were a Democrat in my state, then I'm not sure I wouldn't have done the same (it would depend on the people involved and the political circumstances.) But it doesn't change the fact that many Alaskans cast their vote for a convicted felon.
November 12, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
We shouldn't judge?!?! C'mon, this is frickin' Alaska we're talking about! The land of Sarah Palin and Don Young. What more do you need? Aside from the 7 count conviction, that is.
I can't speak for you, obviously, but I'm not going to vote for a convicted felon of any party.
November 12, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you voted for Stevens, you voted for a felon. Nice try on the rationalization, though.
November 13, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter what strategery they had in mind. They voted for a felon. That's basically aiding and abetting right there. I say all Alaska Republicans who voted for Stevens should be indicted for that. En masse.
November 13, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent!
November 13, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not at all clear that they were voting for Stevens to get "generic Republican." I don't think the fact of expulsion was well-publicized, and certainly not by Stevens and his supporters in Alaska.
Stevens' line was that he was not yet a convicted felon because he was appealing the case, and the Republicans in the Senate, at least, seem mostly inclined to let him stay unless his appeal loses.
Stevens is an institution in that state, and while some people may have been voting strategically, the idea that everyone was doing so is completely unsupported by any evidence. Stevens is an institution in Alaska, and if you read the words of actual Alaskans (Dave Noon at Lawyers, Guns, and Money, e.g.) there seems to be a strong sentiment that whether or not he committed crimes, he deserves another term in Washington.
Basically - provide some support for the claim that most of Stevens' support was strategic rather than personal before you flip out on everybody for no reason.
November 13, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Democratic Party of Tennessee puts a convicted felon on the ballot I'm not going to vote for him, regardless of what I expect to happen in a runoff or appointment. The fact that Republicans would decide they should vote for a party that would put a man who was just convicted of 7 felonies on the ballot says something for their "values" voters.
November 13, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Party with the felon on the ballot is the party that is not going to be getting my vote. Regardless of how they try to explain it the Republican party should not allow a felon to run for senate.
November 13, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Runoff election? You mean a new, special election?
November 13, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone should photoshop that picture and insert a speech bubble saying "NOO!!"
And I thought my schaudenfraud had been satisfied last week, but here it is again.
November 12, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schadenfraud: when you're only pretending to do harm or be harmed? ;)
(The word your looking for is Schadenfreude: Schaden=harm, Freude=joy. This has been your 10-second German lesson.)
November 13, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh, danke.
November 13, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. So they stopped counting when Begich nosed ahead by 3 votes?
November 12, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
They haven't updated for a few hours now -- they said there were 10,000 votes that they were still going to count today, but maybe this was, in fact, the last update for the day?
November 12, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Stevens effect is still very strong.
November 12, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will someone please help me understand how in the world were there 90K votes uncounted on election night?
November 12, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's Alaska.
November 12, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You betcha!
November 12, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take the population of North Dakota, spread it out over the area of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and part of New Mexico without an interconnecting highway system, and then gather up the ballots under the supervision of Palibou Barbie.
November 12, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and Todd is only one man. Getting around the state in a snow mobile picking up ballots ain't easy.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
November 12, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's snow MACHINE in those parts . . .
November 13, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
but seriously, Alaska allows mail in ballots postmarked as late as election day. In addition to slow mail, there are about 20K questioned (read: provisional) ballots, and some thousands of early voting ballots which oddly get counted last, plus absentee ballots simply not counted early on. If the trend continues, Begich will win by at least 2000 votes. I'm surprised that Young is holding strong. All three major races showed the same percentage discrepancies from the polls, about 14%, so I'd expect to see similar shifts in all three as votes are counted.
Handy election night rendering from adn.com: http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/11/07/12/7senateVote.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf
November 13, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Anchorage paper says election officials have 10,000 more ballots to count today, and 35,000 next week. It's going slowly because they're checking all the absentee ballots against the lists of people who voted at the polls on Election Day to make sure nobody voted twice. (Apparently the state was scandalized to discover that some two dozen people double-voted in the August primary.)
November 12, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keeping my fingers crossed. Mudflats reports that the Alaska districts that will be counted later (perhaps on Friday) are the ones that favor Begich.
