This is a lovely interview with Mary Peltola, as she returned to work after her beloved husband’s death.
It’s only about 10 minutes, definitely worth watching on a Saturday afternoon.
A lovely photo of Mary and her husband Gene (aka Buzzy) when they found out she had won her election in 2022. There’s a lot of love in that photo.
You may have seen this photo and this article Mary Peltola and the art of Yuuyaraq’ing when Mary was first sworn in. It’s about Peltola’s application of the art of f Yuuyaraq’ing and her application of that art to politics.
And here they are for her swearing in.
Open thread.
Alison Rose
Thank you for sharing this — she seems like a really kind and lovely person. I might quibble with her “all Americans regardless of party are on the same team” thing, because…no…but I understand why politicians, especially Dems, say things like that.
FastEdD
That hug photo breaks my heart. I know what it is like to grieve, it is like a broken bone that never heals. Sometimes a career is a good thing, because it is something useful you can do to move forward.
WaterGirl
@FastEdD: Yep. She said in the interview up top that she is grateful for the distraction of important work.
AJ of the Mustard Search and Rescue Team
Beautiful reminder and the linked article is def worth reading.
Thanks WG.
HumboldtBlue
Damn, powerful stuff.
Geminid
@Alison Rose: A lot of Democrats say these things, but Rep. Peltola’s constituency may especially warrant them. Alaska’s party registrations are fairly singular. Out of 564,000 registered voters, 266,000 are “Undeclared.” That is 47%. This is the default for Alaskans who do not affirmatively declare an affiliation.
83,000 registered as “Non-partisan,” or 15%. Republicans numbered 141,000, or 25%. Democrats totaled 74,000, only 12%.
These numbers are from an article published July 17(?) 2023 by Must Read Alaska (mustreadalaska.com).
So how does a Democrat win statewide office in a state that’s 12% Democrats? Maybe by knowing how to catch fish.
Alison Rose
@Geminid: That’s very true. I suppose if you know a lot of Republicans who aren’t crazy ass bastards, it’s easier to see it that way. Plus, she’s just obviously very good at being diplomatic, and that’s a big asset!
She also strikes me as someone who it would be pretty hard not to like, no matter your politics.
Geminid
@Geminid: Mary Peltola came up with a unique campaign slogan:
“Fish Family Freedom.”
I told that to a friend who lived in Alaska almost ten years. She said, “Perfect!”
wjca
Or by campaigning on issues which all those officially undeclared/Non-partisan voters care about. And which her opponent couldn’t possibly agree to.
In other words, the same way it works in the lower 48 (49!): appeal to independents. Mostly won’t work where your opponents have a majority, or close to one. But, as we have seen the past couple of years, even there the right issue can make it happen.
Geminid
@Alison Rose: Ms. Peltola’s brings a lot of experience to Congress: multiple terms in the Alaska lrgidlature, service on a Tribal Court and on a regional fishing board.
One of her top legislative priorities is a revision of the Magnuson Fisheries Act that regulates fishing in Northwest waters. She wants to add Native and other stakeholders to the commission that sets quotas etc. The large fishing operators oppose this, but I won’t be surprised if Rep. Peltola pulls this off in the next Congress. She strikes me as a formidable politician.
Omnes Omnibus
@Alison Rose: Yeah, your preferences (and mine) for messaging are basically immaterial. We aren’t persuadable any more than MAGAs are.
Geminid
@wjca: Successful Democratic politicians in Virginia know they need to attract Independents to win. Virginia does not register voters by party, but the latest Wason Center poll shows that by self-identification, 33% of “likely voters” are Independent, 34% Democrat, and 28% Republican. Senators Warner and Kaine pursue relatively liberal policies, but their campaign rhetoric is welcoming to Independents. Governor Northam was the same way, as was Rep. Luria.
Last year, Reps. Spanberger and Wexton won purple districts that way. Spanberger talked about “bipartisanship” and “reaching across the aisle” so much I imagine some of the more partisan Democrats were steaming. But I was like, “You go, Abigail!”
FastEdD
I only spent a month in Alaska, but what I learned about their voters was interesting. You’d think they would be traditionally R, because many of their top concerns are guns (kinda necessary when you are surrounded by critters trying to eat you) and more oil drilling (also important because that’s where almost all of their revenue comes from.) OTOH, Alaska voters are really independent and really do not fall automatically along party lines. The biggest difference from usual GOP dogma is women’s issues-they really do look at women as the strongest members of their society. Also, too, conservation and the environment. Sorry, not sorry about the Thrilla from Wasilla reference.
WaterGirl
@Geminid: Just win, baby!
