WI Sen. Sarah Palin (R-AK)?

In 2002, Frank Murkowski, as the new governor of Alaska, had the authority to appoint his Senate replacement. Among the finalists was then-Wasilla mayor Sarah Palin, but he chose his own daughter, state senator Lisa Murkowski instead. Indirectly, that led to Murkowski's fall and Palin's defeat of him in 2006. Let's say he appoints Palin instead. How does her career change from this point?
 
Either she loses in 2004, or she wins a full term. In either case she'll probably challenge Murkowski in 2006. (Can anyone seriously see life in the US Senate suiting Sarah Palin?) If she wins in 2004 she's successful, if not who knows.

Assuming no other electoral butterflies, she'd probably not be picked by McCain in 2008 as he would have first hand experience of her from the Senate, and wouldn't be picking her blind off the back of a half-assed 'vetting' and some mumbo about her being a maverick.

As of now in the ATL she's probably gearing up for a shot at the GOP nomination next year, and wouldn't look quite as insubstantial as she does now. (As well as her time in the Senate behind her, she's probably still the incumbent Governor of Alaska)

I suspect though that if Palin had been in front-line national politics for longer though, something would have happened. Not corruption per se, but, you know. Major, career-sinking errors, not just gaffes. Something like that. Some people are cut out for it and some people are flaky. Sarah Palin, I think we can all agree, comes under the latter.
 
Last edited:
Either she loses in 2004, or she wins a full term. In either case she'll probably challenge Murkowski in 2006. (Can anyone seriously see life in the US Senate suiting Sarah Palin?) If she wins in 2004 she's successful, if not who knows.

Assuming no other electoral butterflies, she'd probably not be picked by McCain in 2008 as he would have first hand experience of her from the Senate instead of be picking her blind off the back of a half-assed 'vetting'.

As of now in the ATL she's probably gearing up for a shot at the GOP nomination next year.

In 2004, Palin will be facing the same man she faced in 2006 and Murkowski faced in 2004: former Gov. Tony Knowles, a pro-oil centrist Democrat. Lisa won because Stevens cut a TV ad to warn Alaska the gravy train would end unless Lisa won a full term, plus he campaigned vigorously for her. Then there was a tax increase signed by Frank plus the nepotism. Palin will not have to deal with the nepotism and only indirectly with the tax increase. If she can quickly dissociate herself from it then she can win 53-46 or thereabouts.

As for 2006, then Palin would face a lot of criticism for playing career hopscotch: she'd have to start her campaign less than a year after being sworn into the Senate for a full term, which would piss off so many voters that she'd lose the gubernatorial race to Knowles, since she only won by 4 IOTL despite the vigorous tailwind at her back. Then her career would be over.

VP nomination: agreed, since she wouldn't have any executive experience on the statewide level.
 
As for 2006, then Palin would face a lot of criticism for playing career hopscotch:

Uh huh. This is the same 'criticism' that Corzine faced in 2006, is it? (I.E, none)

Nobody would care, in fact they'd be delighted that there was a heavweight figure of substance (I use the term in a relative sense here) to oust Murkowski. Palin would spin it as, as many national politicians who have gone back to govern their states have done before, a 'homecoming' in which they're abandoning Washington for the folks back home - something which would play directly into the kind of image she liked to cultivate.

Probably her biggest criticsm would be her taking advantage of the Murkowski patronage machine to get into the Senate and then abandoning it when he sinks; I don't see how that would be an election-destroying criticsm though.
 
Uh huh. This is the same 'criticism' that Corzine faced in 2006, is it? (I.E, none)

Nobody would care, in fact they'd be delighted that there was a heavweight figure of substance (I use the term in a relative sense here) to oust Murkowski. Palin would spin it as, as many national politicians who have gone back to govern their states have done before, a 'homecoming' in which they're abandoning Washington for the folks back home - something which would play directly into the kind of image she liked to cultivate.

Probably her biggest criticsm would be her taking advantage of the Murkowski patronage machine to get into the Senate and then abandoning it when he sinks; I don't see how that would be an election-destroying criticsm though.

If she becomes governor, I still think McCain taps her because the OTL reasoning doesn't change. We now know Palin was secretly angling for the slot since early '08, so a refusal is not in the cards either.
 
If she becomes governor, I still think McCain taps her because the OTL reasoning doesn't change.

It's pretty clear now that the McCain campaign hadn't properly vetted her and that McCain himself had only the vaguest understanding of what sort of politician she was; I think he'd met her once before they chose her as a compromise between Romney (who I think the campaign wanted) and Lieberman. (who McCain wanted) This throws into doubt the idea that she was really intended as a huge sop to the base, which is what she was interpreted as being ex post facto.

