The New York Times on Wednesday published a blockbuster story claiming that multiple former staffers on the campaign of Alaska Democratic Senatorial nominee Mary Peltola implicated her and others in the effort to confuse voters with decoy “Dan Sullivan” candidates. Peltola has long denied knowledge or involvement, but the Times reported that she was allegedly aware of the effort that also involved campaign officials, its lawyers and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Rounding out the array of “usual suspects” is the Marc Elias Group. Elias was involved in the Russian hoax and has been previously sanctioned in court. The Times reported that Peltola’s campaign manager told it that “Alaskan voters need to know.”
Democrats like Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) immediately ran out to do damage control and depict Rio as a “disgruntled former employee.” The problem is that it is not just Rio. The Times referenced multiple campaign workers and brought receipts.
The Times names Democratic operative Jerid Kurtz, who allegedly worked with and communicated with Rios and others on the campaign, including Anton McParland, who at the time was Ms. Peltola’s chief of staff. It also states that campaign lawyers were involved in this despicable dirty trick to get voters to cast mistaken ballots.
The Times reported that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, chaired by Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), was aware of and involved in the effort. The effort was allegedly called “a ballot composition” project and Kurtz was allegedly paid through a pro-Peltola fund.
The Times details the effort to conceal it. For example, the paper reports:
The Peltola aides worried at times that Mr. Kurtz’s efforts would be discovered, such as when he posted an image of the Anchorage airport on his Instagram account.
“I am hearing that our friend in the state is being noticed,” Mr. McParland wrote in a text message in January reviewed by The Times. Andrew Piatt, the D.S.C.C.’s director of campaigns, replied: “We will check in.”
Peltola refused to address specifics in response to the story. She attacked the liberal New York Times for just trying “to sell newspapers” and dismissed the story by saying that “Nobody’s waking up worried about ballot composition. Not even me. I’m worried about my bills. I’m worried about affordability in health care.”
Peltola is clearly hoping to ride this out for the last week. However, it could snowball legally. The staff was aware of past public denials and the likelihood of an investigation. Indeed, the Justice Department filed to try to address the confusion, but Peltola filed to block the effort and declared in court filings that the allegations were “baseless.”
There may be questions as to whether the lawyers and staff were forthcoming in such filings,
It is not a crime to help engineer decoy candidates, even if it is viewed as the lowest form of dirty politics. Lying about your knowledge or involvement only magnifies the unethical conduct.
However, it is easy to trip a legal wire in such efforts. Campaign filings must be true and correct. Indeed, Elias and the Clinton campaign were later sanctioned for hiding the funding of the infamous Steele dossier as a legal expense. (The Clinton campaign denied such involvement until after the election). The Times refers to the Elias Group as opposed to Elias as an individual in the account of this effort to confuse voters.
There can be allegations of not only misrepresentations in filings but possible violations in the pressuring of potential witnesses, destruction of evidence, or false statements to federal investigators.
The risk of such allegations should lead the Peltola lawyers to withdraw from further work, as they could become potential witnesses and targets in state or federal investigations. Reports indicate grand jury subpoenas are expected in the coming days.
There are also questions about the past interactions of the decoy Dan Sullivan, who insisted that the idea to run was his own idea and that he did not have communications with the Democrats on such an effort. He also has not responded to the story.
Yet, the Times reports an extensive effort to coordinate and communicate with decoys:
The operation began in the summer of 2025 to lure potential spoiler candidates onto the state’s unusual four-person ballot, Ms. Rios said. …
Months later, in early 2026, Mr. Kurtz participated in a video call with members of the ballot composition team, Ms. Rios said. He told the group he had made contact with one of the Dan Sullivans. This Mr. Sullivan lived in the tiny village of Petersburg, and Mr. Kurtz described him as amenable to running if it would help Ms. Peltola, Ms. Rios said.
Mr. Kurtz “told us when he found him,” she said. He said Mr. Sullivan “said he hated Trump, and if it was going to help Mary, he liked Mary. He didn’t have any interest in being a politician, but if this could help.”
Mr. Sullivan, who has maintained that he entered the race of his own volition, did not respond to repeated requests for comment over the past week.
With the reported investigations unfolding, this has the makings of a major scandal with possible criminal and civil elements. It would be wise for staffers to “lawyer up.” The likelihood of state and federal investigations is quite high and it is also likely that some of these same sources will cooperate with investigators. Lawyers tend to minimize the risk for their clients in such investigation. They do not want their client to be the target without a chair when the music stops.
In other words, this is likely to metastasize in the coming weeks. However, with the rapidly approaching election, the die is cast on the ballots. That may be good news for the Democrats for retaking power, but it may not be good news for the potential targets. It will only magnify the costs of this conspiracy if it moves from a political conspiracy to an actual criminal conspiracy.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
The single, sole, solitary and exclusive thing one needs to know confirming the deceit infecting Democrat politics in Alaska — as well as anywhere else in the Solar System — is that Monsieur Elias is implicated.
Turley heavily implies that recruiting spoiler candidates is a potential criminal conspiracy. In reality, ballot-stacking and recruiting third-party spoilers are entirely legal under federal and state laws. Both major political parties regularly utilize this tactic; for instance, the Alaska Republican Party previously backed a candidate running from a New York prison to dilute progressive votes. While ethically questionable, it is a standard political practice rather than a statutory crime.
The Alaska Supreme Court already reviewed the eligibility of the second Dan Sullivan (Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.). The state’s highest court ruled that a candidate’s underlying political motivations or intent are not grounds for removal from the ballot as long as they meet structural age and residency requirements.
It seems Republicans want people to believe MAGA is too stupid to make a distinction on the ballot where clearly the word “ incumbent” is next to the ‘real’ Sullivan.
Democrats did what Republicans would do and Republicans are upset about it.
More lies: In reality, ballot-stacking and recruiting third-party spoilers are entirely legal under federal and state laws. Really, then why don’t you prove it. YOu wrote it.
You know you have google at your fingertips. Use it. It’s incredibly helpful.
You can also review statutory guidelines on the Alaska Statutes § 15.25.030.
Or…
Look at Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010).
Plenty of resources for your perusal.
You wrote it X, at least give yourself some degree of credibility by presenting details of the source of your lies, otherwise you are either are liar or just plain stupid.
Apparently you don’t know how to read. I gave you the resources for your reading pleasure. Your laziness is not my problem.
Your laziness is not my problem. How true about you. But its not laziness on your part is it, you’re a pathological liar. You wrote it, you source it. Otherwise its fraud, plagiarism, a lie.
X it is arguable that the fake sullivan violated the Alaska law you cited when listing is political affiliation. If you are being paid by one campaign candidate or party you are affiliated with that party. The Alaska law requires truthful statements.
Separately this is an election for Federal office – not a purse state election -0 Federal laws apply.
Further this was ongoing since mid 2025 – and DOJ has likely been investigating for a while.
Lying to federal agents is itself a federal crime.
While we do not know that occured – the odds strongly favor it.
Personally I think this is a “setup” – I suspect That Trump and DOJ have known about his for a while – the 2 Sullivans have been in the news for many many months. I suspect the investigation took place months ago.
It was leaked to NYT – who either had to run the story or get scooped, and DOJ separately filed its lawsuit on this.
Democrats tried to pull something, got caught and it has backfired.
I suspect there will be criminal investigations , possibly prosecutions,
but the big deal is the Democratic party – not just Petola gave Trump proof of democrat election fraud just before a big election.
Please start telling us all how Democrats did nothing wrong in 2020 again – PLEASE !!!
Whether the fraud is criminal is a separate issue – this is still clearly fraud and it clearly stinks to high heaven.
Even every left wing nut on the view thought this was stupid.
Democrats – own goal.
I would note this is not the first time Alaska was had Democrat fraud in a senate race – see the Ted Stevens race over a decade ago.
I do not think voters are likely to be happy about this.
If the only impact is less democrats showing up at the polls because Petola smells – that alone will likely cost democrats a seat that they were likely to lose narrowly.
But though the impact is smaller – this is a national scandal – this has national democrats fingerprints on it, and will have voters asking questions in all democrat races.
John Say,
That’s a lot of words to say you don’t have an argument. The Alaska Supreme Court already ruled Sullivan’s met all the qualifications under the law.
Republicans are upset because Democrats did the one thing Republicans are always happy to do. Dirty politics. It’s legal. It works. And…why not?
Republicans had plenty of time to challenge this. What IS evident is they didn’t have enough evidence to prove their allegations. That’s not proof a crime was committed. Just as it did in 2020. Republicans had no proof of their allegations.
Plain stupid is my assessment.
Alaska Statutes § 15.25.030. requires stating a political affiliation under oath – if you are being paid by a party to run – you are affiliated with that party and the statement is sworn so you are perjuring yourself.
” Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010).”
Are federal campaign finance cases related to the rights of individuals to contribute to a campaign
They have to do with money not fraud.
John Say, so you’re claiming he didn’t state his party affiliation?
You’re not saying he didn’t.
The federal cases have to do with money, right. But also money as free speech. In this particular instance…political speech. Which…again makes this perfectly legal.
Get a life, loser.
I do not know Alaska law – nor do you.
The prior court rulings were based on facts known at the time – not those known now.
I beleive that the Alaska Supreme court ruled that absent evidence of fraud Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. had to be presumed to be legitimately running.
Yes this has occured on occasion – and people have gone to jail.
But I beleive that is not because trojan horse candidates are illegal, but because the process of getting them on the ballot nearly always requires lying on sworn paperwork.
Regardless , legal or not this burns to ash claims of democrat election integrity.
It likely will impact a close election and regardless of outcome will result in legal headaches for Petola and lots of democrats for he next 2 years.
As it should.
John Say,
What you’re saying is this is annoying to you. Because you can’t say with absolute certainty this is illegal or a crime. You WANT it to be. But the evidence and the law don’t support your ‘want’.
Republicans got beat by their own game.
And dumbocrats are mad cause we outed their pathetic scheme yet again.
The single, sole, solitary and exclusive thing one needs to know confirming the deceit infecting Democrat politics in Alaska — as well as anywhere else in the Solar System — is that Monsieur Elias is implicated.
What a terrible column. Talk about baseless allegations… that’s all this article is. What filings were made that would incur criminal liability?
One would hope before writing such a ridiculous article, you would give at least one example.
Is it dirty politics? Yes. Is it illegal? No.
Is your intent merely to fuel the Age of Rage? Most assuredly, yes.
Anon: You complain about the article because you say it is not illegal, but rather, it is “dirty politics.” So should not dirty politics also be exposed? Or does something have to be illegal in order to write about it?
If this were simply an article that said Dems engaged in dirty politics, I would have no problem with it. But, as my earlier comment noted, Turley’s article – without specific – speculates that criminal activity is afoot. All baseless smoke.
Nothing will come of it. Turley forgot about the Purcell doctrine. Any legal action this close to an election will not be possible. It’s essentially too late for Republicans to do anything about it. The NYT article will be relevant once the election is over.
No such animal as the purcell doctrine. More lies.
Its a doctrine not a law. Got that?
A doctrine is a precedent set by SCOTUS based on a case. It’s a rule, set by SCOTUS that lower courts MUST follow. It’s based on an actual case. The doctrine, established in the landmark case Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006), dictates that as an election draws close, the risk of judicial disruption increases exponentially.
A doctrine in legal terms refers to an important rule, set of rules, or principle that is widely followed in a field of law, often established through the continuous application of legal precedents. It serves to provide a comprehensive way to resolve specific types of legal disputes. Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/doctrine
No where is it stated to be a LAW, at best a guideline. Any judge can negate it. Again, you’re full of it. Get a life you liar.
Nobody is saying it is a law. Not even I.
But…lower courts MUST abide by it. Judges can ignore it, but…..they will eventually be overturned by SCOTUS.
You haven’t proven me wrong LOL!!
There is no doctine in existance that says that the courts must sit on their hands and watch as fraud is committed.
Further Courts make decisions regarding elections even on election day.
Further Purcell is about changing election rules close to an election.
No one is seeking to change the rules.
Yes there is John. It’s been used before.
Purcell is about interfering with an election so close to one that will affect the outcome.
Republicans were challenging the rules and the Alaska Supreme Court ruled Sullivan’s candidacy is perfectly within the law. He met all the requirements.
Regardless, PLEASE keep making the argument “We got caught in a fraud, but because it is too late – we get to benefit from that fraud anyway”.
Please ! Please ! Please !
It’s not fraud. It’s plain ol’ dirty tricks. All perfectly legal.
“Nothing will come of it.”
That depends on what you mean.
Will it harm Petola’s chances of election – likely.
Will it harm Democrats chances elsewhere – to a lessor extent.
Will it result in investigations for may months to come no matter what – with certainty.
Will it result in prosecutions and convictions – maybe.
“Turley forgot about the Purcell doctrine.”
That went out the door under Garland.
“Any legal action this close to an election will not be possible.”
Some legal actions started a week ago. I do not think that immediate action is important.
But yes it is possible the fake dan sulivan gets removed from the ballot.
But no one is going to jail before the election.
“It’s essentially too late for Republicans to do anything about it.”
I got away with election fraud is not the message you want to send a few days before the election.
“The NYT article will be relevant once the election is over.”
It is relevant to how people vote – not just in Alaska – but nationwide RIGHT NOW.
Further short of exit polls it will be hard to guage how much of an impact this has had.
John Say, again. You make a lot of wishy-washy assertions and claims. Meaning you don’t have an argument. Just frustration. Democrats did something Republicans would be perfectly fine with. Because it’s legal and effective. It’s just that they are not the ones doing it.
Fuel the rage?
Nope.
We knew about this months ago. The Trump admin tried to sue to get the decoy off the ballot. We all knew, based off the good professor’s previous column, that the Trump admin would likely not be successful.
It is not illegal.
What is interesting is 1) The NYT is the one reporting on it, 2) the breadth and depth of it i.e. who knew and how many people knew, 3) who was giving the orders, 4) the efforts to cover it up.
I am perfectly fine with the NYT reporting to what lengths the Democrats went to, to rig the election in their favor. Again, not illegal. But they did put on full display for all to see their questionable ethics.
To which I say, thank you!
Just repeating the headlines huh?
I’m astonished; nay, ASTONISHED, that the Grey Lady broke this story.
Dirty tricks are endemic to politics, and the same name trick is nothing new. It has worked before. However, it is especially pernicious with the top 4 ranked choice system that Alaska has. Dirty tricks are legitimate, but perjury about them is not. Since the early vote is already in, Pelotla has probably already been elected, so there is the question – do any of their past statements or filings constitute perjury?
