lawyer up

Alaska Senate Race Going To Come Down To Alaska’s Spelling Skills

Indeed.
“Total Write-In” has defeated Joe Miller in Alaska, 41%-34%, with 98.6% reporting. So are we ready to declare facial hair dead in the Senate once again? Of course not. We have no idea how many of those 81,876 voters counted so far in the write-in column are actually for “Lisa Murkowski” precisely. If even 8,000 people wrote down “Liza Minnelli” or “MUR + (K)OW + SKIS” or “Mike Gravel,” she may lose. According to the Anchorage Daily News, “Minor misspellings are probably OK but simply writing ‘Lisa M,’; for example, could be a problem.” It’ll be up to the courts to decide what spellings count for Murkowski, and it will probably also be up to them to decide what that semicolon is doing in that sentence we quoted. And this will drag on for approximately forever.

If Murkowski manages to win as a write-in, political operatives and academics will be studying it for years. She distributed rubber bracelets with her name on it, t-shirts, even temporary tattoos. Murkowski, a well-known incumbent with a lot of money running in a small state, was also in a good position to try to pull it off.

Lisa Murkowski created a violent drug-and-tattoo gang for herself to intimidate voters, which will probably also come up in the court cases. But we will find out if she should have just legally changed her name to one voters can spell, like “Jesus.”

Write-in ballots won’t start being counted until November 18. And after a few days and a few court battles, if Alaskans wrote down the name we thought they wrote down, Al Franken is your new U.S. senator from Alaska. [Anchorage Daily News]

About the author

Jack Stuef is your loyal editor and a freelance satirist or something like that. He is a contributing writer for The Onion. E-mail him or whatever.

View all articles by Jack Stuef
What Others Are Reading

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

141 comments

  1. Lucidamente1

    Murkowski may have the lead in rubber bracelets, but Miller will always have the lead in rubber truncheons.

  2. SnarkoMarx

    I think all candidates should be write-ins, no names printed on ballots. Then only semi-literate or smarter people could vote in this country instead of the mouth-breathers that fool poll workers into thinking they're human by managing to walk upright.

    1. horsedreamer_1

      No. Anybody could vote, still, but only those with credible spelling skills would see theirs count.

      Which is, of course, good news, for John Mc Cain.

    2. Fare la Volpe

      I dunno. The teabaggers have been trying to bring back literacy tests since the 50s and it's still not catching on.

    3. comrad_darkness

      Everyone should be required to write a grammatical, properly punctuated, correctly spelled essay on a computer-selected random topic at the bottom of their ballot. Otherwise it counts 1%.

        1. comrad_darkness

          Eh, true enough, but pure enfranchisement became a dream anyway sometime after the votes in Ohio got run through the RNC's servers and that was allowed to stand. And that little fuss with the Supreme Court too. So, I haven't lost much, have I?

          1. V572625694

            Americans believe voting empowers them for the same reason Italian men believe Berlusconi's escapes make them more "manly." Didja see yesterday where Berlu said, "At least I'm not gay!" Hilarity ensued.

      1. CapnFatback

        I speak as a composition teacher (yeah, I know, boo!), but fuck fine-tooth grammar goosestepping. I do like the short essay requirement that would disqualify voters whose decisions exhibit severely strained logos. For example, anyone who voted to in John Kasich as my state's governor in a wave of spite toward the Wall Street bailout would disqualify not only their own vote, but ten other pro-Kasich votes.

        And then I want a pony made out of velvet and that shits chocolate caramels, dammit.

    4. mijowi

      According to reports I have seen there are certain portions of the population that have a lower graduation rate then others, wouldn't your idea lead to problems od discrimination?

      1. deelzebub

        Seeing as public school is free and open to all Americans, I say no. If you are too stupid (I say this excluding the actual mentally handicapped) to stay in school, you are too stupid to vote.

        1. mijowi

          Would this create a smaller electorate when it comes to the elections? Which I would think would lead to a very small amount of people determining what is best for the rest.

          1. Gunner Asch

            OK by me if you would have to pass a standardized test to vote. I'm tired of blithering idiots determining my fate.

          2. GOPCrusher

            Remember Boys and Girls, this post brought to you by the same people that thought it was a good idea to try to run an ad on Univision, encouraging Hispanics to not vote.
            The day a Republiklan/Tea Bagger is honestly concerned about individual voting rights, is the day the Gates Of Hell open and the Dead walk the Earth.

      2. Troubledog

        In Alaska, there are white people, stupid white people, angry white people. hateful white people, paranoid white people, alcoholic and drug addicted white people, and Inuits. Which portion do you think would be the biggest problem?

          1. Extemporanus

            Dammit — I accidently hate fisted you when my car ran over a fucking Eskimo and my hand slipped.

            Feel free to return the disfavor, racist.

          1. Chet Kincaid

            Oops, my bad! James turned down the Alaska pipeline job, and then got a job in Mississippi the next season, and got killed in an auto accident, which was John Amos's way of not having to scowl at JJ's Stepin Fetchit antics anymore.

        1. Not_So_Much

          If there are fed $'s at risk, you can bet your ass the snowbilly population will figure out how to spell Liza Morlockski's name correctly. What're they gonna do? Get a fucking job? bwaaa-ha-haaa! (I laugh at this through my own, underemployed, non-subsidized tears…)

  3. samsuncle

    Whenever I see a picture/video of Joe Miller with his ridiculous facial hair it reminds me of Homer Simpson. DOH!

  4. Gorillionaire

    Hey Alaskan meth chompers, would it not have been easier for you to just go ahead and vote for the Democratic guy? I mean, one little check mark and you are outta there, back home watching Hee Haw on your stolen satellite TV. Sheesh.

    1. Ruhe

      Stolen!? How can you "steal" satellite TV? The signal is just beaming every which way and it's coming from space! Does direct TV own space? Who do they think they are, fuckin' NASA?

    1. deelzebub

      no, that could be taken to mean anyone that hasn't greased her palm in the last ten minutes. She is the queen of "what have you done for me lately".

  5. comrad_darkness

    Karl Rove's Klieg light fat sweat not withstanding, "voter intent" is a pretty broad idea. And remember, the establishment wants this dame to win it.

    1. Chet Kincaid

      "L&O: Voter Intent" was the low point of Dick Wolf's attempted spinoffs. Only lasted for about a month in late 2000, as I recall.

  6. L188188

    It's a sad day when liberals are hoping a Murkowski wins because she may be less insane than the anointed GOP candidate.

    1. comrad_darkness

      Hey. This is the year of Rand Paul, spoiled brat extraordinaire, and Ron Johnson, drop out with a sugar mamma. Murkowski is downright reasonable.

    2. JMPEsq

      Hell, Miller's beliefs that rape victims should be allowed to have abortions and contraception should remain legal makes her a leftie radical compared to the teabagger candidates.

    3. mijowi

      That funny how you believe that most GOP candidates are insane, most people on the other side believe that the dems are are the insane ones.

      Lets see who has run the deficit up since they have take control of the house in 06?
      Lets see who has pushed the new entitlement program that the CBO estimates costing 1 trillion.
      Lets see who wants to spend more of the tax payers money because they believe that is the only way to get the economy to recover?

      yep you are right the GOP are the insane ones.

      1. JMPEsq

        The deficit was created from 2001-2007 when the Republicans controlled the White House and Congress, get your facts straight.

        And spending money is the way to get the economy to recover; that's how FDR ended the Great Depression, after Hoovernomics (balancing the budget at all costs) failed.

        1. mijowi

          The GOP did their share in creating the deficit in their time, but what has the been done since the dems toke control in 06? The deficit has continued to climb while under their control.

          How does the govt spending money it does not unless they get a loan from some where help our economy? What does the govt produce that is of value to the economy?

          1. JMPEsq

            "What does the govt produce that is of value to the economy?"

            Any government spending that generates jobs, either directly or indirectly, benefits the economy; and you are ignoring history, like how the Great Depression was ended by government spending.

          2. mijowi

            I am not ignoring history I have a different view of the Great Depression then you do. The end of the great depression was not the result of govt policy but the advent of WW2.

            The govt is spending the tax money that is collected to create jobs, so would it be better for the govt to take all the monies earned by the citizens so that they can create enough jobs for every one to be employed?

          3. WIDTAP

            WWII – which was paid for by government borrowing.

            Of course, to win WWII, the government did terrible socialists things, like demand that autos no longer be produced in favor of tanks and airplanes. (Damn gobmint – always picking the winners.) Also the government started to ration all sorts of things, like gasoline and certain foodstocks.

            Damn FDR – he was Hitler.

