The practices are sadly common and nothing new. Name games honestly bother me much less than false candidates running to divide close races as spoilers-- with all that murky money flowing into campaigns, spoilers pose a far greater threat than name game confusion. In Ohio, we've got a strawman socialist spoiler running against Brown in Ohio with millions of MAGA dollars behind promises of a $30/hr minimum wage an rent freezes. I've received 6 laughable mailers thus far claiming Brown is too pro-Trump.
While Peltola's campaign didn't do anything plenty of other campaigns engage in, this was dumb. Don't forget Alaskan voters had to write-in Murkowski (with legal wrangling over the spelling variations) to re-elect her to the Senate in 2010. While their voters often puzzle me, they're paying attention. The gains for that campaign of Sullivan v. Sullivan confusion are likely to be offset by Alaska voters wrinkling their noses at the tactic.
I think my bigger question, and really the thesis of this article and several others I've written over the past month, is just how far has the Overton window shifted?
I'm well aware that these tactics have existed in politics for a very long time. That's not really my point. My point is that I believe there was a time when discovering that a campaign, along with an organization like the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, had helped orchestrate something like this would have sparked genuine outrage.
Now? We seem to shrug our shoulders and dismiss it as politics as usual.
And that reaction concerns me far more than the tactic itself.
At what point did we, as Americans, become so accustomed to these kinds of political behaviors that we stopped questioning whether they were ethically acceptable? When did something being commonplace become a justification for tolerating it?
That's the question I've been trying to explore. Not whether dirty politics is new, but how much our collective standards for what we're willing to tolerate have changed.
I think the frog is already sitting in boiling water, and we've somehow convinced ourselves the temperature is normal.
I'd posit the ugliness and dishonesty of such tactics involving name-games as spoilers have been here a long time, maybe just less obvious/less amplified; it has been acceptable/tolerated for a long time, just not something to be proud of. I don't think that standard for behavior has changed really in US politics.
Looking in our backyard, you know intimately exactly what Kucinich did to keep Miller in Congress-- the funding/support of his third-party charade was mostly the Trumpists in town. Judicial races and lower level county jobs have been full of name-games for generations, that isn't the shift (for a depressing yet comical read, dig into the 1996 & 1998 Democratic primaries of Russo v. Gallagher in Cuyahoga County).
The shift over the last 15 years is the money: how much, how it is deployed, and how hard it becomes to trace (and report on) before the election. What has changed is how opaque and crushing the funding of these spoilers have become thanks to the corruption and grift the Supreme Court unleashed in 2010 with Citizens United and much that has followed.
I've been disappointed reading the hand-wringing about Alaska as many ignore Levy and the $2 million-dollar investment that has shifted (what I thought) was a sincere/misguided third-party campaign into a knowning and useful tool for Trump-aligned funders to keep Sherrod Brown from the Senate. Alaska and Ohio may have similarities, but in Alaska, one Sullivan has an R next to their name and the other doesn't, Alaska voters who vote get that. In Ohio, the money involved is a different order of magnitude, and the messaging deliverong lie upon lie-- I’m on mailer seven of the month “on behalf of Levy” about how Brown loves Trump and is his puppet. The NY Times did manages some reporting on this yesterday: Third-Party Spoilers, Long Fueled by Both Parties, Could Matter This Year https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/29/us/politics/midterms-third-party-independent-candidates.html?unlocked_article_code=1.NFE.qW4K.0ct8kOyqscHJ
What matters is the money and dark nature of its sources, that’s what corrodes our democracy. That's what has changed.
100% the money. And the numbers coming out of Ohio are absolutely staggering. Between the U.S. Senate and governor's races, we're already looking at well over $650 million in reported spending by the campaigns and outside groups, with additional expenditures still to be accounted for.
I don't just think that's immoral. I think it's unethical, fundamentally wrong, and that spending on this scale should be illegal. Where the money comes from, how it's funneled through organizations, and how it's ultimately spent is almost unfathomable.
