A new report confirms Democrats were behind the Dan Sullivan spoiler candidacy. Will it matter?

An October surprise has surfaced in a race that could well determine who wins the Senate majority in next week’s midterm elections.

An investigation by the New York Times confirms something that’s been widely suspected but never proven: that Democrats were behind a potential spoiler candidate in Alaska — the other Dan Sullivan — who qualified for the general election ballot.

There are plenty of reasons why this may or may not ultimately matter in the Alaska Senate race. But perhaps more striking is the question of why Democrats would think putting up such a candidate was a risk worth taking in the first place, given how little potential payoff it gives them.

First, the details of the Times story.

Staffers and lawyers for Democratic nominee Mary Peltola and other operatives aligned with the campaign spent months recruiting candidates they hoped could take votes away from GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan, the newspaper reported. That effort included finding people who shared the senator’s name.

Eventually, they were able to get Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. into the race, and he qualified for the ranked-choice general election by finishing in the top four in the August primary.

Among those confirming the story is Peltola’s former campaign manager and longtime aide, who was fired in August during an overhaul of the campaign. Elisa Rios said Peltola herself wasn’t directly involved but was “definitely aware.”

The reporting contradicts previous denials of any role in recruiting Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. by the Peltola campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee — neither of which responded to the Times’ questions but again denied involvement.

The DSCC similarly told CNN that it is “not involved with Dan J. Sullivan.” The Peltola campaign did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment.

From a moral standpoint, the story is pretty damning. Not only could the whole effort credibly be called an attempt to deceive voters, but the new reporting sharply undercuts Democrats’ previous — and ongoing — denials.

To be sure, it’s hardly the first time something like this has happened in politics — it’s become a fairly popular tactic these days to meddle in the other side’s primary in hopes that it will nominate a less-electable candidate.

A GOP-aligned super PAC this cycle has also spent money to promote a socialist third-party candidate in the Ohio Senate race.

Alaska’s ranked-choice system has also quickly devolved into efforts to ensure the third and fourth candidates who make the general election ballot share party affiliations with opponents. Outside groups have spent significant sums to elevate complete political unknowns — including a man running as a Democrat who is currently serving in prison and who has never been to Alaska, whom Republicans have promoted.

But it’s one thing to try to influence voters’ existing choices in a misleading way; it’s another to try to directly plant a candidate whose purpose is to confuse voters. And it’s rare to see that traced directly to the campaign that’s reportedly behind it.

It’s understandable if Alaska voters resent that.

The flipside of that argument is that this perception might already be baked-in — that voters already assumed Democrats were behind it. Perhaps they’re just used to it all by now, given how much gamesmanship there has been with the state’s ranked-choice system.

Peltola has also already dealt with some very tough headlines in the race. That includes both the August staff shake-up right before the primary, and also another Times investigation centered on staff accusing her of angry and profane outbursts that included slurs for gay people and people with intellectual disabilities.

(Peltola’s campaign cited her grieving over the deaths of her mother and husband in 2023, and GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski at the time vouched for Peltola .)

Those news cycles didn’t seem to cost Peltola. A New York Times/Siena poll a month ago showed her leading Sen. Sullivan among likely voters by 7 points — similar to the 8 points she led Sullivan by on primary day.

That poll also showed voters still liked Peltola 50%-42%, even after the negative coverage.

Those margins are also important here. While it’s still unclear who will vote in the general election and Alaska is generally viewed as a tossup, Peltola’s leads in that poll and on primary day have been significant. They suggest she might be able to withstand it even if some voters suddenly balk at her.

And finally, there’s the fact that lots of voters have simply … already voted. Nearly 60,000 people had already voted early or absentee as of early this week. That’s more than one-fifth of the total turnout in recent midterm elections.

Regardless, the new report is a stain on Peltola’s candidacy. And what’s particularly remarkable about it is how unlikely the other Dan Sullivan’s candidacy ever was to matter.

As I wrote back in August , it was unlikely Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. would ever take enough voters from Sen. Dan Sullivan to truly make the difference. That’s in large part because the state’s ranked-choice system allows anybody who is confused to rank both of them, and have their vote eventually count for the senator.

For Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. to matter, people would have to vote for him and “exhaust” their ballot without also voting for Sen. Dan Sullivan — or rank the senator behind Peltola.

Some voters might do that. But Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. took few votes in the primary (2.5%), and many of his voters appeared to be Peltola supporters who wanted him in the general election. The general election would have to be exceedingly close for him to make the difference.

Also: Sen. Dan Sullivan is the only one listed on the ballot as a Republican and as the incumbent.

Because of all of that, the new revelations could now wind up hurting Peltola more than the other Sullivan’s candidacy helps — even if it doesn’t push things too far either way.

And you can bet you’ll hear plenty about it from President Donald Trump, whose Justice Department is already seeking to elevate this issue with a rather dubious lawsuit .

Trump needs no invitation (or actual evidence) to accuse Democrats of cheating. The Democrats have given him something to work with here.

一场可能决定下周中期选举参议院多数席位归属的竞选出现了“十月惊奇”。

《纽约时报》的一项调查证实了人们普遍怀疑但从未被证实的事情：民主党人是阿拉斯加一位潜在的搅局者候选人（另一位丹·沙利文）的幕后推手，这位候选人获得了普选资格。

这件事最终是否会对阿拉斯加州参议员竞选产生影响，有很多原因。但或许更引人注目的是，考虑到潜在回报微乎其微，民主党人为何会认为推出这样一位候选人是值得冒险的。

首先，我们来看看《泰晤士报》报道的细节。

据该报报道，民主党候选人玛丽·佩尔托拉及其竞选团队的工作人员和律师花费数月时间招募候选人，希望他们能从共和党参议员丹·沙利文手中夺走选票。这项工作甚至包括寻找与这位参议员同名的人。

最终，他们成功地让丹尼尔·J·沙利文二世参加了竞选，他在 8 月份的初选中名列前四，获得了参加排序复选制大选的资格。

证实此事的人士包括佩尔托拉的前竞选经理兼长期助手，此人于8月份竞选团队改组期间被解雇。埃莉萨·里奥斯表示，佩尔托拉本人并未直接参与此事，但“肯定知情”。

该报道与佩尔托拉竞选团队和民主党参议员竞选委员会此前否认参与招募丹尼尔·J·沙利文二世的说法相矛盾——这两个机构均未回应《泰晤士报》的提问，但再次否认参与其中。

民主党参议院竞选委员会（DSCC）也向CNN表示，他们“与丹·J·沙利文没有任何关系”。佩尔托拉竞选团队尚未回复CNN的置评请求。

从道德角度来看，这则报道相当具有破坏性。不仅可以完全称得上是企图欺骗选民，而且新的报道也彻底推翻了民主党此前以及目前仍在进行的否认。

当然，这并非政治领域第一次发生此类事件——如今，干预对方阵营的初选，希望对方提名一位当选几率较低的候选人，已成为一种相当流行的策略。

本轮选举周期中，一个与共和党结盟的超级政治行动委员会也花钱支持俄亥俄州参议院竞选中的一位社会主义第三方候选人。

阿拉斯加的排序复选制也迅速演变成确保进入大选选票的第三和第四候选人与对手属于同一党派的努力。一些外部团体投入巨资扶持完全没有政治背景的人士——其中包括一位目前在狱中服刑、从未去过阿拉斯加的民主党候选人，而共和党人却一直在力捧他。

但试图以误导的方式影响选民的现有选择是一回事，直接扶植一个旨在迷惑选民的候选人则是另一回事。而且，很少能看到这种行为直接追溯到据称是幕后操纵的竞选团队。

阿拉斯加选民对此感到不满是可以理解的。

另一方面，这种看法可能已经根深蒂固——选民们早已认定民主党是幕后黑手。考虑到该州排序复选制选举制度中存在的种种猫腻，他们或许已经习以为常了。

佩尔托拉在竞选过程中也已经遭遇了一些非常棘手的事件。这包括初选前夕的8月份人事变动，以及《纽约时报》的另一项调查，该调查揭露了她的工作人员指控她发表愤怒且粗俗的言论，其中包括对同性恋者和智力障碍者的侮辱性言论。

（佩尔托拉的竞选团队称，她正因母亲和丈夫在2023年去世而悲痛不已，当时的共和党参议员丽莎·穆尔科斯基也为佩尔托拉背书。）

这些新闻周期似乎并没有对佩尔托拉造成影响。一个月前，《纽约时报》/锡耶纳学院的一项民调显示，她在可能投票的选民中领先苏利文参议员7个百分点——与她在初选日领先苏利文8个百分点的情况类​​似。

民调还显示，即使在负面报道之后，选民仍然以 50% 对 42% 的比例支持佩尔托拉。

这些优势在这里也至关重要。虽然目前尚不清楚大选的投票意向，阿拉斯加州也普遍被视为摇摆州，但佩尔托拉在民调和初选日的领先优势都非常显著。这表明，即使部分选民突然对她失去兴趣，她或许也能保住席位。

最后，还有一点需要说明，那就是很多选民已经……投过票了。截至本周初，已有近6万人提前投票或邮寄投票。这超过了近年来中期选举总投票人数的五分之一。

无论如何，这份新报告给佩尔托拉的候选资格蒙上了污点。而尤其令人惊讶的是，另一位丹·沙利文的候选资格原本就几乎无关紧要。

正如我八月份写的那样，丹尼尔·J·沙利文二世不太可能从丹·沙利文参议员那里夺走足够多的选票，从而真正改变选举结果。这很大程度上是因为该州的排序复选制允许任何感到困惑的选民将两人都列入候选名单，最终他们的选票都会被计入参议员的票数。

要想让丹尼尔·J·沙利文二世发挥作用，人们必须投票给他，并且在不投票给丹·沙利文参议员的情况下“用尽”选票——或者将这位参议员排在佩尔托拉之后。

有些选民可能会这么做。但丹尼尔·J·沙利文二世在初选中得票率很低（2.5%），而且他的许多支持者似乎都是佩尔托拉的拥护者，希望他能在普选中胜出。除非普选结果非常接近，否则他很难左右最终结果。

另外：丹·沙利文参议员是选票上唯一一位共和党候选人，同时也是现任参议员。

正因如此，这些新的爆料最终可能会对佩尔托拉造成比苏利文的候选资格带来的益处更大的伤害——即使它不会对事情产生太大的影响。

可以肯定的是，唐纳德·特朗普总统会对此大加赞扬，他的司法部已经试图通过一项颇为可疑的诉讼来提升这个问题。

特朗普无需任何邀请（或实际证据）就可以指责民主党人作弊。民主党人反而给了他一些把柄。