Should the federal government ignore Alaska’s election if the Republican loses?

[goaded]

There are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot; one is the incumbent Republican, the other is a nobody that the Alaskan supreme court has said can be on the ballot.

The former will have the words "Republican incumbent" against his name, the other will have neither word.

The state has instant runoff voting, which means you can rank your choices 1, 2, 3... Put 1 and 2 next to the two Dans, and the incumbent will get your vote (because most people know what "Republican" and "incumbent" mean).

Yes, the constitution is irrelevant

No, they have no standing

Don't know/see results

A total of 11 votes were cast: 1 girls and 10 guys. See detailed results

Updates

8 d

Who voted "the constitution is irrelevant"? As if I couldn't guess.

Updates

3 d

Alaska: “Republicans have also taken advantage of this system. When Ms. Peltola ran for re-election to the House two years ago, the state Republican Party backed an effort to help a Democrat—an inmate who ran his campaign from a New York prison—stay on the ballot.”

Florida: Republicans in Florida in 2020 illegally bribed someone to stand and spent a fortune pretending they were a socialist. The election result was allowed to stand, despite the fraud diverting 6000 votes.

[NaultD]

Fuck off as an alaskan myself. When in doubt lean into our rank choice voting. Vote both 1 or 2 and international candidates will get all intended votes regardless.

If any conspiracy theory is to be considered this second dan is a republican plant to create this lawsuit in the first place.

[goaded]

"this second dan is a republican plant to create this lawsuit in the first place"
I hadn't considered that, but it's a reasonable suggestion.

[NaultD]

As an alaskan the first I've heard of this two dan situation is from a podcast. When it came out.

https://youtu.be/2TpbV9hffkM?is=7sGqoPkso3wD8G6V

I'm politically charged but that is as much news as the non incumbent dan gets.

Just to mention our single representative house seat has someone inside a new york state prison on our ballot who never set foot into alaska.

[NaultD]

At first I was thinking goofy people doing goofy things. pretty common around here.

With don creating a lawsuit election interference before the election even happened makes myself worried and putting a tin foil hat.

[Still-alive]

Too big to rig! they'll try every tactic in the book, it won't work!

[goaded]

Yes. It will probably turn out that the number of only "the wrong" Dan votes wouldn't even affect the outcome. It's crazy that Alaska is arguably the most socialist state (everyone gets a share of profits from fossil fuels, iirc), but votes Republican. Especially as Trump is doing a deal to let Russian companies drill there.

[Still-alive]

that moddy dude is such a deluded troll lol. projecting too

[goaded]

Oh, hell, yes.

[loveslongnails]

The Federal Government doesn't have the "power" to ignore the voting results, but of course, Trump will try to. I'm sure many red states will try to NOT certify Dem winners as well. It's going to be an even worse shit show than now.

The best part will be watching the last Scump supporting Repubes withdraw their support and seeing Scumpie turn against them. THAT is going to be fun, but unfortunately, there's still 2 more years of destruction the USA won't recover from for a decade.

[Ill_made_Knight]

No of course not as voters should be expected to be able to see INCUMBENT printed on the ballot after the R's name, besides the fact that you can't keep somebody off the ballot because of their name.
They're sure setting up to make a massive stink over it though.

[msc545]

The federal government should have nothing to do with the Alaska election, since the Constitution makes clear that the state controls it. However, our federal government will vigorously object if the Republican loses, and we can expect a court fight over it.

[lightbulb27]

most people dont know Alaska exists.

I think we should all buy some land in Alaska... just in case.

[Abbycado]

Do you really think republicans know what those mean? You are giving a lot of credit.

[goaded]

I know what you mean, but surely they can count to 2. What does it say about a political party that they rely on people who can't?

[moddy_the_mod]

It's gotta be so embarrassing to be a democrat that you have to hoist someone on a ballot with the same name as the republican to try to cheat your way to victory.

[goaded]

Can you count to two?

[moddy_the_mod]

Yup. Democrat + Cheaters = 2 sides of the same coin

[goaded]

You know instant runoff voting is designed to avoid spoiler candidates? Why don't you think it will work?

[moddy_the_mod]

That's irrelevant to the fact that the democrats are trying to cheat.

[goaded]

They're both Republicans.

[moddy_the_mod]

Right. One propped up by democrats.