Geminid
@WaterGirl: Abigail Spanberger will run for Governor in 2025, and I can’t wait. Former Lt. Governor Bill Bolling described her as a “formidable politician” and expressed doubt that Republicans have anyone on their bench who can compete with her. Bolling won 8 straight elections himself as a Republican, and he is a shrewd observer of Virginia politics.
Rep. Spanberger won’t announce until some time after Tuesday’s General Assembly elections, but a couple months ago she let Democrats know she would not run for reelection next year in order to concentrate on a campaign for Governor, and that they would need to find someone else to run in the 7th District.
Last year Rep. Spanberger won by only 4 points (I think), so some Democrats wish she’d stay in Congress. She flipped the seat in 2018 by less than two points and in 2020 her race was even closer. But the way I see it, Ms. Spanberger has paid her dues and done the work, and now it’s up to district Democrats to do ours.
She’ll make a great Governor. She’ll make history too, because Virginia has never had a woman Governor.
lowtechcyclist
@Geminid:
But as Rachel Bitecofer would tell you, the vast majority of that 33% consistently vote for one party or the other. A Virginia politician still has to appeal to the genuine persuadables to win (as Spanbarger and Wexton have proved adept at), but the real percentage is undoubtedly way closer to 10% than 33%.
wjca
Said “more partisan Democrats” being probably the single biggest impediment to Democrats winning more elections.
WaterGirl
@wjca:
I don’t understand what you mean by that. Most of us on this blog are “more partisan democrats” and I think partisan democrats are why we win elections.
Can you explain what you were getting at with your comment?
Geminid
@lowtechcyclist: Yes, and this is a well studied aspect of Independents. Bitecofer says that in Virginia they tend to be more conservative as a whole. But any way you slice it, a Democrat must win close to half of Independents here to win statewide, and a Republican must attract over half to win.
The 12 point swing between Joe Biden’s 10 point win in 2020 and Glenn Youngkin’s 2 point win in 2021 can be accounted for in part by more hungry Republicans coming out than normal for an off-year election, and more complacent Democrats staying home than usual. But I think there was a significant number of Independents who swung from Biden to Youngkin, maybe 3 or even 4% of the voters.
I reread Bitecofer’s article “Hate is on the Ballot” (New Republic Feb. 2020). It’s mainly focuses on Negative Partisanship, but she also managed to show me the origin of a common misconception, that “Independents are embarrassed Republicans.” Bitecofer laid out the concept described by other political scientists: that Republican-voting Independents are “embarrassed Republicans,” and that Independents who typically vote Democratic are “embarrassed Democrats.” I think some people miss the second half of this equation because of their general animus towards Independents.
But regardless, I don’t think purple state and district Democrats should cater to Independents in policy, but they should not ignore them on the campaign trail and definitely should not disrespect them.
AlaskaReader
@Geminid: Two things.
The so-called independent Alaska voter is a myth, most of those registered as independent still vote strictly party lines with the vast majority of them voting straight Republican.
Must Read Alaska is not a fact based source of information.
Uncle Cosmo
In my daze writing proposals for a once-major-now-mostly-defunct defense contractor, CONUS was a widely-used near-acronym for “the lower 48”. Most everyone I worked with/for always assumed it stood for “continental United States.” but as you indicate, Dyslaska** is also a card-carrying member of North America…
…and lo after >30 years, it finally, finally occurred to me that it might actually have meant “contiguous United States,” which reduces to “the lower 48” as advertised. D’oh!
** I.e., the state of Denali ;^p
lowtechcyclist
@WaterGirl:
I agree with this. Today’s Democratic Party isn’t willing to compromise on women’s bodily autonomy, on whether Black lives matter, on gay and trans rights, on labor rights, or on the need for stronger gun regulation.
And this has made us a stronger party, because all of these constituencies know they aren’t going to be thrown under the bus in order to win the votes of ‘moderates’ like we all too often did in the past. This is a huge part of why I can finally say I’m proud to be a Democrat.
Geminid
@AlaskaReader: Are you saying the registration numbers in the Must Read Alaska story were fabricated, or just making a more general statement about the news site?
wjca
@WaterGirl: I’m thinking of those “more partisan Democrats” (in Geminid’s comment) who get upset when a Democratic candidate talks about “bipartisanship” or “working across the aisle.” Even though a) that’s often what it takes to win the votes of the unaligned voters — without whom, the candidate loses. And b) in some cases, once elected, it’s going to be necessary in order to get anything done.
See the (lack of) accomplishments of current House Republicans for where you get by insisting that nothing be done without a one-party majority in favor. Is that really a good example to emulate?
Geminid
@AlaskaReader: If the vast majority of Alaska “Independents” vote straight Republican, how did Mary Peltola win twice in 2022?
