District Club: Will the Fake Dan Sullivan Help Democrats Steal Alaska’s Senate Seat?

Tim Rice opens by saying the midterms have finally arrived after a campaign cycle that felt as though it had lasted “somewhere from between five and 15 years.” He asks Washington Post opinion columnist Corinne Hajar and Democratic strategist Ian Russell what the cycle will mean after the final votes are counted. Hajar declines to make precise predictions but says Republicans may perform more strongly in the Senate than expected, while the House appears to be trending Democratic. She identifies anti-incumbent and anti-establishment frustration as a central force and points to Susan Collins as a test case: Collins is a strong incumbent who has made herself useful to Maine by bringing money back to the state, while also trying to separate herself from national Republican positions on the economy and foreign policy. Russell says he will judge the election by the kinds of states and districts Democrats can win. He contrasts 2018, when Democratic gains were concentrated mostly in higher-income, highly educated suburbs reacting against Donald Trump, with earlier Democratic victories in the Midwest and Great Plains, when voters were less ideologically divided. He asks whether the current political “balkanization” still confines Democrats to suburban toss-ups or whether the party can achieve a broader 2006-style wave. The panel treats Maine as a particularly useful test of whether an effective Republican can overcome national dissatisfaction with the GOP.

Ben Domenech proposes a hypothetical 50–50 Senate in which Democrats win through a combination of candidates who could complicate the party’s national strategy: El-Sayed in Michigan, Mary Peltola in Alaska, Troy Jackson in Maine, and possibly John Fetterman. He argues that Washington Democrats may prefer a Senate made up of more ideologically moderate candidates from traditionally competitive states, rather than victories that bring in figures with priorities far to the left or a candidate associated with an alleged ballot-manipulation scheme. Russell replies that a 50–50 Senate would mostly be unable to pass major legislation, since the days of a 60-vote Democratic majority are gone. He acknowledges that a caucus containing several ambitious or activist members would be difficult to manage, especially because perhaps half of the Democratic senators could be considering presidential campaigns. That dynamic could push candidates toward the party’s left flank, just as Julian Castro’s 2019 debate proposal to decriminalize border crossings reflected primary incentives rather than concern for the party’s general-election brand. The panel jokes about which Democrat would be happier: former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel or Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Emanuel, still personally coaching House candidates and directing donors despite no longer holding a formal leadership role, would value a majority and a favorable district-by-district scorecard. Ocasio-Cortez would welcome new allies such as El-Sayed, James Talarico, and Troy Jackson. Russell also says Ocasio-Cortez has become more of a team player, citing her reported $1 million contribution to support El-Sayed.

The discussion turns to whether a Democratic House majority could be driven by activist networks in the same way Republicans were driven by Tea Party figures. Hajar says the online influencer campaign surrounding New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani continued after his election, with some influencers promising to disclose when they were paid. She expects incoming Democrats backed by similar networks to arrive with an external “army” that can make issues priorities even when party leaders would rather avoid them. The result could be intense pressure for investigations into Republicans, Elon Musk, Stephen Miller, and others, while affordability, inflation, foreign policy, and the cost of living receive less attention. The panel compares that possibility with the Republican experience of insurgent members using outside pressure to force issues such as defunding Obamacare. Hajar says Democratic leaders’ defense that they are a “big tent party” may become untenable if some candidates openly support abolishing institutions, including the Senate, that they are seeking to join. The group also imagines activists becoming frustrated when Democratic officials do not fulfill maximalist demands—for example, demanding arrests or the firing of officials. Russell says Democratic leadership has so far sounded more pragmatic about impeachment than activists might prefer, with less talk of impeaching Donald Trump and more focus on cabinet officials and alleged corruption. But he agrees that the influence of activist media around candidates such as Mamdani could create a serious management problem for Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer. The panel contrasts Jeffries with Nancy Pelosi, who controlled money, distributed titles and committee influence, and gave progressives symbolic projects such as the Green New Deal without necessarily allowing them to dictate legislation.

The panel considers whether a Democratic victory could plant the seeds of the party’s defeat in 2028 and beyond. Domenech argues that Democrats may experience the same problems Republicans have faced: outsider candidates, ideological mavericks, influencer-driven politics, and a party leadership unable to contain its most activist members. He asks what would happen when prominent online voices become angry that Democrats have not arrested or prosecuted the people they targeted during the campaign. The speakers debate whether Jeffries could be challenged if Democrats win only a narrow House majority. Hajar says there is no obvious anti-Jeffries faction comparable to the nihilistic elements that have repeatedly destabilized Republican speakerships. She expects Democratic conflicts to be issue-specific, potentially involving Pentagon funding and the war in Iran, rather than an immediate effort to remove Jeffries simply for holding the leadership post. However, she warns that the pressure could become severe if Jeffries prioritizes what Washington Democrats want over the demands of the activist networks behind new members. They also use Mamdani as an example of a politician who may govern more conventionally than his campaign rhetoric suggested. The panel jokes that his “shiny object” is a grocery store and says his governing style may end up resembling previous New York mayors more than the revolutionary figure his opponents predicted. The broader lesson from Pelosi’s leadership, according to the group, is that party leaders can control ambitious factions by giving them money, titles, attention, or symbolic causes while preventing those causes from determining the party’s entire agenda.