Really, vile is too tame a word for the modern left. This is sickening, it is evil; I honestly believe that they can’t win an election honestly in the 21st century. I wish I had something more salient to say other than our modern dems are disgusting, but I don’t.
I also wish I were surprised, but I’m not; these days if there’s an election, it’s guaranteed the dnc is standing knee-deep in sh*t and flinging it at literally all of the rest of us. It’s really time for their chicanery to end, they are insane, totalitarian thugs, and that is pretty much it. Clutch your pearls all you like, ‘classical’ libs – this is your former party now and for all time going forward.
right only a moron would vote for the wrong dan sullivan
Is anyone really surprised?
Well, for the NYT to run with the report, perhaps surprised there. But they must of had enough sources and evidence to go with it.
Be interesting to see if and who folds to make sure they have a chair to sit upon when the music stops.
@Upstate
And they do something similar, every. Single. Time. And they shrug it off, get away with it, and they do it again.
I am begging for any of it to sink in with the very seemingly r*tarded lefty voters, especially the older ones. If their IQs haven’t been reduced to double digits, then for Pete’s sake, show it.
So from now on I presume that you will believe that the NYT is a reliable source of factual news and information.
In the past you have wailed incessantly about the fake news from all the MSM, but now you are quite happy to believe this story from the NYT, simply because it fits the MAGA narrative about the left.
Apparently the MSM is always wrong, except when they are critical of the left.
Total and absolute hypocrisy.
No. You presume wrong. That would be nothing new for you.
As with any news source, one has to read what it says, check the evidence, the facts, if there is any spin and apply critical thinking, analysis and then come to a educated conclusion.
In this case, it appears the NYT got information on a story, did their own investigation, found more evidence with sources, text messages and other documentation. The story was too good and to big NOT to run and print. Else, if they did not, and someone could call them out on it later, it could harm their reputation. Something they cannot afford right now. Or, someone else could of ran the story and take the credit.
In this case, the NYT did some real investigation journalism and deserves the credit.
However, it no way atones for their past, Russian hoax reporting.
Be interesting to see if their is any kind of inhouse on the news floor backlash against the reporters and the editor who ran the story.
Fake Farmer
So what you are saying is that NYT can be trusted when they run a story that you like and want to be true, but not to be trusted when they run a story you do not like.
This is cult behavior.
You are basing your opinions on your prejudices, not facts.
To believe that the NYT can be simultaneously trustworthy and untrustworthy is a sign of mental illness.
Listen you are either a liar or just stupid. YOu reverse you opinions as the wind blows. Last week it was, oh Bill Maher is so smart and pro-Trump. That changed overnight, Trump attacked him, but no peep out of you. Then The Free Press and Bari Weiss, and CBS, claiming she’s making it into a credible news source. Then last Sunday 60 Minutes … kaboom! Lies, lies, and more lies. You them clamed-up. And Now it the NYT.
Do you when to shut-up, everytime you open your piehole it’s a heap of BS and lies. You idiot.
Wrong again.
I NEVER have said Bill Maher was pro-Trump. They had dinner together for a second time. What I have stated about Bill Maher, is he has been calling out the stupid and crazy that has taken over his and PT party. I also mentioned Bill Maher vote is in play and he said he would vote for a Republican if his party kept with the stupid and crazy.
I said Bari Weiss was trying to change the course of CBS news. I also said she likely would have to fire a whole bunch of people and replace them. There have been some who have left either fired or left by their own devices. Otherwise, she has not had a mass layoff. Again, she probably should. Is anyone shocked that 60 Minutes lied? Not really. Could they of kept things from Bari Weiss? I do not know but I would not put it past them. It sure does look like it.
The NYT. A story landed in their lap, one too good and too big not to run. So, they did some actual investigative journalism, they got interviews, they got people to go on the record, they got text messages, they got documentation. As I stated in other comments, I am surprised they ran it, but ran it they did. Taking that information, evidence, and what we knew previously from PT column and other reporting, it does in fact appear the Democrats tried to rig the election in their favor by either confusing voters or diluting the votes from the incumbent.
You just seem to be mad Democrats got caught and are trying to conflate some kind of . . . I do not know what, with OLLY and I about things we have never said.
Fake Farmer
How exactly do YOU know that the NYT story is true and correct?
How do YOU know that they did some actual investigative reporting, and got documentation.
How do YOU know that their reporting is accurate on this story, but false for the so called Russia hoax.
The answer is that you do not know. You simply want to believe this story because it fits the MAGA narrative. Likewise you disbelieve the “Russia hoax” reporting simply because you do not want it to be true.
You are a complete hypocrite whose opinions change depending on the way the wind is blowing.
In other words you are trapped in a cult.
I read the reporting, to include previous reporting, PT previous column on the topic, I conducted the analysis of that reporting and made my conclusion.