If McCain isn't picking her effectively blind, solely on the idea that she's a 'maverick' western governor who has been battling her party machine, then I can't see him picking her. Probably we end up with someone like Thune or Pawlenty. (Which of course would have interesting knock-ons for 2012)
 
It's pretty clear now that the McCain campaign hadn't properly vetted her and that McCain himself had only the vaguest understanding of what sort of politician she was; I think he'd met her once before they chose her as a compromise between Romney (who I think the campaign wanted) and Lieberman. (who McCain wanted) This throws into doubt the idea that she was really intended as a huge sop to the base, which is what she was interpreted as being ex post facto.

If McCain isn't picking her effectively blind, solely on the idea that she's a 'maverick' western governor who has been battling her party machine, then I can't see him picking her. Probably we end up with someone like Thune or Pawlenty.

I advanced the hypothesis back in March (posts 5 and 7) that she still would have been picked with a more thorough vetting. Assuming no other butterflies, all those reasons remain valid. Thune and Pawlenty are many things, but game changers they are not.
 
I advanced the hypothesis back in March (posts 5 and 7) that she still would have been picked with a more thorough vetting.

I think you're putting wayyyyyy too much judgement into the decision. (it's pretty clear it was relatively 'snap' and may not have been made on anything more substantial than a vague punt for the PUMA vote, and it's also pretty clear that McCain was primarily looking for a game changer from the centre - he was even considering Tom Ridge behind Lieberman by all accounts)

Also, do you really think that any campaign would have said 'sure' if they'd known that Palin had corruption allegations hanging over her, a pregnant unmarried daughter, and was as patently unqualified as she was? That is an assertion which strains credulity. I think a thorough vetting would have made it clear that Palin wasn't so much a game changer as the game sinker that she was, and as such, why pick?

I just cannot see a McCain who has real, first-hand experience of Palin and real, first-hand experience of her national legislative record, picking her, certainly not on the basis he did in OTL. The argument against that is tenuous, at best.
 
Last edited:
Without the nepotism, Alaska governors won't lose the right to fill Senate vacancies. Also, this means that Palin won't be McCain's running mate.
 
Palin in front of the DC media on an everyday basis would be a bad thing for her and the party considering her being prone to scandal and gaff; at best she is Demint; at worst she is that Jefferson fellow from Louisiana
 
Palin in front of the DC media on an everyday basis would be a bad thing for her and the party considering her being prone to scandal and gaff; at best she is Demint; at worst she is that Jefferson fellow from Louisiana

Will, I doubt she'll keep money in her freezer like Bill Jefferson did, but you are right in that her Senate career probably won't last. However, that prospect certainly rules out her being McCain's running mate, if we are keeping the butterflies contained. Knowles will beat her in 2004, and ironically could be the Democratic VP nominee if Clinton or Edwards manage to beat Obama for the 2008 presidential nomination.
 

bguy

Donor
Will, I doubt she'll keep money in her freezer like Bill Jefferson did, but you are right in that her Senate career probably won't last. However, that prospect certainly rules out her being McCain's running mate, if we are keeping the butterflies contained. Knowles will beat her in 2004, and ironically could be the Democratic VP nominee if Clinton or Edwards manage to beat Obama for the 2008 presidential nomination.

The suggestion that Palin would be a criminal is absurd.

As for the 2004 Senate race, why do you think Palin would lose? OTL she curbstomped Knowles in a state wide election in 2006 (a very bad year for Republicans). How is Knowles going to do any better against her in a 2004 race? Bush carried the state by 25 points that year, so Knowles is going to be running against very strong headwinds, and OTL even with the nepotism issue the guy couldn't manage to beat a non-entity like Lisa Murkowski. Palin is a much more formidable opponent than Murkowski and with the added benefit of incumbancy should be able to easily beat Knowles.
 
Dems lose a huge FearFactor to freak voters out though. :D I guess Bauchmann coud fill the same role, she's just as flaky and ignorant. If you don't believe me, just ask her about Paul Revere's ride in New Hampshire :p
 
The suggestion that Palin would be a criminal is absurd.

As for the 2004 Senate race, why do you think Palin would lose? OTL she curbstomped Knowles in a state wide election in 2006 (a very bad year for Republicans). How is Knowles going to do any better against her in a 2004 race? Bush carried the state by 25 points that year, so Knowles is going to be running against very strong headwinds, and OTL even with the nepotism issue the guy couldn't manage to beat a non-entity like Lisa Murkowski. Palin is a much more formidable opponent than Murkowski and with the added benefit of incumbancy should be able to easily beat Knowles.

