A new report has confirmed long-standing suspicions regarding a strategic effort by Democratic operatives to influence the Alaska Senate race. Staffers and legal consultants aligned with Democratic nominee Mary Peltola spent months recruiting candidates designed to pull votes away from the Republican incumbent, Senator Dan Sullivan. These efforts successfully placed Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. on the general election ballot after he secured a top-four finish in the August primary. An October surprise has surfaced in a race that could well determine who wins the Senate majority in next week’s midterm elections. That effort included finding people who shared the senator’s name. Eventually, they were able to get Daniel J. The reporting contradicts previous denials of any role in recruiting Daniel J. Lisa Murkowski at the time vouched for Peltola.). Those news cycles didn’t seem to cost Peltola. Those margins are also important here.
Elisa Rios, a former top aide and campaign manager for Peltola who departed during a staff reorganization in August, confirmed that while the candidate was not directly involved in the recruitment, she was definitely aware of the operation. Representatives for both the Peltola campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) have consistently denied these claims, with the DSCC reiterating to media outlets that it remains not involved with Dan J. Sullivan. Given how little potential payoff it gives them, 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. The Peltola campaign did not immediately respond to request for comment. (Peltola’s campaign cited her grieving over the deaths of her mother and husband in 2023, and GOP Sen. 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. The flipside of that argument is that this perception might already be baked-in — that voters already assumed Democrats were behind it. And finally, there’s the fact that lots of voters have simply … already voted. And what’s particularly remarkable about it is how unlikely the other Dan Sullivan’s candidacy ever was to matter.
The revelation raises significant questions about campaign tactics, as the attempt to plant a candidate specifically to cause voter confusion is considered a departure from standard primary interference. The story is pretty damning, from a moral standpoint.
While political operatives frequently meddle in opposition primaries to boost less-electable candidates—a tactic currently being employed by a pro-GOP super PAC to promote a socialist third-party candidate in Ohio—the direct recruitment of a namesake spoiler represents a different level of maneuvering. Alaska’s ranked-choice system, which has been increasingly utilized by outside groups to push obscure candidates or even incarcerated individuals onto the ballot, has contributed to an environment where voter choice is heavily manipulated. 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. 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. Given how much gamesmanship there has been with the state’s ranked-choice system, perhaps they’re just used to it all by now.
Despite the potential backlash, it remains uncertain whether these reports will derail Peltola’s momentum. She has previously weathered significant political challenges, including an August staff shake-up and reports detailing allegations of workplace outbursts. Recent polling from a New York Times/Siena survey conducted a month ago showed her leading Senator Sullivan by 7 points among likely voters, a margin consistent with her primary day performance. Data indicates that voters continue to view her favorably by a 50%-42% margin. Sullivan among likely voters by 7 points — similar to the 8 points she led Sullivan by on primary day. Even after the negative coverage, that poll also showed voters still liked Peltola 50%-42%.
The electoral impact of the other Dan Sullivan may also be limited by the mechanics of Alaska’s voting system. Because the ballot allows voters to rank multiple candidates, supporters of the incumbent can easily rank both Sullivans, ensuring their preference for the senator is ultimately counted. In the primary, the spoiler candidate captured only 2.5% of the vote, and analysts suggest his support base consisted largely of Peltola voters attempting to bolster his ballot position. Furthermore, with nearly 60,000 ballots already cast via early or absentee methods as of early this week, a significant portion of the electorate has already made their decision. Peltola has also already dealt with some very tough headlines in the race.
The controversy provides fresh ammunition for political critics, including President Donald Trump, who is leveraging the report to push claims of election impropriety. Even if the candidate’s impact on the final tally remains minimal, the discovery serves as a notable stain on the campaign, as the incumbent remains the only Republican and clear officeholder listed on the ballot.