There was a time when we thought spending a billion dollars on a presidential election was insane. Now we're approaching that kind of money in just two statewide races in Ohio.
And I think you're absolutely right that the money, the lack of transparency, and the influence it buys are among the most corrosive forces in our democracy.
We do need to win. This is a death match for our nation. I am very upset if Mary’s campaign used dirty tricks and am angry but trump in power for 2 more years is much worse.
I’m sorry commentators here feel so justified because theirs is a righteous cause. Tyrants in history did the same. Guess it’s our fate as humans to mess up over and over.
No. In emergencies SOPs are out. That is what bureaucratic systems don't understand. The challenge is when the emergency is over, getting back to negotiated rules (SOPs).
Does the second Dan Sullivan want to serve? Is he willing to serve if elected? It’s not much of a dirty trick if he’s a real person with a real name who would like to be a senator who serves the people of Alaska.
It’s more of an opportunistic advantage. And I’m serious when I’m saying this, not trying to justify a “dirty trick”.
In competition there are times when you have natural advantages that crop up. In staggered start bicycle races sometimes the winds shift and early riders catch tailwinds that turn into headwinds for later riders.
Do they add time to the early riders scores?
No.
Just because Democrats found a real, live, person with the actual government name of Dan Sullivan, who lived in Alaska and wanted be a Senator for the people of Alaska and gave him the opportunity or encouragement to run, doesn’t mean they’ve done anything wrong.
They used a naturally occurring advantage to their benefit.
Democrats did not manufacture this benefit.
They did not have someone change their name to Dan Sullivan.
That did not have someone with the name of Dan Sullivan establish residence in Alaska to run in this race.
They did not force someone named Dan Sullivan to run against their will.
This is not dirty politics. This is a natural advantage that Dems used to their benefit and there is a big difference.
Democrats do not have to be Saints. They can play tough. They can use the existing rules to their advantage.
They do not have to change the direction of the wind every time it blows in their favor.
But that's exactly the issue. Where's the evidence that Dan Sullivan is actually running a serious campaign? The Washington Post reported that he's done practically no substantive campaigning, with just $300 spent on a brochure and $10,000 on legal fees. CBS News interviewed dozens of residents in his hometown and found virtually no evidence of an active campaign, including signs, mailers, or flyers. That's a pretty significant distinction between someone genuinely campaigning for the U.S. Senate and someone simply appearing on the ballot.
I don’t know how much of that is true. I used to live in Alaska and the people I still know there, don’t seem very bothered by the second Dan Sullivan. The think he is as genuine a candidate as many others were who ran in the past.
All I can go on is my second hand experience of the issue through people living there.
Alaska is built different from the lower 48. They don’t seem to be as concerned about the issue as the rest of the country is.
At worst it’s a grey area. It’s not an illegal or dirty move in my book.
Their are gradients to everything. 'Everything is realative,' as was my favorite saying starting in Jr. High.
Using legal but unsavory practices are worth admonition. Out and out lies using identity theft and putting forth SA abusers and protectors are exponentially worse.
My problem isn't that you want Dems to be better. I DO TOO.
My problem is that you weigh both sides equally. You count one Dem indiscretion as weighted equal to dozens and DOZENS of GOP lies, grifts, cons, and dirty tricks.
You talk of the Overton Window having shifted. Dems have tried for a decade to hold the line and move things back to a more amicable politics. Republicans have just gotten worse and worse.
Finally, some Dems are using stronger tactics. Why? Because the ELECTORATE has decided the Overton Window is in hardball, mud wrestling territory. The voters didn't want kindness and policy. They want Trump-like insults and slander of their opponents.
You want better politics? Forgive Dems a little so we can reform things!
As long as MAGA is in charge, politics will worsen. Policy will worsen. The economy will worsen. The USA's world standing will sink to most hated status. The country will divide further.