And I am curious: what do you think of Rep. Peltola?
wjca
@lowtechcyclist: I’m not arguing for abandoning principle. Merely for accepting the (possibly regretable) reality that sometimes your ONLY options are working across the aisle to get 80% of what you want, or refusing to work across the aisle and getting nothing. And for not wasting energy fighting with allies who do recognize that.
wjca
@wjca: Just to be ultra clear, that doesn’t mean settling for 80% forever. Just for taking the partial win available, before going back to work for the rest.
BretH
@Geminid: open thread and all, I just wanted to take a minute to let you know how much I appreciate your political commentary. I don’t know how you keep up with local politics everywhere but I learn something new each time you post.
WaterGirl
@wjca: There aren’t many people in the House these days that you can work with across the aisle.
Every single one of them voted for the creep that is now leader of the house. What were they thinking?
wjca
The current House is a disaster area, no question. But even there, occasional issues allow agreement. The obvious example being aid for Ukraine. For the moment, it could pass easily, possibly even with majority support from both parties, if it got to the floor. And a bipartisan discharge petition could also happen. Can’t happen otherwise, could happen on a bipartisan basis.
For that matter, while the current CR cost McCarthy his Speakership, it did get passed with votes from both parties. A new CR could, too. Johnson likely will force a shutdown for a while before he lets a new CR come to a vote. But once he does, it will pass on a bipartisan basis as well.
Omnes Omnibus
@wjca: Right now, it is either find those issues on which there is some bipartisan consensus (Ukraine, for example) or accept that absolutely nothing will be done until the next Congress. CRs, Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, any government action at all.
sab
@BretH: I second that.
lowtechcyclist
@wjca:
The key thing is ‘not abandoning principle.’ It’s still all too recently that the Dems would throw allies under the bus in the name of bipartisanship, and the memories still rankle.
As Omnes points out, there still are a few issues where reaching across the aisle is both necessary and possible, and it’s worth taking advantage of those. Sadly, there are all too few of these anymore, but you take the opportunities that are there.
But regardless of that, many voters still want to hear Dem candidates talking about bipartisanship, and there’s no reason for Dem candidates not to at least give lip service to the notion. After all, normies’ perceptions consistently run behind political reality, sometimes by decades. (Like when they believe the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility.) So maybe by the 2030s, they’ll be catching up with the reality that opportunities for reaching across the aisle are few and far between. In the meantime, our candidates on the campaign trail shouldn’t hesitate to talk about bipartisanship.
And I think it’s just the usual small but exceedingly loud minority of left-wing purity ponies that have a problem with that, and you’re right that it’s not worth wasting any significant time in arguing with them.
Geminid
@WaterGirl: They were desperate to elect a Speaker. If Republicans couldn’t put Johnson in they weren’t going to be able to put anyone in.
Then, the process might have gotten away from them. Mike Walz (FL) told a Politico reporter, “my fear is thst if we keep doing this, someone is going to side with the Democrats.” I think he was worried about more than one defection though.
Geminid
@lowtechcyclist: I see the debate about campaign messaging as an intra-party problem, and really more of an irritant than an actual problem.
WaterGirl
@Geminid: Johnson for speaker should have been a raging, burning red flag, a hard NO to the small number of so-called moderates left in the Republican party.
So. Many. Cowards.
Geminid
@WaterGirl: Well, they are Republicans first. And I think the resistance to Jim Jordan was not because of ideology but because he’s a jackass.
Gvg
I have never been to Alaska, so I only know what I have read, but my understanding is Alaska has a substantial number of voters who actually support independence and politicians in that state have to play nice with them.
The republicans in the state aren’t exactly like the ones in the lower 48 and everyone gets an oil check. So, what independent voter means in Arizona or Virginia is not the same as Alaska. But I don’t know the details, just that the cliche is useless.
wjca
It might be worth looking to see what the alternatives were. From what I can tell, the so-called “Freedom Caucus” had the bit in its teeth. Which meant nobody could get elected except one of their own. And, I suspect, if anyone from outside that caucus suggested a particular caucus member, that could be a kiss of death in itself. So they were the ones making the decision — mostly, one suspects, on the basis of “who has made the fewest enemies” so he could get elected.
But still, are any of the others any less horrible? I’m guessing not, or they wouldn’t be members in the first place, but I haven’t had the stomach to research them all.
Geminid
@Gvg: One thing I read about Alaska politics is that Alaskans expect their one Representative and two Senators to “bring home the bacon” in terms of federal funding. Also, Alaska is much more affected by federal policy than the other 49 states, so Alaska’s representatives in DC are expected to zealously defend state interests.One atrraction of Mary Peltola (among many!) may have been the idea that having players on both DC teams might be better for Alaska.