November 12, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there were ~ 90,000 votes to count post Election Day, how do we know Don Young actually won?
November 12, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point in the ballot counting Young is still leading by 15,710.
November 12, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more reason to just say no to Holy Joe.
~
November 12, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I can say right now is, THANK GOD Barack Obama didn't pick Evan Bayh to be his Vice President. Right now, he's trying to make an argument to Rachel Maddow that Lieberman should be allowed to keep his Chairmanship. And his argument basically amounts to "Leverage? What's this leverage of which you speak? We need Joe because we're not tough or smart enough to get any of those Republicans to vote for our bills."
Democrats like Bayh make my skin crawl, and is a huge reason why before Bush pissed me the hell of to such a ridiculous degree, I considered myself an independent that just happened to vote Democratic.
Lieberman needs to be held accountable for his actions, and if Reid can't figure out how to squeeze 2 or 3 votes out of some moderate Republicans to pass something like Health Care, then we need new leadership.
November 12, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now if we can just get Franken to finish off Coleman, everything would be dandy!
And can someone tell me what the deal is with Missouri?
November 12, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you asked, the margin is narrowing in Missouri, but if I had to bet money, I would bet that we do not quite get across the line. McCain will probably end up with MO's 11 electoral votes, but counting provisional ballots is slow work, so it will be a while yet before the tally is certified. Meanwhile, it is only once the tally is certified that a recount can be requested, so if the certified tally is really close (which I expect it will be) then in all likelihood a recount will be requested, so it will likely stretch on even longer before it is really settled. Thankfully, MO of 2008 is not the FL of 2000. Regardless of which way MO shakes out, the election is already settled.
November 12, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who would request a recount? I'm all in favor of recounts if something might change, but as you said, the Presidential election is decided. Is there really any point in recounting Missouri when the only difference would be if Obama got 365 or 376 Electoral Votes?
November 13, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. I've got a $10 bet riding on Obama breaking 370. :-)
November 13, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Missour-ee, Missour-ahh, or must plain Misery -- you know, the "blow me" state.
November 13, 2008 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hot damn!
Not to go all OT, but I just put up a post about an energy technology that too often gets overlooked. I'd appreciate if you folks would give it a read and consider contacting your representatives, senators, and the Obama team to make sure it doesn't get left out of the mix.
Oh, and a recommend would be nice also, if you think it's worthy.
Go Begich!
November 12, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no shock in people voting for a felon. A) They may believe the conviction was erroneous. B) They may believe, "everyone does it, so what?" C) They may think his good work on their behalf outweighs a little personal greed. D) They may not have noticed the conviction. E) They may think the opponent is a worse choice anyway. F) They might just want to protect the party's hold on the seat so that a special election is needed if the Senator gets expelled.
The re-election of a corrupt, but popular politician is one of the reasons that the Senate has a rule allowing them to expel such a member in the first place.
November 12, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Article 1 section 5 of the U.S. constitution states "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members". The Senate has the final say as to the result of any senatorial election; not a Secretary of State, not the supreme court, but the Senate itself.
November 13, 2008 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does that mean they can override the vote of the people. That would be the Pea.niss Cheney interpretation.
November 13, 2008 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be great if both Alaska, and Minnesota would flip in the next two weeks. Then the eyes of the country would be on the Peach state.
Then if someone like Bill Clinton (Obamas too busy with transitioning to do more campaigning) would do one huge rally in Atlanta to help get that last 60th seat.
Sounds good, but Minnesota will go on until mid December.
November 12, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
60 is literally, numerically impossible, even if the dems win AK, MN and GA.
They started with 49. Five more on election night gave them 54. Oregon makes 55. Alaska makes 56. Minnesota makes 57. Georgia makes 58.
Independent Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont makes it 59.
Sole member of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party Traitor Joe makes it ... still 59.
Repeat: 58 Democrats plus Sanders plus Lieberman equals 59.
59.
Not 60.
59.
Senate dems have a much better chance of flipping Olympia Snowe than of getting filibuster-breaking votes out of Traitor Joe.