          4. DoktorZoom

            I'm looking forward to these folks taking the next logical step in the march away from reality: WWII was won by private enterprise producing the ships, planes, and tanks that the consumers wanted.

          5. JMPEsq

            "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. " – Daniel Patrick Moynihan. You may have a different view of the Great Depression, but it's wrong. And fighting WW2 involved a lot of government spending itself, you know.

            And do you really think cutting taxes for the rich and corporations will lead them to hire more people? Really? The great dipshit Ronald Reagan tried that, and it didn't work.

          6. mijowi

            Here is the problem that we are going to disagree on, we should not separate people into little groups. Some rich people will spend the money if they get a tax cut and others will save that money, but that is their choice. The same thing will happen with businesses, I the govt reduce the taxes that I have to pay I would be able to acquire more work which would lead to me employing more people, but since every person on the street thinks that businesses have unlimited funds and that they should be taxed to pay for the entitlement programs of their choice business will continue to leave or shut down.

          7. DoktorZoom

            Essay question: What role did government spending play in the economy during WW II? What was the top marginal tax rate during WW II? For that matter, during the economic boom of the 1950s? Does this mean that Dwight Eisenhower was a socialist?

          8. revmod

            Infrastructure. Honest to fucking God, is this even a question?

            And governments create jobs while they arrange to pave roads and bury cable and build schools and public buildings ahead of when those governments might have otherwise gotten around to these projects if they weren't trying to borrow and spend their way out of a depression. Why is this a problem? And then, later, when the economy is booming, governments won't have to compete with private enterprise for those same workers, so it's cheaper for government now AND cheaper for private enterprise later. In fact, it's even cheaper when you consider that the current alternative for these workers is unemployment benefits, so that amount of money is going out the government door no matter if these people are building something useful or not.

          9. revmod

            (continued)
            Education enough? I'm also open to hearing where my arguments are lacking. I've skipped the part where these extra employed people spend money, help local businesses, and possibly help staunch the flow of foreclosures that's eating the economy alive, but all this serious economics is distracting me from quality Boehner-mocking time.

            Needs moar orange. Ah – that feels better.

      2. Ruhe

        Touche! You have smote us all silent with your lucid grasp of the simple truth…and your elegant prose…also…of course.

        1. mijowi

          If I remember correctly the dems toke control of congress during the mid term elections in 06. If I also remember correctly all bills are generated in congress and passed by congress before they are placed on the desk of the president. So if I am correct all new spending by our govt that has contributed to the increase in our national debt after 06 is due to the party that was in control.

          1. DoktorZoom

            Here's a fun question: What portion of war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan was actually included in the BUDGET from 2002-2008?

          2. mijowi

            Thinking………………………

            Oh yeah none of the funding for the wars was included, but all the bills funding the war passed through congress. But even with out the war funding being part of the budget our deficit continued to grow under the control of the dems in congress. I am not just picking one party both parties have been in bed with each to create the mess the tax payers have to pay for. Each party has done it share of running up the national debt.

      3. comrad_darkness

        Relative to GDP, no president tops Reagan for deficits. Hope to FSM no one ever will. Carter was paying down the debt and doing it without devaluing the currency when Reagan took office. What the right whines so piteously that they so so wish for in their dear little political dreams. But instead they demonize the guy . . . for doing what they've insisted they want, for thirty subsequent years. Right.

        When the GOP starts cutting sokalist farm subsidies and boondoggle defense weapons that will never get used, not to mention medicare, I'll totally admit I was wrong and they are not actually a bunch of windbag hypocrites. There is, of course, no risk of this.

        1. mijowi

          Agreed the deficit did increase under Reagan because the spending of the govt was not reduced accordingly to the tax cuts that were made.

          What president truly cut spending across the board and cut taxes?

          The only way I see the deficit getting reduced is through cutting spending by our fed govt and cutting the tax money got to DC. What I mean by cutting spending across the board is that all programs and depts need to get spending cuts.

          1. mijowi

            I am sure I understand the meaning of all.

            Cut spending in all programs. As for defense yes cut spending in defense and also bring home all the military from over seas. Close all the bases over seas unless the host country is willing to pay the cost of maintaining the base and the military personnel.