[goaded]

Or "this second dan is a republican plant to create this lawsuit in the first place"

[moddy_the_mod]

lol. sure Jan

[moddy_the_mod]

womp womp BREAKING: NYT reports that operatives with Democratic Alaska U. S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign were behind the effort to find & recruit a candidate named Dan Sullivan to run against incumbent GOP Senator Dan S. Sullivan in an effort to confuse voters and peel votes from him.

Specifically, NYT says they have reviewed text messages and documents that reveal in summer 2025, a Peltola staffer received instructions from campaign staffers to find as many people named Dan Sullivan in Alaska as possible.

The staffer complied, going through voter records, and compiled a list. The operation “involved secret trips to far-flung Alaskan communities and the appearance of a mysterious Midwestern operative, who traversed the state using a fake name and made his pitch to would-be candidates over beers at brew pubs.”

Per NYT:

“The plan worked. This spring, a retired teacher from a tiny fishing village along the Alaska Panhandle, reachable only by air and sea, announced his candidacy for Senate. His name was Dan J. Sullivan.”

[goaded]

Oh, no! They talked someone into standing? Did they pay him tens of thousands of dollars to stand, like Republicans did in Florida, back in 2020? How about spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on fake ads for fake candidates? Would every vote for him be wasted under Alaska's election system like they were under Florida's? Did they break the law?

No? Then perhaps you should stop pretending to be upset.

[moddy_the_mod]

Oh I’m not pretending to be upset. I’m laughing that you got played again.

[goaded]

Democrats haven't done anything illegal, unlike those Republicans in Florida in 2020 who bribed someone to stand and spent half a million dollars or more in pretending they were a socialist.

Also, the election result was allowed to stand, despite the fraud stealing 6000 votes and the winning margin for the Republican being 37 votes. Trump wants the federal government to illegally nullify an Alaskan election.

[moddy_the_mod]

But you claimed it was republicans who put the guy on the ballot

[goaded]

No, I quoted someone else's suggestion. Which seemed reasonable since Florida Republicans already bribed a person to run and spent half a million $$$ propping their decoy up in 2020. Even though it worked and the Republican won by 37 votes (the fraud took 6000), the federal government didn't get involved, because that is illegal.

[moddy_the_mod]

Oh so you’re not even capable of forming your own opinions? You’re Purely run on npc programming

[goaded]

If you could read, you'd know I have opinions, but you can't, or you just lie about everything.

Did I mention that Florida Republicans already bribed a person to run and spent half a million $$$ propping their decoy up in 2020. Even though it worked and the Republican won by 37 votes (the fraud took 6000), the federal government didn't get involved, because that is illegal.

[moddy_the_mod]

We should have the admins create a shitlib ai bot then you can just leave the site.

[goaded]

Or you could just stop being an asshole who thinks laws aren't important.

[moddy_the_mod]

If you state it, it's more than likely a lie so I just ignore it.

[goaded]

Pure projection. You have opinions? What's your opinion of when Florida Republicans bribed a person to run and spent half a million $$$ propping their decoy up in 2020?

[moddy_the_mod]

My opinion is that you're bringing up an unrelated issue to your core question because you're embarrassed you made a fool out of yourself.

[goaded]

So you know what Republicans did then is both related and far worse that what you claim the Democrats are doing, but you don't want to tell the truth. Not to mention you have nothing against the federal government, a Republican one, at least, illegally interfering in a state's elections.

[moddy_the_mod]

Wait a minute you are the one who claimed this was republicans putting someone with the same name on the ballot. And it's not me claiming the democrats did this, it's the NY times having to admit the democrats did this.

you're failing every time your two brain cells tell your fingers to type.

[goaded]

You just can't stop lying, can you?

[moddy_the_mod]

lol, here we go. anything but taking the L you so rightly earned.

[goaded]

Yes, you keep lying.

[moddy_the_mod]

You're trying to do something again and you always fail at it.

[goaded]

You're just trolling. As always.

[moddy_the_mod]

it's not trolling to call you on your bullshit. It's truth in the face of absurdity.

[goaded]

It wouldn't be, but you're just lying about everything and patting yourself on the back for it.

That's trolling.

[moddy_the_mod]

you're the one who made the assumption that it was the republicans who put a candidate on the ballot with the same name, chief.

