Lisa Murkowski runs Libertarian

In 2010, after being beaten in her GOP Primary by Joe Miller, Lisa Murkowski went on to win on a write-in campaign. However, beforehand she tried to run as the Libertarian Party candidate but was rejected by the party.

What if Murkowski had run as a Libertarian in 2010? She'd likely just caucus Republican the way King and Sanders caucus Democrat. Odds are she wins over Miller by a wider margin if she's actually on the ballot. I'm not sure whether she'd change her policy stance on many issues if she didn't have to be accountable to Republican Primary voters, though Alaska is a pro-marijuana state,

Various states have laws wherein if a party's candidate does well enough in a statewide the party is entitled to a number of county office positions in that state and in other states. In 2010 Tom Tancredo's Colorado gubernatorial bid entitled the Constitution Party to a bunch of county offices for example, though their issue was that the party was so small that it couldn't fill them. Libertarians might actually be able to fill county offices in some states.

A Libertarian Senator might mean Johnson draws more attention in 2012. The party as a whole might attract more money and attention beforehand.
 
Given the 2016 Libertarian convention, Libertarians would probably be Murkowski's biggest detractors.
 
Given the 2016 Libertarian convention, Libertarians would probably be Murkowski's biggest detractors.

Considering she won re-election as a write-in candidate, she probably had enough support of her own that she could have easily taken over her state's Libertarian Party regardless.
 
Given the 2016 Libertarian convention, Libertarians would probably be Murkowski's biggest detractors.

I wouldn't be surprised if after enough criticism she just changed her registration to Republican or Independent. Why associate with a party full of people looking to take shots at you at any point?

Considering she won re-election as a write-in candidate, she probably had enough support of her own that she could have easily taken over her state's Libertarian Party regardless.

That'd be an interesting outcome. I wonder what impact that might have on the state's politics. More Libertarians in the state legislature and at county-level offices maybe?

A GOP split between moderate social liberals and Tea Party types in Alaska would be interesting.
 
I think the Libertarian base (as seen at their Convention) can be safely ignored if you hold the highest office that their party has ever had. The leadership is a fair amount more reasonable as far as realpolitik is concerned and also appear to ignore them.

The base hates Bill Weld (the most competent politician ever to associate with them IMO) and he made it as VP on their ticket this past election.
 
I be an interesting outcome. I wonder what impact that might have on the state's politics. More Libertarians in the state legislature and at county-level offices maybe?

A GOP split between moderate social liberals and Tea Party types in Alaska would be interesting.
She wouldn't stay Libertarian. Fact is that she won because McConnell said she could keep seniority if she won as a write in or third party candidate after losing the GOP nomination. If she stays with the Libertarians or tries to keep that party split, I don't think McConnell is so generous and that hurts the appeal of voting for Murkowski as opposed to starting fresh.

Which is precisely why I don't think the Libertarians would have given her the nomination because they knew it wasn't in good faith. I suppose they'd get wider ballot access due to their one time good performance, but I'm not sure they'd be willing to compromise on principles with someone who very much is not a Libertarian. Joe Miller was more of a Libertarian than Murkowski hence why they let him run on their line in 2016.
 
No difference. She'll caucus Republican and vote as in OTL. Then make sure that in 2016, she can get on the ballot as an Independent if need be.
 
Top