November 13, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I hate Joe he votes with Democrats more than Harry Reid. He counts as 60.
November 13, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Alaska just might do it. Good for them.
On the other side of the same coin, I'm going Green here in Louisiana's 2nd for the election on 12-6. We don't quite have a conviction yet, but we've got a pretty solid indictment and some money in a freezer (William Jefferson). I'm a bit nauseous that the soon-to-be felon made it through the primary against some decent contenders. I would vote Republican, but all I can find out about the guy is that he's "pro-family" (I'm assuming that means he's anti-choice, anti-gay, & a bit dense).
New Orleans could use some help, and it's not going to come from the money in the freezer guy. He's political poison and can't get anything done. Oh well, hopefully he gets kicked out
November 12, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice job explaining the Republican definition of "pro-family", trailerville.
But you forgot one element. It also means he frequents prostitutes.
November 13, 2008 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're painting with a pretty broad brush there, Alex. It can also mean that they like their pages.
November 13, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Begich can pull this off, it will be a huge blow to Palin.
Palin as much as admitted to Wolf Blitzer today that she wants Stevens' Senate seat. Until today it wasn't clear if Palin wanted the seat. With that question answered, the rest is fated. If Stevens were to win, he would be ejected and Palin would stand a exceedingly good chance of winning a special election in February or March.
Stevens victor = Senator Palin.
The pending Begich victory puts a huge crimp in Palin's plans for world domination. She obviously wants the hell out of a Alaska, now she's got to stick it out in the hinterlands. A Senator can spend a huge amount of time out of state without taking a hit, a Governor can't.
Two big blows in a little more than a week. Sucks to be Palin, hehe.
November 13, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Begich is now 814 votes up!
http://www.elections.alaska.gov/08general/data/results.htm
November 13, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Berkowitz, Ethan A. DEM 125184 44.99%
Wright, Don R. AI 12071 4.34%
Young, Don E. REP 140269 50.41%
But Young is holding on.
November 13, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
No joy in the grifter household when family Palin wakes up this morning!
Hmmm this would set up for Palin in 2014 running for the seat then going for Pres in 2016 at the end of Obama's second term.
The Bible Spice follies continue.
November 13, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
In 8 years the hicks won't be dream'n of nail'n Palin. Her wear and tear will begin to show. Suddenly she'll sound like the imbecile she is to the rest of the Neanderthal Nation.
November 13, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could someone please explain to me why Palin is holding a press conference tomorrow morning. She has given an interview every day since they lost the election, so what the hell more could she have to say? The other governors must resent the little primadonna.
November 13, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Explain God's will? You jest!
She's given a whole pile of "exclusive" interviews, and rumor has it that the Repub. Governor's conference isn't happy with her spotlighting ... or whatever it is that she's doing.
November 13, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Sarah is a STAR!! Furthermore, the more she gets to talk publicly the better it is for Democrats. Who else personifies the paucity of intelligence in the Repub Party like Sarah does?
November 13, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's a star like some people are legends in their own minds. I heard Greta taped 2 hours of nonsense with her. "Ordinary housewife becomes star who bounced off a glass ceiling and survived" will the the mantra?
Meanwhile it gives a ravenous press something to fixate on as Obama's team assembles more or less quietly and Bush's team tries to figure out how to implement regulations and signings and exec. orders to confound Obama on Jan. 20.
November 13, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with hoppy. We've been handed a gift! Palin combines three great things in one package: an insatiable appetite for the limelight, an unstoppable flow of self-parody, and a total inability to distinguish "fame" from "notoriety." I wish her good luck in 2012, also. You betcha!
November 13, 2008 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know but I think she keeps hinting at wanting a 'media' job offer where she gets to 'keep the media honest' by her standards... The governors aren't too happy about it.
November 13, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like No Bias. No Bull?
November 13, 2008 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
From KO's show last night, the inside scoop is that the Repub governors are very unhappy with Palin and wish she would disappear.
November 13, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
If, as the political historians are predicting, the natural reflex after total destruction of their party is to go even further to the right then Palin fits the bill.
If it is to be a Goldwater type of republican realignment that tries to expand off of the 25% of the public that thinks Bush did (is doing) a good job 2012 will make this election look close.