It is called critical thinking.
It is not my fault all the evidence thus far presented shows a number of people conspired to rig an election. It is not a MAGA narrative. Now, if there is some kind of differing evidence that comes to light later, then that has to be considered, a re-analysis conducted and there may be a differing conclusion. However, if there is an investigation and more evidence comes to light of those involved were trying to confuse voters or dilute the vote, then okay. My initial conclusion was accurate.
You are trying to make some kind of argument with OLLY and I about things we never said.
On the contrary, I am not trying to make an argument about what you and Olly have never said.
Quite the opposite. I am questioning you about what you have EXPLICITLY said.
You EXPLICITLY said that “I conducted the analysis of that reporting and made my conclusion.” You apparently made this analysis in less than 24 hours after the story broke.
I want to know exactly how you conducted this analysis of the facts of this story.
What independent sources did you consult?
Who did you speak to who confirmed this story?
Did you speak to anyone with verifiable firsthand knowledge of this matter?
Did you speak to anyone at the NYT to conduct your analysis?
Did you ask Mary Peltola or any of her campaign staff about this story?
The answer is that you did none of this. You simply looked at the story and said that you believe it to be true, despite that the fact that you have relentlessly criticized the NYT and other MSM sources as being completely unreliable.
You are just blowing smoke and claiming to have done something that you clearly have not. You simply believe the story to be true because you want it to be true. You have done absolutely no analysis of the facts.
You are nothing more than a hypocritical cult member.
Wrong again.
As I stated previously, we have known about this situation for months now. PT wrote about, there were other news articles about it, the Trump admin attempts to get the decoy off the ballot. As I noted, based off PT previous column, the Trump admin attempts would likely fail.
Then I read the NYT report. Put that together with what we previously know, conduct the analysis and now we have further evidence of a larger group of people who conspired to confuse voters or dilute the incumbents vote. Further investigations could prove or even disprove what we know now. Have to wait and see. Same goes for the criminal aspect.
It is not all that hard. Well, maybe for you.
When you weigh all of the evidence, the NYT sludge really tips the scale. True or not, they most certainly deserve some prize or award.
Fake Farmer
Like Olly, you take this high and mighty, holier than thou attitude, and pronounce the NYT story to be true based on your independent analysis of the facts.
This is total hogwash. Your claims to have analyzed the facts of the story is just as fake as your claim to be a farmer.
You are a fake farmer and a total stranger to the truth. Everything about you is fake.
I am sorry annony you are all mad we are just pointing out the facts and that upsets you.
It is okay. Have your mommy make you a hot pocket and take a nap. Sounds like you need one.
When all else fails, when you finally realize you are cornered with no way out, when you finally realize that you have been made a fool of by your ridiculous antics, when you finally realize you are wrong, like all the other MAGA morons here, you simply resort to insults.
Incidentally, you say that you are simply pointing out facts. Whose facts? The facts from the NYT that you so relentlessly criticize as being unreliable.
And you still have not answered how you performed your own analysis of the facts in question. Obviously you did not do any kind of analysis. You are just a hypocrite blowing smoke.
Wrong again.
And it was you who first resorted to insults. I just noted you were having a mental meltdown and needed a nap.
I read the articles, all of them. I noted the facts. I did the analysis. I came to a conclusion. I do not understand why it is so hard for you to comprehend.
The question I have, that you have failed to answer, is how exactly did you analyze the facts?
How did you verify the accuracy of the facts?
Who did you speak to?
There are two sets of facts. The NYT alleges certain facts and the Peltola people deny those facts.
The question is, who is telling the truth.
You have decided that NYT is telling the truth based on vague assertions about having done your own analysis. I want to know specifically how you conducted that analysis.
Who did you speak to on both sides of the argument?
What did they say?
Apparently your answer is that you read a bunch of articles and concluded that the NYT is correct. That is simply your opinion, not an assertion based on an independent factual analysis. You simply read all the articles and decided that the NYT is correct and truthful because you want to believe the story, even though you have relentlessly decried them as a source of fake and biased reporting in the past.
You are simply dressing up a biased MAGA opinion as some sort independent, unbiased verification of the facts.
You are blowing smoke, and trying to evade the question of how exactly you were able to analyze the facts.
You know, it’s not so much that they keep pulling these stunts and getting caught but that no one is held responsible. They pervert the election, get caught and then blame Trump.
The news here IS NOT that a Democrat didn’t strive for elections we can believe in. The news here IS that The “New York Times” didn’t bury the story.
@Stephen
That is news, and unfortunately due to the track record, it makes me ask, ‘Why?’. I guarantee you it isn’t altruism, truth to power, or love of ethical honesty.
James,
Could be a story this good was too big and good to pass up. Or someone else might run it.
The timing could be questionable, like could they have ran it a month or so ago?
Regardless, this goes to show if there was something they could do to rig the election in their favor, they did it. Again, it is not illegal, but does put on full display their ethics.
