Republicans Counting on Write-In Lisa Murkowski Over Joe Miller in Alaska

Source: ABC News

ABC's Jonathan Karl reports: A high-level GOP source tells me that party leaders have essentially given up on Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller and are now banking on a victory by write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski as the best bet for Republicans to keep the Alaska Senate seat.

Murkowski defied party leaders by running a write-in campaign after she lost the Republican primary last month. But with Miller's campaign faltering, the source tells me that Republican leaders are now worried that Democrat Scott McAdams has a shot of winning and that Murkowski may be the only way to stop him.

It's a remarkable turnaround for Murkowski. She was punished by party leaders last month -- unceremoniously stripped of her post in the Senate leadership -- when she refused to bow out of the Senate race and endorse Miller. But she has consistently said she is still a Republican and will caucus with the Republican party if she wins.

The nightmare scenario for Republicans is that McAdams comes in second on Election Day, trailing "write-in candidate." Those write-in votes won't be counted unless there are more write-in votes than there are votes for any candidate on the ballot. Once the write-in votes are counted, however, some of them will inevitably be disqualified (illegible writing, wrong name, etc.). And a small number will be for candidates other than Murkowski. If enough are tossed out, second place McAdams would be the winner.

Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/10/republicans-counting-on-write-in-lisa-murkowski-over-joe-miller-in-alaska.html

---

Hopefully the winds will be with Scott McAdams' back over Murkowski.

That's one lunatic down. I hope to God that the people of Nevada come to their senses.

Kentucky and Florida would be nice too, but Angle is the worst of the three.

would it count for intent?

~~~~~~~

I was told if it's slightly off (ending in "ski" or "sky" for example), it counts. But should it? If she wins, whoever comes in second place will take it all the way to the SC, and I don't blame them.

Frank Murkowski used to be Senator so it is reasonable to think some people might want him back... I think if it doesn't say Lisa Murkowski voter intent can not truly be determined..The court will have to decide I guess.

Those write-in votes won't be counted unless there are more write-in votes than there are votes for any candidate on the ballot.

I've reread it several times. Maybe I'm just a moron, but isn't that just saying that murkowski has to get more votes than any other candidate in order to win? How is that good mcadams?

i did the same double take

Once the write-in votes are counted, however, some of them will inevitably be disqualified (illegible writing, wrong name, etc.). And a small number will be for candidates other than Murkowski. If enough are tossed out, second place McAdams would be the winner.

From OP.

under that scenario he would win. The latest polls on the race are not very conclusive, so lets not assume anything yet.

candidate (i.e., they don't bother to read them right away), they just count the ballots that have write-in checked off. If there are enough write-ins so that if they all went to the same person that person would win, then they settle down to reading and counting the actual names...

write-in candidate. They're absolutely desperate, and it means Scott McAdams has a route to victory.

http://www.themudflats.net/2010/10/28/breaking-new-alaska-senate-poll-shows-mcadams-surging-past-embattled-joe-miller/

Reminds me a lot of the Senate race here in FL. Meek has run a very weak campaign.

in his latest projection. And he gives McAdams only an 8% chance. Silver might well be wrong, but at the very least his projections should be enough for them not to give up on Miller. So I call BS on that article.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate/alaska