So, give us a break. Give Dems a break. Once (if) we have power, hold them accountable.
Until then, point your anger at those worthy of it; MAGA, conservative media, grifters, con men, and liars.
I think what's interesting is that you seem to believe Democrats haven't been using these same tactics for years. In some ways, I would argue that some of their tactics have been even more questionable.
And here's the issue. I don't weigh both parties equally because I can't. I haven't been a Republican. I haven't run as a Republican. I haven't seen the inner workings of the Republican Party, what they say behind closed doors, what they actually do, or how their operations function.
What I do know is the Democratic Party.
I know the things we say we believe in but don't actually fight for. I know the principles we claim to stand on that get shoved under the bus the moment things become politically inconvenient. And I know how quickly we justify those decisions by arguing that the ends justify the means.
But then I have to ask, what exactly is the end we're trying to achieve if we're willing to abandon the very principles we're supposedly fighting for?
Frankly, I'm sick of the whataboutism. Every time I question something Democrats do, the response seems to be some variation of, "Well, Republicans are worse."
That doesn't answer the ethical question. It avoids it.
And here's what frustrates me most. I think the current political landscape is absolutely ripe for a political movement with a strong moral foundation. One that stands for something, has principles people can actually trust, and gives Americans something to believe in and rally around.
Yet for some reason, Democrats seem to have lost sight of that opportunity.
And instead of asking how we reclaim it, we're increasingly being told to excuse our own behavior until we regain power.
But if we're willing to compromise our principles to get power, what exactly are we promising to do differently once we have it?
The practices are sadly common and nothing new. Name games honestly bother me much less than false candidates running to divide close races as spoilers-- with all that murky money flowing into campaigns, spoilers pose a far greater threat than name game confusion. In Ohio, we've got a strawman socialist spoiler running against Brown in Ohio with millions of MAGA dollars behind promises of a $30/hr minimum wage an rent freezes. I've received 6 laughable mailers thus far claiming Brown is too pro-Trump.
While Peltola's campaign didn't do anything plenty of other campaigns engage in, this was dumb. Don't forget Alaskan voters had to write-in Murkowski (with legal wrangling over the spelling variations) to re-elect her to the Senate in 2010. While their voters often puzzle me, they're paying attention. The gains for that campaign of Sullivan v. Sullivan confusion are likely to be offset by Alaska voters wrinkling their noses at the tactic.
I think my bigger question, and really the thesis of this article and several others I've written over the past month, is just how far has the Overton window shifted?
I'm well aware that these tactics have existed in politics for a very long time. That's not really my point. My point is that I believe there was a time when discovering that a campaign, along with an organization like the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, had helped orchestrate something like this would have sparked genuine outrage.
Now? We seem to shrug our shoulders and dismiss it as politics as usual.
And that reaction concerns me far more than the tactic itself.
At what point did we, as Americans, become so accustomed to these kinds of political behaviors that we stopped questioning whether they were ethically acceptable? When did something being commonplace become a justification for tolerating it?
That's the question I've been trying to explore. Not whether dirty politics is new, but how much our collective standards for what we're willing to tolerate have changed.
I think the frog is already sitting in boiling water, and we've somehow convinced ourselves the temperature is normal.
I'd posit the ugliness and dishonesty of such tactics involving name-games as spoilers have been here a long time, maybe just less obvious/less amplified; it has been acceptable/tolerated for a long time, just not something to be proud of. I don't think that standard for behavior has changed really in US politics.
Looking in our backyard, you know intimately exactly what Kucinich did to keep Miller in Congress-- the funding/support of his third-party charade was mostly the Trumpists in town. Judicial races and lower level county jobs have been full of name-games for generations, that isn't the shift (for a depressing yet comical read, dig into the 1996 & 1998 Democratic primaries of Russo v. Gallagher in Cuyahoga County).
