From the Benson campaign - please pass to others.

[Blue_In_AK]

By Elstun W. Lauesen
September 10, 2006

In 1990 John Devens, then Mayor of Valdez, ran against Don Young, the
Republican incumbent in the U.S. House. I remember that election well.
Devens was challenging Young because of Young's callous comments made
after the Exxon-Valdez disaster, dismissing it as environmental
hogwash and failing to take the issue seriously. The Exxon-Valdez oil
spill was for Don Young in 1990 what Katrina was for George Bush in
2005. Don Young was Absent Without Leave and he failed to step up when
needed.

Young's dismissive attitude so infuriated John Devens, the Mayor of
Valdez, that the he launched what many dismissed as a symbolic race
against Young. Throughout the summer and fall, Devens' campaign
reached out to Democrats, labor unions and teachers, attempting to get
financial support for his campaign. Over and over again the political
'insiders' dismissed Devens' campaign as quixotic.

Heavily outspent, Devens continued to wage a grass-roots effort,
garnering the support of individuals like me, contributing $25 here
and there. But the big donors were missing. The big dollars never came
into the Devens campaign. Most disturbing: the Democratic Party was
missing. Support for the Devens campaign was dismissed by the smart
money in the Democratic Party and the Democrats laid low.

On election night, the results were startlingly close. Early returns
actually showed John Devens ahead of Young. At Election Central the
jaws dropped. The insiders and the smart money guys shook their heads
in disbelief. At the end of the day, the military vote and the Bush
saved Young's hide. John Devens wound up garnering 91,677 votes to Don
Young's 99,003 votes, 48% to 52%.

On election night I heard a phrase over and over again that made me
physically ill: '...If only we had known that it was going to be this
close...'

For want of $100,000 or even $50,000 to launch a mailing or a last
minute television push, John Devens might have won that race.

Fast forward to 2006. The voters are discontent. Big money does not
appear to be the only factor; incumbency is not sacrosanct. Sarah
Palin, massively outspent by two opponents, nevertheless got 51% of the
Republican primary vote, most of those votes coming from non-partisan
voters and independents. Ballot Measure 2, massively outspent by
industry opponents, nevertheless got over 52% of the vote. Pete Kott,
the second most powerful member of the House, fell to Anna Fairclough
in the Republican Primary.

In the primary election, approximately 92,000 voters chose the
Republican ballot. Yet Don Young only got around 72,000 of those
votes. That means that approximately 20,000 voters, I am guessing
independent and non-partisan voters, deliberately DID NOT vote for
Young.

I am calling those votes Diane Benson votes. Why? There is a high
probability that those voters chose the Republican Ballot to vote
against Frank Murkowski. When they have a choice in the general
election these voters, who are motivated voters, will not choose Young.
They will choose Benson.

On the so-called 'Combined Ballot', the Democrats got approximately
36,000 votes.

With a few exceptions, these voters will not vote for Young. I am
calling these votes Diane Benson votes. Adjusting Benson totals for
the most probable distribution of the primary returns, the Benson base
looks close to 56,000.

Of the 72,000 votes in the Young column, I estimate that about 10% of
those voters, non-partisan and independent, simply voted for Young
because his name was on the ballot. These 7,200 voters are 'in play.'
I suspect that would comport with the 'undecided' percentages of the
voters at large. Adjusting the Young totals for the 'undecideds,' his
probable base vote in the primary is 64,800.

My analysis tells me that, going into the fall, the contest between
Benson and Young looks like this:

Young: 64,800
Benson: 56,000
Undecided: 10,000

This is a horse race, ladies and gentlemen.

Will 2006 equal 1990?

2006 feels eerily like 1990. Like the Exxon-Valdez spill, the gas line
debate and BP's pipe corrosion mismanagement has stunned Alaskans with
the realization that maybe they need leadership that is not so
friendly with an industry that we are supposed to regulate. As in
1990, there is an anti-incumbency mood. As in 1990, Young has been
Absent With Out Leave. In his various chairmanships in the House,
through his vaunted 'Seniority,' he certainly has a venue to call the
oil companies to account. But hasn't the normally talkative Mr. Young
been eerily silent?

Diane Benson on the other hand is generating considerable grass roots
interest. She was well received at Candidate Sunday at the Anchorage
Baptist Temple. Like Sarah Palin, she stands in stark contrast to her
opponent. She has a moral cause. People are contacting her office from
around the state asking to help. Her opponent is linked to a
congressional leadership tainted by Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay.
People are yearning for change, a new direction. Diane offers that.

My question, to all of us is this: on election evening 2006 will all
the insiders and the 'smart money' once again stand drop-jawed as a
contender comes tantalizingly close to making political history in
Alaska?



PASS IT ON...

[Ken Burch]

1. Thanks, Elstun

I think we were in the same strategy teleconference on Monday night, btw.

[TanyaAK]

2. Wow so close!

If we focus on throwing Young out- it can be done! That is if they bother counting the votes honestly.

He still has done nothing about Exxon not paying what they owe.