By Carl Nelson

It’s quite interesting what surfaces during election season. The microcosm of rhetoric and chest-pounding, cheap shots and personal attacks. In concert, it’s almost comical. Yet, when it comes to the direction Alaska will be headed on a national and international level, and considering our current federal representation, I fear that comedy is the last thing Alaskans need.

I’m a lifelong hunter and fisherman. My father was a Scout Master in East Anchorage growing up. I learned like many Scouts did, about fishing and hunting, and about honor and telling the truth.

As the August 19^th Primary Election gets closer in voters’ sights, I hope Alaskans who value transparency, particularly when it comes to hunting and fishing recreation, will consider all of the Republican candidates for U.S. Senate closely. Specifically, Dan Sullivan should be scrutinized beyond fancy radio and T.V. advertising and out-of-state PAC messaging.

Label me overboard, but I follow campaigns. Granted, I’m not political, don’t work in government, nor have I ran for office or worked for a politician. I follow what candidates say and do because it’s important to me both as an informed voter and to measure integrity.

Early on, the Democrats began running with the narrative that Dan Sullivan is not Alaskan. From owning a house in Maryland to having a non-resident fishing license in 2009, they’ve done a fairly good job keeping that message alive. Sullivan constantly refutes the claim by saying that he moved to our state in 1997, which is the first time he fished at his wife’s fish-camp on the Yukon River. His time fishing there appears true and is substantiated by his photos.

While the Democrats have asserted that Sullivan had a non-resident fishing license in 2009, it would be easy for Team Sullivan to refute their claims by showing his fishing license from 1997 when he was at his wife’s fish camp on the Yukon.

As an informed voter, and a guy who loves and thrives in the great outdoors, I don’t hang my hat on one claim or another in political posturing, but I do take offense to posers. Sullivan once spoke on a local radio talk show in Anchorage about the fact his opponents (Miller and Treadwell) wouldn’t know the dangerous end of rifle. This is a ridiculous kidney punch to men like Joe Miller, who owns and has hunted with multiple firearms all of his life, and to Mead Treadwell. When Treadwell and I spoke at Alaska Outdoor Council, NRA and Safari Club International events over the years, I certainly didn’t see Dan Sullivan in the room but for recently because of his candidacy.

Regarding Sullivan and fishing, the logical reaction to a questionable licensure claim would be to call the Alaska Department of Fish & Game and verify who was licensed when…since tags and licenses are public information. However, if you did that, you would find that Dan Sullivan never purchased a fishing license until 2009.

When Dan was fishing at his wife’s fish camp “every summer since 1997,” it appears to have been done with no fishing license. While the statute of limitations regarding the law has probably expired, that doesn’t mean accountability isn’t in play. Dan Sullivan, a Yale Law School graduate like President Bill Clinton, has no excuse to claim ignorance on the law.

Fishing regulations and boasting of being a “guy’s guy” and outdoorsman is disingenuous if you really are not, and you don’t even comply with the fishing regulations that govern anglers’ actions.

Dig a little deeper, and listen to the likes of the Alaska Democratic Party, Joe Miller, and Mead Treadwell, and the hornets’ nest buzzes a bit more. Dan Sullivan’s fishing license history is sketchy:

• In 2009, Dan Sullivan received a Non-Resident Fishing License.

• In 2011, Dan Sullivan claimed he had been a resident for 1 year, 9 months (indicating arrival 4/09).

• In 2013, three months before he declared his candidacy, he claimed he had been a resident for 10 years.

• Even if Dan had been in Alaska from 1997-2002 (a little over 4 years), and then again from late 2009-2013 (4 years) – he hadn’t been an Alaskan resident for 10 years.

A friend of mine recently contacted the Alaska Department of Fish & Game to determine if there might be a problem with Sullivan’s disclosure discrepancies. He asked a staff member to review the licensing history juxtaposed to his residency and intermittent times in Alaska. The staff member noted that the discrepancies are a problem and people are fined for such routinely. But not Dan Sullivan.

What excuse does the former Attorney General have for violating fishing regulations? Sullivan has responded that he was only completing the applications based on Fish & Game staff guidance. This time, Rep. Mark Neuman may not be able to cover for Mr. Sullivan, and it’s easy to blame staff but typically that doesn’t work for the common folk like you and me (e.g. try turning your PDF application in late or erroneously and blame staff).

With a five-minute phone call to F&G, it can be shown that Dan Sullivan has broken two regulations/laws and has shirked accountability.

Do you really think Senator Begich isn’t ready and eager, champing at the bit to pounce on Sullivan’s inconsistencies? If you think the Primary is a battle, just wait until the General Election and WWIII of Democrat vs. Republican carnage.

Disappointingly, this year’s Primary looks like 2010 all over again, and if something isn’t done now, Mark Begich has the ability to put a Republican hopeful in handcuffs (or at least publicly castigate and shame him).

Remember the lessons learned four years ago: Base your vote on proven leadership and consistent statesmanship; Don’t trust the rhetoric: Don’t invest your vote in an unvetted, unknown candidate with alarming out-of-state ties.

The Republican Party got lucky when they went against Scott McAdams (“Scott who”? you ask. The big guy from Sitka), but this isn’t a candidate as lack-luster as McAdams. The GOP’s choice will be challenging Mark Begich, who is arguably the best and most skillful campaigner the Democrats have ever groomed in Alaska. We saw what he was willing to do to our beloved Senator Ted Stevens in 2008. Do you not think Begich is willing to do that again, especially against Dan Sullivan?

For me, it’s about walking the walk. If a candidate says he loves to hunt and fish, then I hope he really does and is not claiming such hobbies to curry my vote. As for following the law, I do – and you do, when it comes to fishing and hunting. You’d expect someone running for U.S. Senate would comply the same way. If not, then it’s time for voters to reflect on their own values and lack thereof of some politicians who would do anything to represent them.

A charlatan is defined as a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill, or plain and simple: a fraud. If Dan Sullivan’s unsupported outdoorsman bravado and self-aggrandizement are based on improper fishing licensing, that doesn’t bode well for the Republicans against Mark Begich.

Perhaps it’s time to cut the fishing line on Dan Sullivan.

Carl Nelson is a U.S. Army veteran. He has lived in Alaska since 1972. Carl is an avid fisherman and hunter, and is a lifetime member of the NRA and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, as well as a member of the Alaska Outdoor Council and Safari Club International.

The post Beware of Outdoorsman Charlatans: It’s Election Season appeared first on Alaska Politics & Elections.

By Erick Cordero Giorgana

Looking at recent census data, the Hispanic population in Alaska is over 40,000 or about 6% of the general population. It is a low number when compared to the national average of 16%. However, when it comes to elections in Alaska, every single vote counts and Alaskans know that one or two votes can make the difference.

National candidates have spent considerable amounts of campaign funds reaching out to the Hispanic population. From social media, to radio and TV ads; they have pulled all the stop signs trying to get the Hispanic vote. For example, in 2013, gubernatorial candidate from New Jersey, Chris Christie, received 51% of the Hispanic vote after a big effort from his re-election campaign to reach out – almost 20% higher support than that of his previous election. Connecting with and appealing to Hispanics, a pool of over 23 million eligible voters according to the Pew Research Center, has been a steadily growing trend among Republican and Democratic candidates on the national stage.

The majority of Hispanics in the country are U.S. born or naturalized citizens, permanent residents, or refugees. According to the Pew Hispanic Research Trends Project, about 48% of Hispanics are U.S. born. A survey by that same agency showed that Hispanics are more socially conservative on issues like abortion, but more liberal on issues like same-sex marriage. The results also indicated that U.S. born Hispanics (30%) identified themselves as liberal in contrast with foreign-born Hispanics who identified themselves as conservatives (35%).

The majority of Hispanics in Alaska are concentrated within the Municipality of Anchorage; over 22,000 according to the most recent Census numbers. It is difficult to pinpoint how many Hispanics are eligible voters in Alaska, but despite that, some Alaskan candidates have tried to reach out to that community during campaign season.

Previous attempts by candidates have included ads directed to the Hispanic community in Anchorage through Telemundo; one of the major Spanish-language television broadcasting stations that can be viewed in Anchorage, or by participating in one of several forums that leaders in the Hispanic community have hosted over the years. Former U.S. congressional candidates Diane Benson, Ethan Berkowitz, Gabrielle LeDoux and Sean Parnell participated in one such event back in 2008. Senators Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski have also made it a custom to participate in Hispanic-sponsored events when they are not working in their Washington D.C. offices.

During the Anchorage mayoral race of 2010, one of the candidates used large signs in Spanish that featured a local Hispanic community member to show his or her support of that candidate. State Representative Gabrielle LeDoux had a Spanish version of her website during her State House race.

In the current campaign cycle, the Mead Treadwell U.S. Senate campaign has plans to organize events with the Hispanic community. Attempts to contact the Dan Sullivan and Joe Miller U.S. Senate campaigns went without success, but it is possible that these campaigns will also reach out for the Hispanic votes. Democrat incumbent U.S. Senator Mark Begich has, and will continue, to reach out to the Hispanic community in Alaska in his re-election effort.

Does the Hispanic vote really matter in Alaska? Despite the low numbers of Hispanics living in Alaska, and the low turnout in elections, recognition every single vote counts has made it a fruitful demographic target by candidates. As seen by previous and current campaigns that have attempted to attract the Hispanic vote, and the increasing local polling trend in the Hispanic population, it would not be a surprise to see more campaigns reaching out to the Alaskan Hispanic community.

Erick Cordero Giorgana is one of the founders of the Hispanic Affairs Council of Alaska. He is an Alaskan Chamber of Commerce “Top 40 Under 40” winner and former member of the School Board for the Mat-Su Borough School District.

The post The Hispanic Vote; Does it Matter in Alaska? appeared first on Alaska Politics & Elections.

Be it the original version in 1970 from the Ottawa, Canada rock group Five Man Electric Band, or Tesla’s 1990 remake, most of us recognize the lyrics to the song “Signs” are a harbinger of things to come this summer for Alaskans statewide.

“Sign, sign, everywhere a sign Blockin’ out the scenery, breakin’ my mind”

Granted, the topic of political signs may be better left for radio talk show hosts and rallies, or for the campaign wonks who strategize where, when and how many stakes to drive into the ground. The question remains whether or not a candidate’s signage actually generates votes.

Historians recognize the first modern political campaign occurring back in 1878. British Liberal Party leader William Ewart Gladstone was making a comeback and challenging Benjamin Disraeli for his support of the Turks, who were allies in the Crimean War. Gladstone’s constituency in Scotland, particularly Midlothian, boosted him to victory thanks in part to his strategic campaigning.

Americans must have taken note of Mr. Gladstone’s successful tactics because since the late 1880s there have been handouts, mailers, buttons, pins, and other messaging paraphernalia of the print and billboard sort across our fruited plains. Political signage is part and parcel to the communication mediums U.S. politicians depend on year after year, scattered across the country.

Google terms like “political signs” and “effectiveness” and all sorts of professorial commentaries surface. These days, academia seems to be the go-to source for expertise as much or more than actual political consultants. It’s unclear if actual scientific data exists concluding political signs concretely alter an election’s results.

What the “experts” are saying

An underlying premise when it comes to the use of political signs is that people tend not to vote for candidates they don’t know. The rationale goes that a sign plants a seed in the mind of the viewer and name recognition is generated. The more signs, the more name recognition. When the day of the elections arrives, and names are listed on the election ballot, the constituent will recall the name of the candidate, in part, because of the signs.

While name recognition is a critical component to any campaign endeavor, and signs considered integral to achieve name identification, other collateral effects tend to be referenced by researchers:

Psychological Support/Momentum – If you’re a candidate, or a supporter, in a competitive election there’s nothing as encouraging as seeing your team’s yard and billboard signs plastered throughout a neighborhood. The same goes for spotting an opponent’s signage, and the visceral reaction to want to pound more of your own signs in the earth to trump the competition. This mind-set is fast appearing in the digital realm too, like in social media with candidates competing for followers, friends and likes on Facebook and Twitter. Perhaps for online we can label it “Facebook Like Envy” or FLE.

Public Perception – People who typically vote every or most elections, whether you label them a “super voter” or an engaged citizen, have a pretty good idea who’s who in each local, state and federal election. Yet, psychological ticklers infiltrate all of our minds. To witness the virility of signage, densely caking a neighborhood or community, is bound to spark some inkling of recognition, if not generate a twinge of affinity or rejection. Think of sporting events and when you’re not vested in the outcome of two competing teams. Some people jump on board a slaughter and feel connected to the team with momentum. Others tend to side with the losing team and feel empathy for their plight. Candidates and their signs may compel the same emotions. The third choice, and some hold tight to this guttural sensation every election, is a negative feeling. Sometimes we all feel that way, suffering the gauntlet of correx missives blocking our line of sight and blurring the horizon in the majestic Alaskan distance.

Accomplishment – Ever run for office? If you want to win, it’s not just about time spent and volunteers active, it’s also about money. The less you have, the more difficult it is to build the dynamic website or secure the prime time T.V. commercial time slots, or reserve the most effective radio messaging for broadcast that smacks attention. For federal races in Alaska it’s in the millions of dollars, and state gubernatorial races are right behind congressional efforts, while Lt. gov. and state senate races can require $100,000 to $300,000+ for a win. State House races and larger Alaskan city assembly/council battles also rise to the $100K realm if high-profile. So if you’re short on coin, and have to choose one messaging medium beyond a brochure, signage is typically the optimum choice. And to that end, to achieve an equal or superior position in sign placement against your opponent instills confidence and passion. The bad news is, a lot of signs exclusively won’t produce a win.