Next time around it could be the wingnut election with the queen of Alaska and closet meth head getting top billing.
November 13, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of the Senate, there's one race where we can still affect the outcome and Kleiman's latest post inspired me to contribute to Martin's runoff campaign against the revolting Saxby Chambliss.
https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=NqjXO81IXYZntPaqXypreP1LqSo0CHUy
Make sure to tell him in the comment field that your contribution is in hopes that he'll support Obama's initiatives.
November 13, 2008 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hotdiggitydog! Go Mark Begich! Hooooooeeeeeeeaaahhh!
Boombidiboombidiboombidibingbangboom!
Wheehaw! Yippittyippittyyippittyyipyip.
Sayonara Teddyboy. Unclenomore, you're in dutch!
Peace out, from Juneau
November 13, 2008 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best part about this count, should the new alignment hold, is that Failin Palin will have to earn her next political position. No appointments. And now that Alaskans have seen her for the fraud that she is, this may very well be the end of her pathetic political career.
November 13, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alaska law requires a special election to fill an empty Senate seat.
November 13, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
jon stewart had it exactly right last night...it is a SNOWMOBILE...not snowmachine...because YOU LOST!
November 13, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never got that either--my family lived in the Great Lakes Region(Erie) for many years, many people owned snowmobiles, and that's what we called them. Alaska doesn't have a monopoly on cold, crappy weather, who appointed them the vehicle-namer? "Snow machine" makes me think of a plow or snowblower used to clear driveways.
That's not to say I wouldn't want to visit Alaska, Juneau seems like a cool place, a city and state capital that can only be reached by air or water. Of course the Palins wanted to move the capital to Anchorage, God forbid they suffer any inconvenience, like everything can be moved on a whim.
November 13, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"No!!!! It's those goddamn tubes! And after all I've done for them!"
November 13, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
A snow machine makes snow. Alaska probably doesn't have that problem and doesn't know such a machine exists, but every time I hear them use that phrase I cringe. It's like they didn't think "mobile" was masculine enough...
Palin could have real trouble getting re-elected Governor assuming she doesn't get a shot at the senate seat, because in 2010 when she is up for re-election is when the GOP primary season will begin and her goal would be to serve half the term in her best case scenario. So right after she got elected she'd be absent while campaigning and planning for her primary run. She has made it well known that she has plans to move to Washington politics, usually most politicians play coy with making such statements because they know it hurts them in re-election bids.
November 13, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You listen to her talk, and it's clear that it's all about taking advantage of opportunities so that she gets more attention and feeds her ego--nothing about educating herself on important issues or developing a plan and vision for where she wants to take the country. When you get right down to it, her mentality hasn't advanced beyond the beauty pageant stage. She never should have been anything but a sportscaster, it's amazing that someone so empty could even be elected governor of Alaska--it tells you just how bad things had gotten that she made it that far.
November 13, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree and I am so sick of hearing her annoying voice on TV. This media obsession with her is revolting.
November 13, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can put lipstick on a dishonest, narcissitic, self-righteous, clueless hockey mom, but she's still a ....
November 13, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
So I'm wondering why the late-counted votes were so dramatically different from the earlier-counted votes. (For now, I'm assuming that there was no grand machine- or counting-based election day fraud.)
Have the late-counted votes been in line with the polls? If so, here's a speculation. Most of the late-counted votes were cast like a week before Nov 4, making them before Stevens' conviction and subsequent baffling "triumphant" return to AK. There was something completely surreal about his homecoming reception, and it seems plausible to me that a lot of AKns got caught up in the sense of defiance, got really squirrely, and decided to indulge their inner frat boy and vote for the felon.
Make any sense?
November 13, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even wonder why ak was made a state to begin with?
Look and see it has been an oil/gas free for all. The state is run by oil/gas.
Hard to have that much grease in the political process without covering everyone.
If you notice, other than a few fishing companies there has not been a rush of industry looking for a location and l.a. does not need parking space that bad.
The result is oil/gas gets their say without any east or west coast input. Ya know? Where all the thoughts come from?
And for fun they shoot stuff.
November 13, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink