Talk:Lisa Murkowski/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

She Won

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/17/murkowski-deemed-senate-seat-winner-after-count-in/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.249.15 (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Need to beef up the lead

This lead is pathetic. All it says is she's the Senator. No highlights of her impact while in office, no summary of her ideologies. I.e., no assessment of her in her career. Hurmata (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Tea party reference is wrong.

The article says:

"Murkowski emerged victorious after a two-week count of write-in ballots showed she had overtaken tea party rival Joe Miller ...

Joe Miller was a Republican who beat Republican Murkowski in the Republican primary. Miller then ran as a Republican in the general election; Murkowski ran as a write-in.

Thus the reference to "tea party rival Joe Miller" makes no sense. There were no candidates of any such party in the election. Now, it's true some people who either self-identify with the Tea Party movement or who are associated with same by the various news media were involved in the election, but that does not make Joe Miller a "tea party rival."

The confusion between a movement named a party and real political parties is unfortunate. No need to perpetuate it here. The reference is superfluous anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.141.20 (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the reference to the tea party. I'd also looked at www.joemiller.us (his official site) which says "Joe Miller is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate" and never mentions the Tea party on his home page nor his "about" page. He mentions them on an article titled Miller Welcomes and Appreciates Tea Party’s Endorsement. He wrote another article, Letter from Joe to Republican Primary Voters which says "I have received no money from the Tea Party Express" though he also says in Miller Statement On GOP Nomination it's "I need to thank others who provided vital support to this campaign including Governor Sarah Palin, Governor Mike Huckabee, and the Tea Party movement." --Marc Kupper|talk 07:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Legislative succession in infobox

Whomever added the information about her state legislative career to the infobox, I just wanted to say "try again" because you pretty much got it wrong. I would assume that this is the same type of person who added other "information" such as that there are write-in candidates and votes in primary elections in Alaska, or that Alaska held county elections this past November. If you need help, don't be afraid to ask, but do ask rather that just assume that people like me really have the time to clean up everyone's messes for them. Thank you very much.RadioKAOS (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, this appears to be another case of a contributor confusing easy sources with reliable sources. The website cited, ourcampaigns.com, appears to be the culprit. To summarize, Murkowski served two terms as the representative from District 14. Terry Martin was her predecessor. Vic Kohring was not her successor; he represented an entirely different constituency. The order and composition of Alaska House districts were changed by redistricting, as tends to happen every decade. Murkowski ran for re-election from District 18 following redistricting, but was appointed to the U.S. Senate before that term started in January 2003, so she did not actually serve as a representative from District 18.RadioKAOS (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Party Affiliation

Since Murkowski as an independent, write-in candidate defeated the Republican nominee, Joe Miller, doesn't that make her Senate party identification now "an Independent who caucuses with the Republicans", similar to Lieberman "an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats"? Rillian (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No. She has said in official statements she is a Republican and will caucus with the Republicans, and that is how she should be identified unless she says otherwise. The fact that the write-in does not include a party affiliation line is irrelevent. Lieberman formally changed his party identification to Independent Democrat when he won relection. He very well could have remained a Democrat if he has chosen to do so.DCmacnut<> 20:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide citations for the official statements by Murkowski? In the U.S. Senate election, the Republican nominee, Joe Miller, was defeated. Seems odd that a different person can now be the Republican Senator. Rillian (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What's "odd" about it? Any member of the senate can change their party affiliation at anytime, foe any reason. She did not have to be the official Republican nominee in order to state that her party affiliation as 'Republican'. I wish people would be a bit more educated and informed about these matters, it's hardly secret information! (24.62.224.219 (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC))

The Senate lists her as a Republican. Therefore, she is a Republican. JTRH (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)