Endorsement Effect – A questionable result of a political sign in front of a business or in its window, or in a neighbor’s yard, is that the populace will assume the occupant endorses the candidate. This logic is simple and suggests that if you promote through a political sign on your property, you’re behind the candidate or ballot measure. If you respect a neighbor, and he/she has a sign for a candidate, that may cause you to think twice about the choice. It also applies for those jerk neighbors you disdain. Of course, sometimes you’ll see a friendly neighbor, who can’t say “no,” with every candidate’s signs in the yard. Occasionally you’ll see a bi-partisan landscape with Democrat and Republican candidates for different seats displayed on the lawn or attached to a fence. It varies, it’s fickle, but for all intents and purposes a political yard sign means at least one member of the household supports the branded candidate. Spousal differences is an entirely different matter and the arguments that have arisen, because a sign was placed in a yard without approval by the other half, is epic.

Rules of engagement

 
We’ve all seen the illegal sign placements at election time, and not just in Anchorage. From Sitka to Barrow, Fairbanks to Homer, last-minute hustle to get voters’ attention means a sign bouillabaisse in some areas of town, rooted and attached to your imagination’s worth of structures and ground.

Theft is a nuisance, as much as unattractive signs. If you haven’t felt the searing pain of losing a political sign, sign stand or complete array of signage at the hands of a nefarious opponent, then welcome to the world of high blood pressure. It happens at night most often, and replete with denials from the other side. Loss of signs by malicious hands is a frustrating event that’s all too common, and it tests the metal of the most moral and ethical candidates on not physically pummeling the opponent, or at least his or her volunteers (or doing the same in retaliation by taking or destroying THEIR signs).

And what about legal vs. illegal placement? Periodically government enforcement officials are liberal in ignoring improperly placed campaign signs, but State and municipal laws are on the books and tolerance is waning year by year. The Department of Transportation delineates on its website, referencing Alaska Statute authority, that the placing of signs on State roads and highway rights-of-way is deemed an unauthorized encroachment, and signs will be removed. Further, outdoor advertising may not be erected or maintained within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way. http://dot.alaska.gov/campaignsigns/index.shtml

In Anchorage, the state’s biggest city, there are even more rules and a permit required for each larger signs in specific areas, controlled under Title 21. http://www.muni.org/Departments/OCPD/Planning/zoning/Pages/Signs.aspx

It’s no different in Soldotna,

http://www.ci.soldotna.ak.us/signs.html

or in Wasilla,

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/departments-divisions/city-clerk/election-information/political-sign-posting

or in Juneau.

http://www.juneau.org/clerk/elections/Election-Sign.php

Candidates, staff and volunteers have no excuse not to verify and comply with the rules this summer and fall, and most cities and boroughs have direction codified in their ordinances.

And take them down after the election, win or lose! Those candidates who remove their signs the day after an election truly deserve special recognition, especially if they lost – when depressed and feelings of optimism ripped from their soul after a hard-fought competition.

Notables

 
Who can forget former Republican State Representative Terry Martin and his en mass storm of political signage in East Anchorage in the late 1970s, 80s and 90s. It got worse when he lost his first race as an incumbent against veteran campaigner Bettye Davis for state senate. The days of highly competitive races in Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, on the Kenai Peninsula, and especially in Anchorage and Mat-Su, have not waned. If anything, signs of all sizes and shapes are appearing more and more.

In the 1970s and 80s, Eagle River Democratic State Representative, then Senator, Sam Cotten, was known for his hand painted blue and gold wooden signs. From Mafia Mike to Tom Fink for mayor, Anchorage has a history of fun and smile-inducing signage. Who can forget Steve Strait against Becky Gay in West Anchorage back in 2002.

Sign wars are soon to arise as Republican U.S. Senate candidates Mead Treadwell, Dan Sullivan and Joe Miller vie for the best and most prominent locations statewide. Don’t forget Governor Sean Parnell (R) and challengers Byron Mallot (D) and Bill Walker (I). The Lt. Gov’s race will be no less visible, with state senators like Hollis French (D) and Lesil McGuire (R), Mayor Dan Sullivan (R), and equally hard working challengers like math teacher Bob Williams (D) in Mat-Su and Independent Craig Fleener (I) in Fairbanks. And yes – all the state’s House and Senate candidates may be even more visible, as they press for district exposure on T.V., radio, digital and signage amidst PAC and big campaign monies flooding the message mediums.

Bring back that 70s music…

So it’s not the 1970s anymore. That’s a bummer for the awesome music we’re missing these days. It’s also deflating a bit, if you grow tired of politics in your face and neighbors’ front yards every year.

But let’s face it, political signs are a big deal for candidates. Signs also induce different reactions from the voter and public, ranging from pleasure to annoyance.

As the election nears, we’ll address signage further at APE, highlighting the companies statewide that print signs, the service companies building the frames and stakes and deploying said signs, and which candidates seem to have the most success as the Primary and General come and pass.

The question APE poses to all of you in the meantime is:

Do signs make a difference to you as a voter, and if they do or don’t, why? Comment below and let’s start a dialogue.

The post “Signs, signs, everywhere there’s signs” – or soon there will be appeared first on Alaska Politics & Elections.