Republicans rip Peltola over report her campaign recruited second Sullivan
The name game is as old as politics, but this one has a genuinely strange twist. Recruiting a midterm rival who happens to share the exact name of your current opponent is a clever, if cheeky, way to scramble the ballot. In a state with ranked-choice voting, though, the tactic gets murkier, since lower preferences can still decide the outcome, and a confused voter might rank the wrong Sullivan higher than they intended.
I'd want to know a few things before passing judgment. Did the campaign just have a conversation with Sullivan Jr., or did they put money behind his candidacy? And did Sullivan Jr. actually take them up on it? The Times report points to an attempt, not a completed deal, and that distinction matters for how fair the criticism is. Republicans are framing this as outright deception, but the facts so far suggest an effort that may or may not have worked.
Where I land is somewhere in the middle. Recruiting a same-name candidate is within the rules of the game, and both parties have pulled similar stunts in other races. But it's also a real disservice to voters, who shouldn't need a detective's eye to know which Sullivan is which. If the campaign did fund the rival, that raises the stakes considerably. As it stands, I'd wait for more reporting before calling it a scandal, but I understand why the GOP is making noise now.