I did not mean to imply that she'd be a crook. However, I think that she would try to get alot of "pork" for her state. I brought up Bill Jefferson in response to Rogue Beaver, and should have been more clear in separating my insights on that topic to prospects for Palin's career more generally.

However, there are dynamics at work here which will set Palin's prospects on a different course from that of our timeline. To start with, Alaska is a very Republican state, and very much a machine state from top to bottom, so national trends are really only relevant in landslides during presidential election years. Thus, while your point with respect to Bush carries water, it has more to do with the overall political orientation of the state rather than with its elected officials and candidates locally. You may recall that Blanche Lincoln won the same day Bush decisively carried her state.

Knowles will win in 2004 because "senator" is a vastly different job from mayor or governor. A legislature legislates, and while Palin might manage to hold her own in a debate in the chamber, I don't anticipate her wielding much clout or writing much legislation. That could cost her, not to mention that Knowles was a popular two-term governor who is still fresh in the minds of voters and that Governor MUrkowski is already starting to alienate the electorate.
 

bguy

Donor
I did not mean to imply that she'd be a crook. However, I think that she would try to get alot of "pork" for her state. I brought up Bill Jefferson in response to Rogue Beaver, and should have been more clear in separating my insights on that topic to prospects for Palin's career more generally.

That part of my response was actually directed more at BW's comment than at anything you said. My apologies for the confusion. I should have quoted his statement directly.

Knowles will win in 2004 because "senator" is a vastly different job from mayor or governor. A legislature legislates, and while Palin might manage to hold her own in a debate in the chamber, I don't anticipate her wielding much clout or writing much legislation. That could cost her, not to mention that Knowles was a popular two-term governor who is still fresh in the minds of voters and that Governor MUrkowski is already starting to alienate the electorate.

Alaskans don't seem to expect much in the way of legislation from their Senators. (Or at least I can't think of any particular notable legislation that Ted Stevens or Lisa Murkowski ever enacted.) The prime requisite for being an Alaskan senator seems to be getting as much pork as possible back to the state. Palin was fairly successful in getting federal money to Wassila during her mayorship and can be expected to be equally successful in the Senate. Especially since she will have two appropriations powerhouses, Stevens and Young, fighting alongside her, Republican majorities in both houses and a Republican president to all help her bring home the bacon. As for Knowles' popularity and Murkowski fatigue, both of those factors existed in the OTL race, and Knowles still lost. And here the Murkowski factor will be less pronounced since the Republican candidate isn't actually a Murkowski.
 
Palin in front of the DC media on an everyday basis would be a bad thing for her and the party considering her being prone to scandal and gaff; at best she is Demint; at worst she is that Jefferson fellow from Louisiana

Her scandalitude is exaggerated and partly a product of her hard-right, celebrity turn once she became the GOP VP candidate.

As a junior Senator, she will be relatively obscure for awhile and will have time to work out the gaffe bugs.
 
Its actually probably the safest place for her to be from an outside perspective. She can do the least damage and will be relatively neutered.
 
This could actually have some interesting consequences. One could find irony in Palin facing a Tea Party challenger (assuming limited butterflies) during the primaries in 2010 if she's won in 2006.
 
I lived in Alaska when Palin was first elected as Governor, actually. It seems to me that, even if Murkowski gives her the senate seat instead of his daughter, Murkowski is still going to go down to defeat in 2006. His governorship was not well remembered, and Lisa Murkowski's rise to the Senate didn't have much of an impact on it. In fact, despite the hot air of the time, Senator Murkowski went on to win an easy reelection (and, as we all know, a not-so-easy one as well)
We might very well see Sean Parnell running against Governor Murkowski in 2006. His father was a former Democratic candidate for the House (meaning both father and son were defeated by Don Young!) and he, himself, had served in the state legislature and senate as a Republican. At the time, he was a prominent lobbist. If the field looks open, he might decide to make a run for the governorship instead of Lt. Governor. If not Parnell, I could possibly see Ted Stevens' son making the run, he was the Majority Leader of the State Senator. Although I suspect the relations between the Murkowskis and Stevens remained strong.
I agree that Palin likely won't get the nomination for Vice President if she is in the Senate. She'd have had direct contact with McCain at that point, and I doubt he would have taken much of a liking to her after direct contact. Maye Libby Dole gets the VP spot? Certainly not Romney, as McCain and him never liked one another. I figure john McCain will want a lesser known figure with a vaguely reformist background to be his VP.
 
Top