Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-12-2013, 02:40 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,665

How did Mike Gravel twice get elected to the Senate from Alaska?


I have never been to the state and I know no one from there. But everything I can find on Wikipedia and Google gives me no indication of what that anomaly was about. All their other modern era election results seem to be fairly right leaning or centrist. Yet in his first election he managed to win despite a solid third-party effort from a fellow Democrat. Then he got reelected after filibustering a draft extension, and seeming culturally out of touch with the state, not being a hunter or fisherman.

I see that Alaska does have a larger Green Party presence than many states; but it still seems like the Republicans are more powerful than Greens and Democrats combined. So what gives?
  #2  
Old 09-12-2013, 03:42 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,017
Gravel was Senator pre-Reagan 30+ years ago. The political spectrum was totally different than it is now.
  #3  
Old 09-12-2013, 05:34 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,838
I suppose Alaska has had a lot of immigration since as well. Sarah Palin, for example, was not born in Alaska.
  #4  
Old 09-12-2013, 05:37 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 13,001
I can't figure out how Michele Bachmann or Marco Rubio got elected to public office either.
  #5  
Old 09-12-2013, 06:15 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,111
It's also worth remembering that local politics never works the same way as national politics. I'll use Montana as an example, since I'm familiar with there, but it's probably similar in Alaska. In Montana, the Republicans have a significant advantage in Presidential races, in large part because Montanans tend to be very pro-gun, and at the national level, the Republicans have staked out that ideological territory. In an election between two Montanans, though, that's never going to be an issue, since both of the candidates will be pro-gun. With that issue taken off the table, the state is a lot bluer, and so it becomes possible for a Democrat to be elected governor or senator (and indeed, all three of those are currently Democrats). Other issues work the same way: Many Montanans are also pro-fossil fuel, since a lot of people have jobs in that industry, and again, we see that Montana Democrats tend to lean that way.

In general, states are less one-sided at the state level than they are at the national level, because whatever issues are particularly important to a state, will tend to be found in that state's politicians of both parties. I don't know what the relevant issues would be for Alaska, but there are bound to be some.
__________________
Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
--As You Like It, III:ii:328
Check out my dice in the Marketplace
  #6  
Old 09-12-2013, 06:25 PM
njtt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 12,068
Somebody has to represent the interests of gravel and other small pieces of rock in the legislature.

Also, throwing a rock in a pond.
  #7  
Old 09-12-2013, 06:45 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 42,425
Up until oil moved in people in Alaska voted for the man, not the party, except for presidential elections. Even as recently as 2002, holders of the governorship were split 5-4 dems/reps. And senators were 4-3 dem/rep as of 2013. That said, most Dems up there are really centrist in nature, although are radical liberals by the right's definition. Gravel was reflecting his constituency's wishes and his personal feelings about the war. He didn't get loony until later years.
  #8  
Old 09-12-2013, 06:45 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Gravel was Senator pre-Reagan 30+ years ago. The political spectrum was totally different than it is now.
That's way too facile, given Goldwater and McGovern.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
It's also worth remembering that local politics never works the same way as national politics. I'll use Montana as an example, since I'm familiar with there, but it's probably similar in Alaska.
But Schweitzer and Tester provide plenty of photo ops of them hunting and fishing and generally seeming "rough hewn", unlike Gravel.
  #9  
Old 09-12-2013, 06:52 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by njtt View Post
Also, throwing a rock in a pond.
Best political ad ever.
  #10  
Old 09-12-2013, 06:54 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,665
Chefguy, interesting points. But maybe the real question is what was wrong with the Republican Rasmuson that he couldn't beat a divided Democratic field of Gravel and the incumbent Dem Gruening, who nabbed 18% of the vote?

Looking more at Gravel's bio, he was an Ivy Leaguer who was born and raised in Massachusetts, to French-Canadian parents. Say what?!? Seems like exactly the wrong sort for the Alaska electorate as I understand it.
  #11  
Old 09-12-2013, 07:22 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,838
"We just thought it would be funny to vote for gravel."
  #12  
Old 09-12-2013, 11:21 PM
waterj2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Jamaica Plain, MA
Posts: 6,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Best political ad ever.
It's actually not even the best Mike Gravel ad ever. I'll just assume you've never seen his cover of Helter Skelter.
  #13  
Old 09-12-2013, 11:27 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Because Stephanie says.
  #14  
Old 09-13-2013, 09:15 AM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 42,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Chefguy, interesting points. But maybe the real question is what was wrong with the Republican Rasmuson that he couldn't beat a divided Democratic field of Gravel and the incumbent Dem Gruening, who nabbed 18% of the vote?

Looking more at Gravel's bio, he was an Ivy Leaguer who was born and raised in Massachusetts, to French-Canadian parents. Say what?!? Seems like exactly the wrong sort for the Alaska electorate as I understand it.
Gruening was liked right up until he voted against the Tonkin Resolution. This was not a popular move and it cost him the election. Gruening ran as an Independent after losing the primary, but he was tainted. Independents in Alaska generally vote Republican nowadays, but perhaps at that time they were more centrist and decided to go with Gravel. I can't say what the problem was with Rasmuson. The year he was elected mayor, I was headed for Vietnam, so have no personal recollection with how he governed the city.

You have to understand that the pool of capable politicians is small in Alaska and since the 70s the oil companies have backed those that are sympathetic to them. Even today, with the population of Alaska much larger than in 1967, it's still difficult for either party to field a candidate that doesn't make you hold your nose while voting for him. The really good people never seem to make it past city government positions, since they're usually labelled as 'liberals'.

By the way, people, it's pronounced gruh-VELL and not like the small rocks.
  #15  
Old 09-13-2013, 11:19 AM
Frank is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 20,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
That's way too facile, given Goldwater and McGovern.
There were also Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller, and Democrats like George Wallace.
  #16  
Old 09-13-2013, 11:38 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,665
And in the 21st century, we have Republicans like Bloomberg and Democrats like Manchin. The claim I was responding to was that "the political spectrum was totally different than it is now". Substitute "somewhat" for "totally" and I have no problem with it.
  #17  
Old 09-14-2013, 04:48 PM
etv78 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Randolph, MA
Posts: 10,554
Using MA as an example: I'm 35 and have only had 2 Democratic governors in my living memory. But we are solidly "blue" in Presidential elections.
  #18  
Old 02-10-2014, 11:43 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
I can't figure out how Michele Bachmann or Marco Rubio got elected to public office either.
Rubio is relatively moderate, and comes from a purple state that currently leans Republican. Bachmann just happens to represent the Fucking Crazy part of Minnesota (a la Steve King in Iowa, which is largely Democratic.)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017