Or lack there of.
James,
I couldn’t agree with you more. But, here’s the rub. How so very sad it is, that this is where we are as a nation!
Because of wackos like you.
Well, they did for quite some time.
I’m hoping that lots of ugly publicity will wake up Alaskan voters to this deliberate Democrat fraud and prevent it from being a success.
I blame GOP Senator Murkowski for this. She pushed ranked-choice balloting to avoid being primaried by the GOP, and now it may have cost the GOP a critical seat. The Democrats gamed the system that was always intended to be gamed by Murkowski herself. Never trust a stinking RINO.
In light of this fiasco, Alaskans should support MEASURE 2, which is a ballot initiative to REPEAL RANKED-CHOICE BALLOTING. Look for it in the November 3, 2026, general election.
And then primary Murkowski first chance you get.
The GOP tried to primary Murkowski in 2010. They actually succeeded and she lost the primary.
Her name was not on the ballot, but she won the election with write-in votes.
Murkowski is not to be messed with.
Yeah, the Democrats LOVE her, since she is a vote for anything they want.
Since the early vote is already in, Peltola has probably already been elected. It is too late to change anything.
Too soon to say, IMHO.
@Diogenes
Agreed about the ranked choice-balloting. They definitely set themselves up for this, so was it simply a case of a loophole being exploited (all modern dems know how to do is look for weaknesses to exploit in their favor, and they are happy to, ethics or morality be damned), or complicity, or a longer game?
Well, Democrats never looked for another Lisa Murkowski that I’m aware of, so complicity might be a thing.
There will be the usual partisan divide over this. Just switch the jerseys and watch how quickly the arguments change.
If the Times has it right, the whole scheme was designed to confuse voters. Whether that’s illegal isn’t my point. Whether it’s honest is.
Anyone who thinks deliberately misleading voters is acceptable politics can spare me the lectures about democracy.
You’re not interested in self-government. You’re interested in power.
Olly,
Interesting that you say, “If the Times has it right”.
I thought it was dogma among the denizens here that the NYT NEVER gets it right. There are comments here on a daily basis attacking the MSM for completely failing to report ANYTHING with any degree of accuracy.
So now all of a sudden these same people are falling over themselves in a frenzied attack on the Democrats based on information from a source that they say cannot be trusted.
What part of “if” don’t you understand?
I don’t question a source because of its name. I question the information it presents. I’m perfectly capable of evaluating evidence and questioning its accuracy without deciding in advance whether it’s true or false based on who published it.
You might try that sometime.
Of course the problem is that the regulars here immediately dismiss as false reporting anything from the “MSM” that is in any way critical of MAGA dogma.
The interesting thing is how eagerly they now embrace this story from the NYT simply because they want it to be true, while simultaneously dismissing the NYT as untrustworthy.
And the other problem is that you, and others, claim that you can independently evaluate the information to determine its veracity. How exactly do you do that? I suspect that your “evaluation” is simply to look at the information and to simply say, “I believe that”. Unless of course you have some insider source of information in Alaska who has confirmed this information.
Please tell us exactly how you have “independently evaluated this information”.
I think you would have to agree that anyone taking this story at face value from a MSM source that cannot be trusted is a classic example of very poor “formation” on their part.
What part of “if the Times has it right” are you still struggling with?
I never claimed to have independently verified the story. I said I can evaluate the information. There’s a difference.
The Times says it interviewed 12 sources and reviewed text messages and documents. I can consider that evidence, look at the denials, question the credibility of the sources, and decide how much weight to give the reporting. That’s called thinking for yourself.
I don’t automatically believe something because the NYT published it, and I don’t automatically dismiss it for the same reason.
As for what other commenters here think about the MSM, take it up with them. I speak for myself.
And since you brought up formation, perhaps you could start by responding to what I actually wrote instead of what you wish I’d said.
Above you said, “I don’t question a source because of its name”.
Now you say that in your “evaluation” of the credibility of published information that you “look at the denials, question the credibility of the sources.”
These are directly contradictory statements. Now you are claiming that you are not questioning the credibility of the NYT because of its name, but you are quite happy to question the credibility of the source of the denials.
Completely self-contradictory and self-serving slop that indicates your very poor formation as a citizen capable of making informed decisions.
There’s no contradiction. You’re just working awfully hard to manufacture one.
I don’t dismiss a story because it comes from the NYT, and I don’t accept a denial just because somebody issues one. I look at the claims, the evidence offered, the people making them, and whether any of it holds up. That applies to everyone involved.
Questioning the credibility of a source isn’t the same as dismissing it because of its name. I’m surprised I have to explain that distinction.
And after all this back and forth, you still haven’t addressed my original point. If a campaign deliberately sets out to confuse voters, do you find that acceptable?
It’s a pretty simple question.
