Broder Misdiagnoses 2010 Election
David Broder, three weeks after the election, explains "What Murkowski's write-in win says about the electorate."
David Broder, three weeks after the election, explains “What Murkowski’s write-in win says about the electorate.”
The demographics required that Murkowski seek support from Democrats and independents, as well as Republicans. But she said their expectations did not differ from group to group. “I think what they are looking for is the same thing that any Alaskan is looking for: Represent our state. Work together with people that have opposing viewpoints to build good policy that allows our state and our nation to go in a positive direction.
“I think that’s what voters are looking for. I don’t think that most are looking for somebody that is going to follow the litmus test of one party or another, and never deviate from it. I think they want us to think, and I think they want us to work cooperatively together. So, that’s my pledge to all Alaskans, regardless of whether you are the most conservative Republican or the most liberal Democrat, I’m going to try to find a way that we can find common ground to help the state and to help our country.”
Want to know what the election was about? That’s an authoritative answer.
It may be “authoritative” but it’s also obviously wrong. Murkowski managed to win because the Republicans nominated a not-ready-for-prime-time candidate who turned out to be rather nutty and the Democrats nominated a token candidate in a state where they don’t have a chance. In that environment, a professional politician with immense name recognition and piles of money was able to win.
And, certainly, the 2010 election writ large wasn’t about bipartisanship. The polarization of the electorate continued apace.