[goaded]

1. I was quoting someone else, and

2. since Florida Republicans previously paid someone to run as a duplicate name candidate and propped them up with half a million dollars in advertising to steal a state senate seat by diverting thousands of votes from the Democrat, it was definitely not out of the question.

"Prosecutors say Rodriguez was recruited by Artiles and paid some $44,000 to change his party affiliation from Republican to no party to qualify on the ballot and attempt to sway the outcome of the Miami-Dade Senate District 37 election. GOP candidate Illeana Garcia won the race by 32 votes. Rodriguez, who shared the same surname as the Democratic incumbent, received more than 6,000 votes." www.miamiherald.com/.../article252990598.html

3. I expect you'll keep ignoring the fact that it's illegal for the federal government to interfere in how states run their elections, but that's what Trump is ordering his DoJ to do, despite the fact that the DoJ is supposed to be independent.

[moddy_the_mod]

Ah, so as we said, you don't have your own opinions, you just regurgitate your programming.

[goaded]

You're repeating your lies. To avoid the facts. It's illegal for the federal government to interfere in how states run their elections, but that's what Trump is ordering his DoJ to do, despite the fact that the DoJ is supposed to be independent.

[moddy_the_mod]

So the democrats didn’t try to cheat by putting a candidate on the ballot with the same name as the incumbent? That didn’t happen?

[goaded]

They didn't break the law. Trump wants to. Florida Republicans did in 2020.

"Ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and generally considered legal — and have been employed by both parties in Alaska." www.nytimes.com/.../...van-conspiracy-peltola.html

[moddy_the_mod]

But the Democrats put a guy on the ballot with the same name as the incumbent to cheat, correct?

[goaded]

They convinced a guy to put himself on the ballot in order to slightly improve their chances, yes. But because of Alaska's instant runoff voting, which even you should be able to cope with, the difference would always be minimal, nothing like illegally paying a fake candidate and spending half a million dollars propping him up as a socialist in a first past the post system.

And the result, however corrupt, was allowed to stand because that's the way elections work; Trump wants to invalidate an election the state supreme court has already ruled legal. That's illegal, too.

[moddy_the_mod]

So they were trying to cheat correct?

[goaded]

Republicans broke the law in 2020 doing something similar but on a much larger scale and Trump wants to break the law next week despite the Democrats not breaking the law, correct?

[moddy_the_mod]

So the democrats were trying to cheat, corret?

[goaded]

See, this is why you're a complete and utter asshole. You have no shame, no sense of embarrassment, or honesty that you demand others to show to you.

Republicans broke the law in 2020 doing something similar but on a much larger scale and Trump wants to break the law next week despite the Democrats not breaking the law, correct?

Troll.

[moddy_the_mod]

I’m an asshole because you can’t admit reality is hilarious.

[goaded]

Is it cheating when Republicans do it? At least the Democrats didn't break the law.

[moddy_the_mod]

So you're in agreement that the democrats were trying to cheat?

[goaded]

I know how you trolls work. Quite simply, you'll ignore everything I say, despite reams of proof, about Republican illegal cheating and only quote me if I was stupid enough to say that Democrats did the slightest thing wrong.

Is it cheating when Republicans do it? At least the Democrats didn't break the law.

[moddy_the_mod]

So did the democrats cheat?

[goaded]

Bored now, troll.

[FrodoVader007]

@moddy_the_mod lol that was a funny conversation. This guy it such a tool.

[BlackFalcon03]

The French government did the same against Le Penn

[goaded]

What is it with the right wing running convicted felons? Most US states don't even allow felons to vote.

[BlackFalcon03]

Why are they felons? Is the question you should ask

[goaded]

Because they broke the law, were caught, indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced (or the equivalent in France). Why do you think?

[BlackFalcon03]

But we're they?

[goaded]

Yes. They were. Didn't you notice? It was in the news and everything.

[BlackFalcon03]

Lawfare you mean.

[goaded]

No, that would be the many, many attempted prosecutions of Trump's perceived enemies, like Cassidy Hutchinson for telling the truth to the Jan 6 committee, James "8647" Comey, Letitia James, the six lawmakers who made a video accurately explaining the law as it applies to members of the military, the list goes on.

Grand juries shouldn't be put in the position of refusing to indict people, but they regularly have been since Trump came back in, which shows the foresight of the founding fathers, protecting against someone like Trump coming to power some day.

The DoJ is supposed to be independent of the president. Trump has repeatedly said that he's ordered it to start prosecutions.