The Alaska’s 2010 Senate election was exceptional in that Lisa Murkowski won as a write-in candidate. She had lost a close Republican primary to a Tea Party type. I read that support from Alaska’s Native Corporations and labor unions were essential for her write-in victory. She also benefited from her father’s name and contacts. But Alaskans could also have backed Murkowski because it was important to have someone in Washington who was a pragmatist and not an ideologue.
wjca
Good to know that good, old-fashioned, pork barrel politics is alive and well somewhere. For all pork barrel’s manifold faults, today’s politics make one downright nostalgic.
TriassicSands
@Alison Rose:
Both Peltola (195) and another new Democratic representative who is from Washington State, Marie Gluesenkamp Parez (198) are in the bottom 10% of Democrats based on their voting records (according to Progressive Punch which keeps track of voting records in both the House and Senate). However, unlike all the other Democratic representatives ranked between 195 and 212, both Peltola and Perez get “C” grades from Progressive Punch rather than the “F” grades the others receive. That recognizes that they represent districts that “Lean Republican.” There are representatives with better voting records (in terms of supporting Democratic legislation) than both those women but with “F” grades because they represent districts that are much stronger for Democrats, which means they have much less (or no) justification for their voting records based on re-election prospects.
Peltola’s win was something of a fluke, given that she had the help of a split Republican vote and the presence of the toxic nitwit Sarah Palin. Both Peltola and Gluesenkamp Perez are about as good as Democrats can hope for without being assured of future defeat.
If Peltola faces a single Republican candidate next year, it will probably still be an uphill battle. My hope, dim though it may be, is that Alaskan voters will be happy enough with the job she has done, coupled with how utterly dysfunctional the Republican House membership is, to realize that she is their best option. I used the word “dim” because expecting Republican voters to make a responsible, rational decision is something we almost never see from Republican voters.
Gluesenkamp Perez was helped by running against an election-denying RWNJ. However, she has cast some very questionable votes (very bad votes) that make me wonder why she got a “C” grade instead of a “D.” Lots of Democrats get “F” grades. She may well be the best we can expect from that district and her choice to caucus with Democrats is important. Like some other Democrats, Manchin and Sinema come to mind, we benefit more from having lousy Democrats than we ever could from having the “best” possible Republican.
TriassicSands
You make some very good points, and, after decades of “oil checks,” there are probably an awful lot of very spoiled Alaskans.
Hamlet of Melnibone
I understand the need for Democratic candidates to talk about bipartisanship. I just want everyone to understand my need to make the jacking off motion while they do it. :)
Geminid
@TriassicSands: I think the dysfunction of the House Republican Caucus will be a weight on its purple district members nationwide. And their actual votes will provide plenty of Democratic ammunition. Last May, one day after she voted to cut VA funding by 22%, Democrats had ads up in Jen Kiggan’s Virginia 2nd CD ripping her for her vote. This Virginia Beach-based district is full of active and retired military and their families.
But I gotta say, with all due respect, that I regard Progressive Punch’s ratings as very biased. They are on the left-most edge of the Democratic Party, and my observation is that they devise their ratings in service of an intra-party agenda.
Geminid
@TriassicSands: The oil checks are a state program, and my understanding is that they have declined over the last few decades. But Alaskans wanted federal support before the state started sending out oil checks. While $10 million of federal spending might have been a drop in the bucket for California or New York, it went a long way among Alaska’s 500,000(?) citizens back in the 1960s. Now, Alaskans expect Senators Young & Murkowski and Rep. Peltola to make $50 million scores. This dynamic exists in other states, but maybe not as focused.
AlaskaReader
@Geminid: Must Read Alaska is a showcase for fraudulent rightwing propaganda.
To call it a ‘news source’ is laughable in the face of its history of lies, fabrications and manufactured conspiracies.
As to the purported statistics about undeclared and independent voters, it’s better to look at election results if you want to be able to identify a consistency of right wing votes as opposed to left.
As with much about Alaska’s mystique, an adopted narrative does all too frequently displace the reality.
For many of Alaska’s more recently arrived population, thinking of themselves, along with hopes of being thought of as ‘independent’ or ‘undeclared’, it is very definitely an affectation adopted along with the idea that they’re some kind of independent ‘pioneers’, that they are members of a ‘last frontier’, when the truth is all they really want is Alaska, (the place and the politics), to become exactly what they moved away from.
AlaskaReader
@Geminid: Peltola benefited from a divided Republican ticket that offered voters an especially odorous slate of right wing candidates.
The Native vote was a large factor as was the adoption of Alaska’s first ever version of a pick one primary and a ranked-choice voting procedure
Murkowski backed her and that swung a lot of right wing votes her way.
As to her votes from the right, she was presented as a Democrat the right could count on to protect and support big oil’s interests and wouldn’t be much of a threat to the Republican machine.
What I think of that election cycle is it’s a shame we didn’t elect a progressive candidate. Voting against your own best interests is an identifying feature of the Alaska electorate.