          2. mijowi

            1. phase out social security (If state wants it is up to that state)
            2. reduce defense spending (close over sea bases unless the host country is willing to pay the cost of our military being there)
            3. Phase out unemployment (If state wants it is up to that state)
            4. phase out the dept of education (this should be the states responsibility)
            5. Eliminate National health care (If state wants it is up to that state)
            6. Eliminate HUD (This should be the states responsibility)
            7. Phase out medicare and medicaid (If state wants it is up to that state)

            This is just a start

          3. JMPEsq

            So basically you want to eliminate every program that helps the poor? Well that would balance the budget, but it also would be unconscionable and a complete dereliction of government's duty to its citizens, and that's before you get to the rioting and actual class warfare that would surely ensue.

          4. mijowi

            What would help the poor more a job that they work at or a hand out from the govt?

            Not all the items listed are for the poor and I am only saying that the federal govt should cut these programs. I have no problem if a state decides to implement any of these programs. If the federal govt needs less tax money because they are providing less that means that their should be more money in the pockets of the people. When people have extra money they tend to spend that money on things that they do not need to survive but want as a luxury. Which in turn leads to an increase in demand for products and leads to more people to create those products.

          5. WIDTAP

            You would cut the military when we are fighting two wars? Shame on you for not supporting our troops. Real Americans(TM) are always willing to borrow more for military spending.

      4. L188188

        First, that is not what I said at all, that is what you inferred.
        Second, Congress went along with Bush's bailout plans in September of 08 because that is what needed to be done at the time. The GOP caused the recession. The GOP has succeeded in hoodwinking working America again that lower taxes mean more jobs. The simple truth is that when wealthy people get more money, they simply keep it. The jobs created will be more service jobs, further shrinking the middle class. It sounds like they have got you right where they want you, serf.

        1. mijowi

          My apologies on the first one, I added a letter to candidate.

          Why was the bail out a good thing? By bailing out those businesses aren't they being rewarded for their bad decisions?

          As for the recession in my humble opinion it all started with the tech bubble that burst in 2000 and we have been fighting that bubble ever since. The govt reduced the interest rates to get people to start spending money again to jump start the economy then and did it again after the housing bubble, at this time it seems to not be working that well.

          I happen to be a self employed business owner that is struggling to keep the doors open due the business environment that we have to day. Most business are afraid to spend any money they extra due to the uncertainty of what taxes are going to be imposed on them. So this leads to those people running the companies to hold onto everything they can so that their business can survive.

          Rich people did not get rich by dumb luck, ok some have won the lottery, they got rich by making good financial decision. If rich people see a way that they can increase their wealth they will do it, but unfortunately with the business environment we have today they only see it as a losing opportunity to create a new business with jobs.

      5. GOPCrusher

        How are those unfunded supplementals to pay for the Bushyt Holy Crusade Against Islam working out for you?

  7. Serolf_Divad

    Peeling off the 2% who write-in voted for Ludwig Von Mises, and the 2% who write-in voted for Ron Paul, and the 1% who write-in voted for The Lizard People, the 1% who write-in voted for Lisa Miller and the 1% who write-in voted for Joe Murkowski and we've got ourselves a regular TIE, people!

    Flip a coin.

    1. Preferred Customer

      I would like to write in Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Pavilion chairs and modernist boxes for all!

  8. mumbly_joe

    The main problem is that they also can't accept write-in votes that say "that Merkin lady" because that could just as easily be a reference to Joe Miller's facial hair and abject terror of reporters, respectively.

  9. PsycWench

    "simply writing ‘Lisa M,’; for example, could be a problem" That's because (little known fact) Joe Miller's middle name is Lisa. So "Lisa M." would have meant "Joe Miller", of course. Duh.

  10. hockeymom

    Anyone want to guess which outcome will be decided first? Alaska's senate seat or Minnesota's governor seat.
    Because it appears the great state of Minnesota is headed for another recount.

    1. horsedreamer_1

      Will T-Paw a/k/a Governor Auto-tune remain in office past what would have been the Inauguration of the next, if Emmer drags this out like Coleman, or will Minnesota be without a Gov after the Inauguration date, in the event?

      'Cause, if so, Kegger at Prince's house. Let's wild.

  11. WarAndGee

    Minnesota's Franken and that other guy took like 16 months, 403 lawyers, 1237 recount officials in 86 counties and 3 state supreme court decisions and all those fuckers (voters) were doing is connecting dashes on a ballot using a stubby pencil.

    Forget it Alaska, you don't need a senator anyway.

    You're a do it yourself state, and don't need the $1.35 from the Feds for every measly dollar you put in (Blues states are tired of carrying you backwards snow billies on our backs fiscal year after fiscal year).