[BlackFalcon03]

Yeah lawfare. Can't beat them in elections so you throw legal cases at them to try to stop them running. Cases that didn't exist until candidates announce they are running

[goaded]

So the Jan 6 indictment was made up? No crime there! How about the documents case? You're deluded.

[BlackFalcon03]

There was certainly an indictment of mostly made up facts

[goaded]

It was enough to convince a grand jury and a trial jury. At the same time, Trump managed to avoid trials in the Jan 6, RICO, and documents cases by running out the clock and digging up dirt on the prosecutor. Not exactly the actions of a innocent man.

[goaded]

By the way, Trump's sheltering a fugitive from justice, Flávio Bolsonaro, a right-wing criminal, who was planning to free his father, another right-wing criminal, and Trump pardoned the corrupt former president of Honduras who imported drugs into the US by the ton.

Surely you can see a pattern. Everyone else can.

[BlackFalcon03]

Yiu just showed how corrupt the legal system is and why the cases against trump weren't genuine

[goaded]

Not at all. The only corruption in the US legal system regarding Trump were the judge and justices who deliberately slow-walked his pre-trial motions and appeals. Cannon, in particular was found to have exceeded her authority three times by a higher court regarding the documents case. She's still keeping the findings secret to protect Trump.

If Trump hadn't committed crimes, he would have nothing to fear from releasing them.

From Jack Smith's sworn testimony to Congress:
"one of the strengths of our case and why we felt we had such strong proof is all witnesses were not going to be political enemies of the President. They were going to be political allies. We had numerous witnesses who would say, "I voted for President Trump. I campaigned for Trump President Trump. I wanted him to win." The Speaker of the House in Arizona. The Speaker of the House in Michigan. We had an elector in Pennsylvania who is a former Congressman who was going to be an elector for President Trump who said that what they were trying to do was an attempt to overthrow the government and illegal."

[BlackFalcon03]

doesn't work that way. there's thst many bogus lawsuits that his law teams deal with them themselves much like his finances

[goaded]

It is supposed to work without judges working for the defendant. If the cases against Trump had really been bogus, they'd have released the details for all to see. Instead, they're hiding everything.

Journalists are suing the DoJ for not following the Epstein Files Transparency Act. They're supposed to follow and enforce the law without fear or favour, not break it on behalf of criminals.

[BlackFalcon03]

doesn't work like that.

[FrodoVader007]

Lol oops. Embarrassing for you.

[Snakeyes7]

Why would they?

[goaded]

Because they lost.

[Snakeyes7]

That's no reason to expect interference, unless something else is afoot.

[goaded]

Trump asked his DoJ to file a lawsuit (a scandal in itself - the department is supposed to be independent) against Alaska to block certification of the U. S. Senate race in Alaska if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses. The Alaskan senate election has two Dan Sullivans running, both Republican, and the Alaskan supreme court has ruled that they can both be on the ballot, with their differing middle initials and with the Republican incumbent being labelled as such.

The idea that Republican voters are stupid enough not to be able to tell the difference and simultaneously not vote for both Republicans (it's an instant runoff vote) is pathetic, and the lawsuit is absolutely in violation of the state's right to run the election how it wants.

"Trump says he ordered the Justice Department’s lawsuit over Alaska’s US Senate race"
apnews.com/.../alaska-senate-race-sullivan-name-lawsuit-certification-d8f4a3c7b5247cc427a05f796d7c0d82

[Snakeyes7]

Its a lawsuit which requires an investigation. If the investigations comes out with nothing then the lawsuit fails. I think these things are necessary and I said the same thing when Hillary Clinton did it too crying Russia only for it to be a total nothingburger.

[goaded]

The lawsuit has failed because it was unconstitutional.

"[Judge] Gleason wrote that the Trump administration’s attempt to block certification ran counter to the Constitution, which gives states the authority to run elections."
apnews.com/.../alaska-senate-dan-sullivan-peltola-investigation-b35acffc8b55ef58679d9b8395760f98

[Snakeyes7]

Well there you go. See? The system seems to be working as intended.

[goaded]

It was never intended that a president would order his supposedly independent DoJ to break the law for him. The president is supposed to uphold the law, not break it to stay in power.

[Snakeyes7]

Why did the court get involved if it wasn't protocol for them to intervene?

[exitseven]

I dont know.