Blogs > Cliopatria > Obama & Alaska in Historical Perspective

Aug 13, 2008

Obama & Alaska in Historical Perspective




Yesterday, a Hays Research Poll showed Barack Obama five points ahead (45-40) of John McCain in Alaska. That’s the best that Obama has done in a poll this year, but it’s not inconsistent with other results (all of which came before the indictment of longtime Alaska GOP senator Ted Stevens), which showed McCain with a 5-7 point lead.

To give a sense of how striking this figure is, consider the last two elections: John Kerry lost the state by 25 percent in 2004; Al Gore trailed George W. Bush by 31 points in 2000. Alaska was also Bill Clinton’s third-worst state (after Utah and Idaho): he attracted 30 percent of the vote in 1992, and 33 percent in 1996. The only Democratic presidential candidate to win the state was LBJ, in 1964. No Democrat has won any federal election in Alaska since 1974, when Mike Gravel prevailed in a bid for his second and ultimately final term.

In addition to the ethics scandal that has engulfed the GOP, Obama is an unusually attractive Democrat in the state—he romped to victory in the February 5 caucuses—and it’s expected that he’ll be the first Democratic nominee ever to campaign in the state. Obama is also helped by his background: the political connection between Alaska and his native state of Hawai’i dates from the 1950s, and transcends partisan lines. In the 2008 Alaska Senate race, Hawai’i Democrat Dan Inouye has raised funds for GOP incumbent Ted Stevens.

McCain, moreover, is an unusually unattractive Republican for the state. He finished fourth in the caucuses, behind Romney, Paul, and Huckabee: since statehood, Alaskans, of either party, have been united on the need to get federal projects for the state, so McCain’s anti-earmarks crusade is particularly unpopular here. And Alaska’s population is the youngest in the country—a critical fact given the generational gap in polling.

Alaska is an extreme example of an intriguing pattern in this year’s race: in at least nine other states, ranging from North Dakota to Virginia, Obama’s polling margin noticeably exceeds that of any Democratic nominee since LBJ. Because Alaska is such a young state, it’s easier to see how dramatically conditions have changed since the era of LBJ.

In 1964, Alaska’s governor, two senators, and congressman were all Democrats. In 2008, they’re all Republicans. (In the 1950s, GOP senators had blocked statehood out of a fear that Alaska would always send Democratic delegations to Congress.)

In 1964, the state was extremely poor, and reeled from the effects of the Great Alaska Earthquake. In 2008, thanks in large part to the oil boom, the state’s per capita income is in the top 15 states.

In 1960, Anchorage, the state’s largest city, had a population of 82,000. In 2008, its population is more than 280,000, with 70,000 more people living in its metropolitan era.

One thing has remained relatively consistent, however: the state has very few black residents. In 2006, less than four percent of Alaskans were African-American. Obama’s polling appeal, in short, comes overwhelmingly from Alaskan whites.

In the end, Obama is likely to fall short in Alaska. But a victory there would be one of the more remarkable storylines from an already historic presidential contest.



comments powered by Disqus