  12. Monsieur_Grumpe

    My sympathy goes to the Alaskans. It looks like Minnesota’s governor race will need a recount. Remember Franken/Coleman/Lizard People? Sigh.

    1. BklynIlluminati

      I cannot concur here they totally deserve it. This is twice they have released stupidity on themselves and on us. First The Palin and now buying the teabagger Miller then getting buyers remorse. They had a wonderful option in McAdams but nooooooooo. Alaska has become an attention whore

  13. Krugmanic Depressive

    Political operatives and academics will be studying it for years? Allow me to transcribe the thoughts of the typical Murkowski voter:

    humdedeedledum…jus' votin'…wanna pick a Republican, of couse…easy as pie…what? Palin endorsed Miller?…shit…lemme take a minute to write this out, here….and….done…

  14. comrad_darkness

    Hey, Republican blowhards, you gonna actually do what you say this time, for realz? You gonna cut the soviet style farm subsidies, the medicare scooters, roll back the single largest looming deficit program enacted in the last decade? the medicare drug program. Come on pussies, let's see what you got. Come on.

    Yeah, didn't think so.
    Pussies.

    1. GOPCrusher

      Hell, it's been over 12 hours. I haven't even seen the magic unicorn that I was promised if the Grand Old Pedophiles were returned to the majority in the House.
      Where's the jobs?

  15. StillGoinGreen

    I stayed up until 2:00AM, watching the talking heads try to make sense of all this (and watching Skinemax with the sound muted as not to wake the wife and kids with the screams of the fake-o-gasms), and I have come to 2 very important conclusions: 1) If you are thin and go too big with your silicone sidekicks – you run the risk of having your nipples look like Steve Buscemi's eyes in Mr. Deeds

    and 2) AMERICA HAS LOST ITS MUTHAFUCKIN MIND! We are now TWO BULLETS away from John Fucking Boehner as Commander in Chief.
    Now, if you will pardon me, I am going to go smoke my illegal marijuana and watch my VHS copy of the Clinton Inaugurations.

  16. CapeClod

    Sarah Palin may have secretly helped Murkowski by teaching Alaskans the secret of writing complicated important information on their hands.

    1. Fare la Volpe

      You gotta admit: that temporary tattoo idea was pretty clever. It's not officially electioneering, because it's not like the pollsters can ask you to remove your skin.

      Wait, this is Alaska. They probably have machetes behind the check-in desk for just such an occasion…

  17. chickensmack

    Isn't it implied that Joe Miller had an unfair advantage in this election, since his name was already pre-spelled for everyone?

    1. TakingAmes

      They did. That Alaskan talk radio guy got a bunch of people to go sign up as write-in candidates, and some of them had really similar names so as to confuse the electorate. So they really may have elected someone named Lisa Murkowsko.

  18. Weenus299

    On the flip side, wouldn't getting Don Johnson/Kurt Warner/Joe Miller into the senate actually be a good thing? I can see him getting his feelings hurt by the republican establishment, voting all by himself, making stupid mistakes, breaking senate decorum, getting apprehended by treasury officials and FBI agents, being executed down by the Potomac.

    It'd be great fun.

    1. harry_palmer

      Except in less than a month or so he'll be taking the corporate cash and voting how they tell him to, while making teabagging noises to keep the little people snookered. See Boner, John, Bachmann, Michelle, etc etc etc.

      1. TomtheBunny

        Exactly. Party bigwigs approach before the first big vote and say, "Okay, Mr. Creepy McBeard, there are two way to vote on this issue. Either you're voting our way, or you're aligning yourself with that darkie Kenyan Muslin fella. Your choice." Guess what happen next.

  19. Wadisay

    If the teabaggers have their way, you will need one or more of the following forms of voter ID:

    * NRA membership card
    * Country club membership
    * H2 Hummer vehicle registration
    * A stock certificate from any Big Pharma, tobacco company, defense contractor, or investment banker with your name on it.

    It's to protect the sanctity of the vote, peeplez.

    1. Not_So_Much

      You forgot the hand-cannon. They can't be real 'Murkans without at least 3 sidearms strapped to various fat rolls.

  20. marionetta

    Lisa M. Lackey was also a write in candidate, so "Lisa M." wouldn't be enough.
    " Lisa M. Cow " would work. Or "Lisa M. B.S."

Comments are closed.