Whether or not the campaign set out to deliberately confuse voters is beside the point I am making. You are just obfuscating and deflecting. I don’t know whether it is true or not, and neither do you. You are demanding that I have an opinion about something that may or may not be true. You are demanding that I have an opinion based on an assumption that the NYT reporting is actually true.
You ASSUME that the NYT reporting is true and then demand that someone else, who does not share that assumption, must also have an opinion about this story that may or may not be true. That is an example of very poor citizen formation.
The question I am asking is how exactly have you “independently evaluated” the validity of the NYT reporting, and how exactly have you determined the credibility of the source of the denials. You claim to have done both of these things and have arrived at the conclusion that the NYT reporting is accurate.
How exactly have you made these “independent evaluations”?
Do you have personal knowledge of what happened?
Do you know someone in Alaska that you trust who has personal knowledge of what happened?
If you don’t, then you are simply making completely biased assumptions because you want this story to be true.
You jumped into my thread, not the other way around. I asked a pretty simple question about whether deliberately misleading voters is acceptable. I even qualified it with “if the Times has it right.”
Now you’re demanding that I prove something I never claimed to know firsthand. How do I know? Who do I trust? How do I evaluate information? Damn dude, Good figure it out for yourself.
You don’t have to answer my question. Nobody’s making you. But if you’re going to keep responding to me, at least address what I actually said.
The problem is that your question is a disingenuous loaded question similar to the rhetorical trap posed by the question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” It presupposes factual information that may or may not be true, and no matter how it is answered you then claim victory and the moral high ground. Again you are obfuscating and deflecting.
I have answered your question by saying that I don’t know whether the facts are true, and therefore it is irrelevant and disingenuous to demand that I have an opinion one way or the other.
Now you continue to backpedal and state that you have no firsthand knowledge of the facts, but nevertheless you have mysteriously and miraculously “independently evaluated” the facts and found them to be true, and also that the credibility of the denials is suspect.
My question is how exactly have you made this “independent evaluation” of the facts?
It has been less than 24 hours since the story broke, and yet you have apparently made an “independent evaluation” of the facts.
I am not asking you to “prove” anything as you disingenuously claim. I am not asking you to prove that the story is correct. I am simply asking you how you have conducted your “independent evaluation ” of the facts, as you have claimed to have done.
It’s a very simple question.
A loaded question? Seriously?
“Have you stopped beating your wife?” assumes you beat your wife in the first place.
“If a campaign deliberately sets out to confuse voters, is that acceptable?” assumes no such thing. It’s a hypothetical question about conduct, regardless of who’s doing it.
You can answer that question without accepting a single allegation against Peltola as fact.
I’ve made no claim of victory or moral superiority. I asked a simple question about what constitutes acceptable conduct in our elections.
You’ve spent an awful lot of time and energy trying to avoid answering it, and now you’re accusing me of deflecting?
Good grief. You’re arguing with the English language at this point, and losing badly.
Apparently you have great difficulty with the use of the English language.
You are correct when stating ““Have you stopped beating your wife?” assumes you beat your wife in the first place.
Likewise, the question, “If a campaign deliberately sets out to confuse voters, is that acceptable?” assumes that a campaign has done exactly that. In the absence of such an assumption the question is completely pointless and devoid of meaning and relevance.
Besides, I have clearly answered that question by explicitly stating that I have no opinion regarding this matter because I do not know whether the NYT reporting is true and correct.
On the other hand, you have explicitly stated that you have made an “independent evaluation” of the facts, and found the NYT reporting to be correct. You have also determined what is “missing, verified and in dispute”.
I am simply asking the question, how did you conduct this “independent evaluation”, and what exactly did you find to be “missing, verified and in dispute”.
I have answered your question, but you refuse to answer my question
OLLY,
Well said.
There is a significant difference between spin and a factual report. We, as formed citizens, need to read the report, dismiss the spin/bias/slant, conduct the analysis on the facts and draw our own conclusions.
In the past, the NYT or the WaPo will start off the a sensational headline, then six paragraphs of spin before finally getting to the facts and in more than a few occasions, the facts do not match the headline or the first six paragraphs of spin.
Other times, it is just spin with no facts.
And in other times, there is a sensational headline, some questionable facts from anonymous sources that do not pass the smell test, and then a few days or a week later, there is a retraction on page six.
Fake Farmer
How exactly did you “conduct the analysis on the facts and draw your own conclusions”?
You have said that you have analyzed the facts of this story put forth by the NYT and found them to be truthful and reliable.
And then you go on one of your typical MAGA rants about how the NYT and WaPo cannot be trusted, that they report fact-free spin with sensational headlines, and then retract the stories.
So which is it?
Make up your mind. The ability to hold two diametrically opposite opinions in your head as true is a sign of mental illness.
Exactly. I don’t have to believe everything the NYT publishes, and I don’t have to dismiss everything it publishes either.
Read the story. Look at the evidence they offer. Consider what’s missing, what can be verified, and what remains in dispute. Then draw your conclusions, and be willing to change them when more information comes along.
