One of the strangest controversies of the 2026 election cycle has been playing out in Alaska, where Democrats have been exposed for recruiting a man named Dan Sullivan — he shares a first and last name with the incumbent GOP senator — to run for that seat as another “Republican.”
In the state’s unusual top-four, ranked choice voting system, the impostor Dan Sullivan is among the quartet of candidates on the ballot in that race. Many political observers simply assumed that Democrats played some role in getting the second Sullivan into the mix as a means of confusing voters, which could give a marginal edge to Democrat Mary Peltola. After all, in a very tight contest, marginal shifts could prove decisive.
Peltola’s campaign and national Democrats have repeatedly denied any involvement, insisting that it was somehow an organic coincidence that a man with the same name as the sitting Republican senator wound up in this precise scenario. That may have seemed like an intelligence-insulting, credulity-straining claim, but that was their story, and they were sticking to it.
Then came last week’s New York Times investigative report that formally blew the lid off of what was rather obviously a lie. (As an aside, the paper so infuriated its leftist readership by committing journalism against the Party that it has evidently felt compelled to publish an elaborate justification for its decision to cover the news).
The damning article was supported by documentary evidence, including written communications, as well as information gleaned from a dozen sources with knowledge of the scheme. The upshot was that Peltolaworld and national Democrats colluded to identify and persuade an Alaska-based man named “Dan Sullivan” — any eligible Dan Sullivan would do — to seek Sen. Dan Sullivan’s (R-AK) Senate seat. The process began more than a year ago, per the New York Times (emphasis mine):
The denials were flagrant, brazen lies all along. This dubious process, which even had an operational code name, began with Peltola campaign staffers, was boosted by the DSCC, and relied on help from Peltola campaign attorneys and a Democratic operative from the Lower 48 who traveled around Alaska under an assumed identity.
Caught red-handed by the New York Times, Peltola could have confessed with some degree of contrition, or refused to comment on the story, perhaps citing “ongoing investigations” as an excuse to remain mum. Instead, she tripled down on the lie.
At a campaign event in Juneau on Thursday, she said, “I just want to clear the air. I knew nothing about any other candidate on the ballot except for me and the incumbent. That is all I have ever known about. I am not interested in tricking voters.”
Rep.-elect Mary Peltola, D-Alaska, is interviewed on Capitol Hill in Washington on Monday, Sept. 12, 2022. (AP Photo/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades)
" data-large-file="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP22255624670293.jpg?w=1024" src="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP22255624670293.jpg?w=1024" alt="Mary Peltola" class="wp-image-4785389" srcset="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP22255624670293.jpg 1024w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP22255624670293.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AP22255624670293.jpg?resize=768,512 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">
Rep.-elect Mary Peltola (D-AK) is interviewed on Monday, Sept. 12, 2022, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades)
This assertion is untrue, not merely based on common sense — a major-party candidate says she knows nothing at all about half of the four people on the ballot in her race? — but also according to the evidence compiled in the New York Times piece:
“’Alaskan voters need to know,’ said Elisa Rios, Ms. Peltola’s former campaign manager and longtime aide … ‘There was a lot of speculation, and voters should get the full picture when making their decisions.’ Ms. Peltola was not directly involved in the project, Ms. Rios said, but she was ‘definitely aware.’ … The Times also obtained dozens of text messages that provided updates on the progress of the effort.
“After going on the record with all of her testimony, Ms. Rios tried to retroactively retract her revelations before the story went to print. Whether she got cold feet, or someone got to her with inducements or threats, is unclear.
“What is clear is that her story was corroborated by 11 other sources and a trove of text messages. The article went live. It erased any doubt about whether the ‘fake’ Dan Sullivan is indeed a Democratic plant.
“He reportedly ‘hated Trump, and if it was going to help Mary, he liked Mary.’ He was also described by the reporters as ‘a longtime supporter of Ms. Peltola and other Democrats.’”
Remember, this man ended up on the ballot as a Republican, another element of this fraudulent scheme. With a Justice Department investigation underway, legal experts are debating whether this was simply a deceitful, unethical political dirty trick and cover-up, or also a crime. Within the latter realm, this information seems potentially problematic:
“Follow the money. Mr. Kurtz, meanwhile, was telling his collaborators that he used ‘pseudonyms and cover stories to keep his activities under wraps.'”
This meticulously researched expose has the Democrats dead to rights. What they did is undeniable. Peltola’s continued denials are both facially implausible and directly contradicted by her own former campaign manager’s direct, on-the-record quotes.
But will any of this matter to voters or impact the outcome of the race? That remains to be seen, of course, and our turbulent political age has produced a polarized and often unshockable electorate.
That said, sharp political analyst Sean Trende believes this kerfuffle may actually break through, particularly because Peltola is swimming upstream in a red state and has therefore fashioned her brand as anti-political, anti-corruption, and independent-minded. She explicitly frames her campaign as a bid to “unrig” the system. Her team has now been nailed to the wall for rigging the system for her benefit, then lying about it.
This ugly mess has also drawn the ire of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), an unpredictable centrist whose reputation is so significant in Alaska that she once won a statewide race as a write-in candidate. She slammed the Peltola campaign’s “pattern of lies and coverups” that fostered a “culture of deception.”
What might also leave a mark is the New York Times piece describing the disdain Democratic schemers displayed for Alaskan voters: “In one exchange of text messages obtained by the New York Times, Peltola advisers seemed to make fun of voters while watching a focus group, surmising the participants would be susceptible to being tricked into voting for a ballot spoiler,” the story notes. “‘Do we have a scheme for you,’ wrote a consultant for the Peltola campaign. A pollster on the chat wrote that one voter seemed like the perfect audience ‘for our ballot strategy plan.’”
I’ll leave you with this extraordinary passage from the New York Times article, featuring the machinations of the self-proclaimed “party of democracy” … and a familiar name:
On my national radio program on Friday, the genuine Sen. Dan Sullivan urged Alaskans to rank all three GOP candidates, starting with him, Daniel S. Sullivan, incumbent, at the top, then to decline to rank Peltola at all.
There are several realistic scenarios in which Senate control will boil down to this race. Will Alaska voters reward or punish Peltola and her campaign for their contemptuous cynicism and habitual deceit?
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]