The shift over the last 15 years is the money: how much, how it is deployed, and how hard it becomes to trace (and report on) before the election. What has changed is how opaque and crushing the funding of these spoilers have become thanks to the corruption and grift the Supreme Court unleashed in 2010 with Citizens United and much that has followed.
I've been disappointed reading the hand-wringing about Alaska as many ignore Levy and the $2 million-dollar investment that has shifted (what I thought) was a sincere/misguided third-party campaign into a knowning and useful tool for Trump-aligned funders to keep Sherrod Brown from the Senate. Alaska and Ohio may have similarities, but in Alaska, one Sullivan has an R next to their name and the other doesn't, Alaska voters who vote get that. In Ohio, the money involved is a different order of magnitude, and the messaging deliverong lie upon lie-- I’m on mailer seven of the month “on behalf of Levy” about how Brown loves Trump and is his puppet. The NY Times did manages some reporting on this yesterday: Third-Party Spoilers, Long Fueled by Both Parties, Could Matter This Year https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/29/us/politics/midterms-third-party-independent-candidates.html?unlocked_article_code=1.NFE.qW4K.0ct8kOyqscHJ
What matters is the money and dark nature of its sources, that’s what corrodes our democracy. That's what has changed.
100% the money. And the numbers coming out of Ohio are absolutely staggering. Between the U.S. Senate and governor's races, we're already looking at well over $650 million in reported spending by the campaigns and outside groups, with additional expenditures still to be accounted for.
I don't just think that's immoral. I think it's unethical, fundamentally wrong, and that spending on this scale should be illegal. Where the money comes from, how it's funneled through organizations, and how it's ultimately spent is almost unfathomable.
There was a time when we thought spending a billion dollars on a presidential election was insane. Now we're approaching that kind of money in just two statewide races in Ohio.
And I think you're absolutely right that the money, the lack of transparency, and the influence it buys are among the most corrosive forces in our democracy.
We do need to win. This is a death match for our nation. I am very upset if Mary’s campaign used dirty tricks and am angry but trump in power for 2 more years is much worse.
I’m sorry commentators here feel so justified because theirs is a righteous cause. Tyrants in history did the same. Guess it’s our fate as humans to mess up over and over.
“You cannot explain away a wantonly immoral act because you think that it is connected to some higher purpose.”
— Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek: The Next Generation
I agree wholeheartedly!
Think again. We are in a death struggle with evil. There are degrees of evil and Trump is at the highest level .
“You cannot explain away a wantonly immoral act because you think that it is connected to some higher purpose.”
— Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek: The Next Generation
No. In emergencies SOPs are out. That is what bureaucratic systems don't understand. The challenge is when the emergency is over, getting back to negotiated rules (SOPs).
Joe, with the passing of Patrick Stewart, I'm reminded of something Captain Picard once said:
"You cannot explain away a wantonly immoral act because you think that it is connected to some higher purpose."
I think that's exactly the issue here. Emergencies may require extraordinary actions, but they don't automatically make those actions moral.
If a tyrant uses an emergency to justify tyranny, does that somehow become acceptable because he promises to return to normal afterward?
And if we abandon our principles whenever they're inconvenient, were they ever really principles to begin with?
Does the second Dan Sullivan want to serve? Is he willing to serve if elected? It’s not much of a dirty trick if he’s a real person with a real name who would like to be a senator who serves the people of Alaska.
It’s more of an opportunistic advantage. And I’m serious when I’m saying this, not trying to justify a “dirty trick”.
In competition there are times when you have natural advantages that crop up. In staggered start bicycle races sometimes the winds shift and early riders catch tailwinds that turn into headwinds for later riders.
Do they add time to the early riders scores?
No.
Just because Democrats found a real, live, person with the actual government name of Dan Sullivan, who lived in Alaska and wanted be a Senator for the people of Alaska and gave him the opportunity or encouragement to run, doesn’t mean they’ve done anything wrong.
They used a naturally occurring advantage to their benefit.
Democrats did not manufacture this benefit.
They did not have someone change their name to Dan Sullivan.
That did not have someone with the name of Dan Sullivan establish residence in Alaska to run in this race.
They did not force someone named Dan Sullivan to run against their will.
This is not dirty politics. This is a natural advantage that Dems used to their benefit and there is a big difference.
Democrats do not have to be Saints. They can play tough. They can use the existing rules to their advantage.
They do not have to change the direction of the wind every time it blows in their favor.
But that's exactly the issue. Where's the evidence that Dan Sullivan is actually running a serious campaign? The Washington Post reported that he's done practically no substantive campaigning, with just $300 spent on a brochure and $10,000 on legal fees. CBS News interviewed dozens of residents in his hometown and found virtually no evidence of an active campaign, including signs, mailers, or flyers. That's a pretty significant distinction between someone genuinely campaigning for the U.S. Senate and someone simply appearing on the ballot.
I don’t know how much of that is true. I used to live in Alaska and the people I still know there, don’t seem very bothered by the second Dan Sullivan. The think he is as genuine a candidate as many others were who ran in the past.
All I can go on is my second hand experience of the issue through people living there.
Alaska is built different from the lower 48. They don’t seem to be as concerned about the issue as the rest of the country is.
At worst it’s a grey area. It’s not an illegal or dirty move in my book.
Thank you for the first hand experience and understanding the lay of the land.
Their are gradients to everything. 'Everything is realative,' as was my favorite saying starting in Jr. High.
Using legal but unsavory practices are worth admonition. Out and out lies using identity theft and putting forth SA abusers and protectors are exponentially worse.
My problem isn't that you want Dems to be better. I DO TOO.
My problem is that you weigh both sides equally. You count one Dem indiscretion as weighted equal to dozens and DOZENS of GOP lies, grifts, cons, and dirty tricks.
You talk of the Overton Window having shifted. Dems have tried for a decade to hold the line and move things back to a more amicable politics. Republicans have just gotten worse and worse.
Finally, some Dems are using stronger tactics. Why? Because the ELECTORATE has decided the Overton Window is in hardball, mud wrestling territory. The voters didn't want kindness and policy. They want Trump-like insults and slander of their opponents.
You want better politics? Forgive Dems a little so we can reform things!
As long as MAGA is in charge, politics will worsen. Policy will worsen. The economy will worsen. The USA's world standing will sink to most hated status. The country will divide further.
So, give us a break. Give Dems a break. Once (if) we have power, hold them accountable.
Until then, point your anger at those worthy of it; MAGA, conservative media, grifters, con men, and liars.
I think what's interesting is that you seem to believe Democrats haven't been using these same tactics for years. In some ways, I would argue that some of their tactics have been even more questionable.
And here's the issue. I don't weigh both parties equally because I can't. I haven't been a Republican. I haven't run as a Republican. I haven't seen the inner workings of the Republican Party, what they say behind closed doors, what they actually do, or how their operations function.
What I do know is the Democratic Party.
I know the things we say we believe in but don't actually fight for. I know the principles we claim to stand on that get shoved under the bus the moment things become politically inconvenient. And I know how quickly we justify those decisions by arguing that the ends justify the means.
But then I have to ask, what exactly is the end we're trying to achieve if we're willing to abandon the very principles we're supposedly fighting for?
Frankly, I'm sick of the whataboutism. Every time I question something Democrats do, the response seems to be some variation of, "Well, Republicans are worse."
That doesn't answer the ethical question. It avoids it.
And here's what frustrates me most. I think the current political landscape is absolutely ripe for a political movement with a strong moral foundation. One that stands for something, has principles people can actually trust, and gives Americans something to believe in and rally around.
Yet for some reason, Democrats seem to have lost sight of that opportunity.
And instead of asking how we reclaim it, we're increasingly being told to excuse our own behavior until we regain power.
But if we're willing to compromise our principles to get power, what exactly are we promising to do differently once we have it?
Policy