Rice asks Hajar whether the New York Times investigation into Alaska will affect the race between Republican Senator Dan Sullivan and Democrat Mary Peltola. The report alleged that Peltola’s operation and national Democratic operatives searched voter rolls for people named Dan Sullivan, hired a specialist to find a second one, paid him $87,000, and tried to place a lookalike candidate in Alaska’s top-four system to confuse voters. The story also described conversations with Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee personnel and text messages in which participants joked about how easy it would be to confuse voters. Peltola and the DSCC deny wrongdoing. Hajar says the revelations could hurt Peltola even apart from the legal question because corruption and shady political activity rank among voters’ top concerns. She emphasizes that Alaskans are tuning into the race only shortly before Election Day and may simply conclude that the scheme looks improper. Russell counters that Peltola is a battle-tested candidate who previously won difficult House races against Sarah Palin, and he says Alaska’s unique top-four system and small, close-knit electorate make the race difficult to analyze. He notes that the Alaska Supreme Court allowed the second Sullivan to remain on the ballot partly because there was no evidence at the time that he was acting in bad faith. Domenech argues that the new evidence directly undermines that reasoning because the reported purpose was to create voter confusion. Russell says he does not know what Peltola personally knew or when she knew it, and notes that the allegations came partly from a disgruntled former staffer. The panel also disputes whether the Justice Department improperly fired the first shot by going to court. Hajar says the DOJ is responding to the Alaska Supreme Court’s earlier ruling and that, regardless of the legal merits, the race may ultimately decide control of the Senate.

Rice says the panel needs one final discussion of polling after a cycle marked by alleged fake polls, major misses in 2024, and a CNN headline noting that voters distrust polls. He says a Daily Wire-affiliated pollster argued that producing a cheap, poor-quality poll is easier than ever because responsible media organizations have reduced polling budgets. Rice also cites several examples of completely fraudulent polls and says more problems may emerge after Election Day. He suggests the issue has moved beyond ordinary polling error: in 2024 the story was that polls were wrong, while in 2026 the story may be that some polls were fake. Hajar objects to the government deciding what counts as a fake poll, warning that Federal Communications Commission scrutiny under Chairman Brendan Carr could give the government power over media organizations’ polling practices. She says most voters neither trust polls nor have ever been contacted by one, although the other speakers joke that Maine is an exception because so many Mainers have apparently been polled. Maine is also especially difficult because many Susan Collins voters are rural and may not be reached by online surveys. The panel says the most important post-election question will be what happens to undecided voters. In 2020, some Democratic congressional incumbents who polled above 50% ultimately performed near their polling numbers while undecided voters moved to Republicans. In other races, candidates polling in the mid-40s could either signal a large challenger wave or simply reflect a polling environment in which respondents are unusually hard to reach. The speakers agree that comparing polls with actual results by state, especially in rural Texas and Maine, will be essential.

Russell identifies Kentucky’s Sixth District as an early House indicator because it is an open seat with some Democratic history, Republicans have held it, and the incumbent is running for the Senate. He also names Maine’s Second District, Jared Golden’s open seat, where Republican Paul LePage faces a more liberal Democrat than the district may favor. Florida’s fast vote-counting could provide an early sense of the Democratic wave, although the panel warns that Miami-Dade’s 2020 results misled observers about the eventual direction of the night. California, by contrast, may not be clear until around Thanksgiving. Rice is less interested in early calls than races that could drag on, especially Kansas and Alaska in the Senate. Hajar will be in Maine watching Collins against Troy Jackson, whom she calls her “baby race” because she has followed it throughout the cycle. She says Collins is plainly the stronger candidate on experience and effectiveness, while Jackson’s main asset is the national anti-Republican mood. If Jackson wins, she says, it would show that national frustration can overwhelm a strong local incumbent. Russell focuses on Texas after extensive redistricting. Republicans believed they had created favorable districts based on the assumption that Hispanic voters had moved into the Trump coalition. He says races such as Texas 35, an open seat featuring Democratic sheriff’s deputy Johnny Garcia, and Texas 15, where Democrat Bobby Pulido is a well-known music star, will test that theory. If newly drawn districts remain close, go Democratic, or cannot be called, Russell says it would signal that Texas may be more politically competitive than Republicans expected. Rice closes by urging viewers to watch Daily Wire’s live midterm coverage.