That’s why I used the word “if” in the first place. Apparently, that little word is giving some people fits.
And after all this back and forth, my original question still stands. If a campaign deliberately sets out to confuse voters, is that acceptable?
Funny how difficult it is to get an answer to that.
OLLY,
I am also taking into account we already knew about this a few months ago when the professor pointed it out and other reporting.
Now, somewhat surprising, the NYT has additional reporting that supports the conspiracy to confuse or dilute votes from the incumbent to rig the election for the Democrat to win.
As I have pointed out in other comments, and the good professor has said the same, not illegal.
Just a dirty trick to rig an election.
Okay.
Olly
Presumably then you have looked at the presented evidence, and “Considered what’s missing, what can be verified, and what remains in dispute” and “drawn your own conclusions”.
What I want to know is exactly what is “missing”, what is “verified” and what is “in dispute”.
You have obviously drawn the conclusion that the NYT story is correct, therefore by your own standard, you must have determined what is “missing”, “verified” and “in dispute”.
Please tell us exactly what is “missing”, “verified” and “in dispute”.
If you are unable to specify these important factors then we must assume that your opinion is unfounded, and that you are an example of a very poorly formed citizen.
They may have the story right, but are reporting it so late that the early vote is already in and Peltola has already won the election.
Andrew, early voting has started, but Election Day is still November 3. Unless you know something the rest of us don’t, nobody has won anything yet.
Are you suggesting the Times deliberately sat on this story? If so, what evidence do you have of that?
I have no idea how this election will turn out. Neither do you.
I don’t know if they sat on it or not, but most people vote early these days. If the contest is as close as polls say, election day votes are unlikely to change the outcome.
Andrew, I get your point about early voting, but I wouldn’t call the election over just yet.
What bothers me is how often this stuff ends up in court and gets dragged out until it’s too late to do anything about it. Months later, we might find out somebody broke the law or pulled a dirty trick, but the election is already over and the votes have been counted. Now what?
Sure, we might hold somebody accountable after the fact, but that doesn’t do much for the voters who got screwed in the first place.
Seems to me we’re getting pretty good at finding out what went wrong after it’s too late to fix it.
Two prong power–> the power of money and power to harm people as in genocide. Rock bottom feeders…
FAKE NEWS !!!!!
Nobody in their right mind can believe anything from the New York Times.
Everybody here knows perfectly well that the NYT cannot be trusted.
It’s standard practice for the dems nationwide. It typically takes the form of recruiting 3rd party candidates, usually Green Party, as in MD8, hoping to siphon votes from the Republican candidate. Sadly it has worked in the past. We shall see.
so gopers vote for green party canidadtes? really? your reaching homie
at this point Every Democrat knows their Party is Corrupt to the CORE!
2024 they weren’t even allowed to pick a presidential canidate!
Donna Brazile gave Hillary all the CNN debate questions in the 2016 primary.
Barack called and told all the candidates except his puppet to drop out before Super Tuesday in 2020.
It is telling that even the leftist, wokist, NYT is uncomfortable with the fraudulent conduct of Peltola, her campaign staff, and the Democrats defending this attempted deception. Unfortunately, it will all come to naught as our broken court system continues to fail us. Hopefully, the voters of Alaska will understand and reject this naked attempt to ruin their election, but I have my doubts. Is it time to return to the original practice in which Senators were appointed by State governors?
There are only 26 Republican governors in the USA. Can’t how how that would make a difference. You?
well people flee democrat states to republican states…then like MORONS they vote for Democrats to destroy their new state
593k registered voters. 23% reps., 12% dems., 65 % independents. Based on this, can’t see how Peltola has chance, but stranger things can happened with ranked choice rules.
2024 Turnout 64%.
https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-stats/ak
Anonymous cites voter registration as being 23% Rep, 12% Dem and 65% Ind and asks basically why it matters. But these crooks placed TWO Dan Sullivans and another so-called Republican on the ballot with only ONE Democrat. Peltola is obviously playing a math game trying to rig the election. You know…for Democracy.
look up how rank Choice Voting works
Helpful statistics! Thank you!
Yes, disgusting horse betting scheme.
Marc Elias always argues he is saving democracy?!?!??! How many examples of Democrats perfidy do we need to see before this odious party is ruined?
Marc Elias always argues he is saving democracy? Can you disprove that statement?
Did you read today’s column?
With the reported investigations unfolding, this has the makings of a major scandal with possible criminal and civil elements.
Oh… just what MAGAots need to get the blood boiling.
No ones blood is boiling.
We knew about this months ago. The good professor pointed out, it is not illegal although ethically questionable.
That they would resort and conspire to such a trick and then try to cover it up . . . does that really surprise anyone?
It’s a nasty little trick by the Democrats, while simultaneously an insult to Alaskans that they should be so stupid as not to know the one Dan Sullivan from the other. It seems both parties think of their voters as kinda stupid.
By middle initial?