Alaska Gubernatorial Elections

[Timur]

D = Democratic

R = Republican

I = Independent

AIP = American Independent

L = Libertarian

AKIP = Alaskan Independence

G = Green

[Pringles]

Don't know much about Alaska politics except in the 60s-70s and the present day. But I do know I probably would never vote for the Alaskan Independence Party. Mainly because it's a joke. So I just hit Republican for everything except Bill Walker and a Write In during Palins election.

[ConservativeElector2]

1 hour ago, Pringles said:

Don't know much about Alaska politics except in the 60s-70s and the present day. But I do know I probably would never vote for the Alaskan Independence Party. Mainly because it's a joke. So I just hit Republican for everything except Bill Walker and a Write In during Palins election.

While I agree with you on that, I had voted for Hickel (AKIP) in 1990. Sturgulewski seems to have been very moderate at that time, and Hickel had already served as a Republican governor.

[Pringles]

1 minute ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

While I agree with you on that, I had voted for Hickel (AKIP) in 1990. Sturgulewski seems to have been very moderate at that time, and Hickel had already served as a Republican governor.

I must've glanced over that actually... I'm kinda really surprised Hickel would've done that. I like Hickel. Even if I only know him because I controlled him in the 1968 RP iirc 😛 

[Timur]

24 minutes ago, Pringles said:

I must've glanced over that actually... I'm kinda really surprised Hickel would've done that. I like Hickel. Even if I only know him because I controlled him in the 1968 RP iirc 😛 

He actually ran with the party banner, but he never endorsed secession.

[ConservativeElector2]

1 hour ago, Pringles said:

I must've glanced over that actually... I'm kinda really surprised Hickel would've done that. I like Hickel. Even if I only know him because I controlled him in the 1968 RP iirc 😛 

Yeah, Hickel was recruited by conservative Republicans unhappy about the moderate Republican candidate.

[ConservativeElector2]

50 minutes ago, Patine said:

How does having already served as a Pro-Unionist Party affect someone's positively for a Secessionist/Independentist Party? This is a serious question. I'm trying to see if more than just party lines and ideological label are at stake here (though have a sinking suspicion there isn't more at stake, unfortunately).

If someone has already served as a Governor of an established main party, the probability of the same candidate tumbling down the secessionist rabbit hole is quite small.

[ConservativeElector2]

25 minutes ago, Patine said:

Except that the Alaska Independence Party is SPECIFICALLY a secessionist party. It's similarity in name to, say, the Minnesota Independence Party belies the very notable difference. The Alaska Independence Party is more akin to the Cascadian National Party, the California National Party, the TEXIT and Republic of Texas Parties, Reza Unidas, the Southern Nationalist Party, the Second Vermont Republic Party, several different and competing Hawaiian and Puerto Rican independence parties, and, of course, the Bloc Quebecois/Parti Quebecois, Parti pour d'Independentiste du Quebec, the Newfoundland and Labrador First Party, and the Maverick Party and it's Provincial affiliates - the Wildrose Independence Party, the BC WEXIT Party, the Manitoba WEXIT Party, and the Buffalo Party. So, I think my question is, to clarify, how is a former candidate for a mainstream, Federalist Party who is not likely to, "tumble down the secessionist rabbit hole," a laudable and praiseworthy candidate for the purposes of leading a party devoted to State Secession as a major plank of it's political existence, outside as a sabotaging plant?

You must haven't read what we have talked about above. Hickel never endorsed secession himself, the AIP was merely his vehicle to run in the election against a fellow Republican. Again that means the threat of him becoming an ardent secessionist was very small and that makes him a viable candidate.

[jvikings1]

28 minutes ago, Patine said:

Except that the Alaska Independence Party is SPECIFICALLY a secessionist party. It's similarity in name to, say, the Minnesota Independence Party belies the very notable difference. The Alaska Independence Party is more akin to the Cascadian National Party, the California National Party, the TEXIT and Republic of Texas Parties, Reza Unidas, the Southern Nationalist Party, the Second Vermont Republic Party, several different and competing Hawaiian and Puerto Rican independence parties, and, of course, the Bloc Quebecois/Parti Quebecois, Parti pour d'Independentiste du Quebec, the Newfoundland and Labrador First Party, and the Maverick Party and it's Provincial affiliates - the Wildrose Independence Party, the BC WEXIT Party, the Manitoba WEXIT Party, and the Buffalo Party. So, I think my question is, to clarify, how is a former candidate for a mainstream, Federalist Party who is not likely to, "tumble down the secessionist rabbit hole," a laudable and praiseworthy candidate for the purposes of leading a party devoted to State Secession as a major plank of it's political existence, outside as a sabotaging plant?

Hickel was never a full member of the party but used the label to run after Republicans were unhappy with the R candidate. He even switched back to being a Republican before his term was done.

I'm guessing party leaders assumed having an elected governor might improve their profile and make them more competitive down the road. Though that didn't turn out that way as their Lt. Gov. from that election finished in 3rd place in the next gubernatorial election.