Seventeen candidates are running to be Alaska’s next governor. Alaskans are already heading to the polls for early voting in the Aug. 18 nonpartisan, pick-one primary, which will narrow the field to four.
It can be tough to pick a favorite in a crowded field, so Alaska Public Media is conducting interviews with some of the top candidates in the race. We've reached out to every campaign that's raised $50,000 or more, and many have responded.
In this interview, we hear from former Democratic Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, who represented Sitka and rural communities in Southeast Alaska for 10 years in the state Legislature.
The following transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.
You recently returned from a trip down the Yukon River, visiting, I think, 11 villages over 450 miles. Earlier this year, you traveled hundreds of miles on a snowmachine on a campaign swing through the Northwest Arctic. I want to start with, can you tell me about why you made those trips, what you heard from Alaskans, and how it's shaping your campaign for governor?
We want to run the highest-energy campaign for governor, and I think it also is kind of a signal of how I want to govern, which is, like, a high energy, positive problem solving approach. And there are a lot of problems in Alaska, so we've just got to tackle them, and bring this positive, pragmatic problem solving energy.
And I think for rural Alaska — I represented the rural communities in Southeast for 10 years. It's really important to me personally to spend time in parts of the state that are easily overlooked and forgotten. And those two campaign swings, which I think, were at least semi-, if not entirely unprecedented, is sort of like that commitment of — rural Alaska, if you're rural, you're urban, you're in a village of 50 people, like, we want to get to you, and you're just as important as someone in Downtown Anchorage.
What was sort of the message that you heard from voters there, and how did you try to connect with them? What were the sorts of things that you were telling them?
I mean, a lot of it's listening, and I mean, gosh, that gets just a broader principle I have, which is, listen before you talk. You're not the smartest person in the room. I think good governance looks like drawing on the expertise of others and synthesizing it, and then sort of developing solutions from there. So, you know, very much, it was about, I was a guest in these communities, I was there to sort of listen and hear.
I mean, I think the common themes were schools are a concern everywhere in Alaska. And in rural Alaska, as much as urban Alaska, the diminished quality of public education in the state is a real concern. And subsistence — in rural Alaska, and, you know, I represented the villages in Southeast — subsistence is the way of life. And when fisheries and game management decisions imperil the subsistence way of life, that is such a fundamental, foundational concern. There's almost not the words for it, and hearing those stories just reinforces how important it is for, I think, us to protect people's subsistence way of life. It's about as Alaskan as it gets, and that was a universal concern I heard as well.
Does your campaign sort of have, like, an overarching message? Are there sorts of themes that are underpinning, you know, what you're saying to Alaskans in your campaign? If you had to boil it down to a few things, what would a Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins administration represent?
New energy and new ideas. If you don't like the last eight years, the sort of wet blanket era of (incumbent Gov.) Mike Dunleavy's Alaska, like, I'm here to rip it off and create a new chapter for the state. And the way I'm going to do it is working together across party lines: that problem-solving spirit, and I think a can-do energy too. I'm impatient with inaction. I am impatient with a failure to identify solutions, and I have, like, a zealous, ferocious energy to do that, which I think all is a stark contrast to what we've experienced the last eight years.
And I'm a younger candidate -- and for some people, that's a plus, for some people, it isn't. But I mean, one thing that is for-darn-sure is like we have this really high-energy approach to problem solving. I think anyone who knows me can speak to that in their own way. And I think, you know, we've really demonstrated that in the campaign. We are hardworking. We're positive. We're going to get stuff done.
Yeah, as you mentioned, you spent 10 years in the Legislature representing Sitka and many rural southeast communities, a lot of them on Prince of Wales Island. And I'm curious what you learned during your decade at the state Capitol, and what you would point to as some of the biggest accomplishments from your legislative career.
I spent a few years in a partisan minority, and I spent even more years in a bipartisan majority. And I'm a huge believer in that bipartisan coalition model of governance, where you have Democrats and independents and Republicans sharing power, holding gavels, finding common ground, and trying to make Alaska a better place. And that is something I'm a huge believer in, and I want to bring that same spirit of governance to the governor's office.
I think I developed a reputation as a committee chairman who was fair, and my mentality for the six years I was running a committee was, I'm in service of the institution, and to some extent, in service to my colleagues, not myself. And I, my committee, had the second highest volume of legislation in the Legislature, and I was really focused on two things: moving bills that were good and going to solve problems as quickly as possible, so that they could continue through the legislative process and have the highest possible chance of becoming law and therefore solving some problem in Alaska. Like, legislating should be problem solving, and, like, there's problems, and that's legislators' and elected officials' jobs.
And so as a committee chair, as you know, you can bottle stuff up. You can slow stuff down. You can kill stuff. And it, like, impedes that fundamental process of legislating. And I was really focused on moving as much legislation that was good out of my committee. And by the numbers, I was successful, highly successful at that. Which, ironically, was almost never my own legislation.
The second thing I was really focused on as a committee chair is treating everyone fairly, and good ideas are good ideas no matter who has them or what party they belong to. I made a point every Legislature that the first bill I would hear and move out of my committee was a minority Republican bill, and I felt that was important to send the signal that I wasn't playing partisan games. Everyone would have a fair hearing, and I like to think that's a reputation that I developed in the Capitol. And I mean, heck, there's some podcast interviews with some of my former Republican colleagues who testify that you know on the record, which I'm really proud of.
I mean, I think you know, I'm not going to agree with everyone all the time. I think the platonic ideal of politics is disagreeing agreeably. I believe in the politics of civility, and as a legislator, I worked really hard to uphold those ideals. In terms of specific legislative accomplishments, I mean, as a committee chair, the omnibus elections reform bill that just passed the Legislature this year was originally crafted by me and Mike Shower in 2021, 2022. It passed the House, and it came like minutes away from passing the Senate that year. It died on the Senate floor at the sine die day.
And for folks not familiar, Mike Shower is a very conservative Republican from Wasilla. He was a senator, he was the minority leader for a while, he's now the running mate of gubernatorial candidate Bernadette Wilson.
Yes, exactly. And at that time, he was the chair of Senate State Affairs, and I was the chair of House State Affairs. And so, as the respective House and Senate committee chairs, even though, as you effectively just noted, we have very different ideologies, we are able to hash out that omnibus compromise. And it's evolved a little bit. It is directionally, you know, the same sort of overall package as it was six years ago, and I mean that's the kind of, like, compromise and finding common ground I really believe in.
I also chaired the Fiscal Policy Working Group. That was eight members from (Sen.) Shelly Hughes, (Sen.) Mike Shower, (Rep.) Ben Carpenter — you know, about as right-wing as you can find the Legislature — to (Sen.) Jesse Kiehl here in Juneau on the left. And all eight members, by consensus, agreed to those recommendations.
And not to say that that has to be the way. I think I'm more proud of, if anything else, the process that I led and facilitated, where I was able to create trust and buy-in in a process and a willingness to compromise, and I think that is actually the missing ingredient. Like, right now, the math of the budget is not the biggest variable. It is brokering the political compromise that is the biggest variable, and I like to think that is a strength, and I like to think, you know, these two examples I just gave speak to that.
I mean, in addition, I had a real passion for Native issues and, in particular, Native languages. I passed the legislation that made Alaska's Native languages official languages of the state of Alaska. I passed legislation that made it easier for fluent Native and world language speakers and elders to teach in public school classrooms and created sort of a pathway in teacher licensure. So that's an issue that I cared a lot about and had a lot of legislative activity relating to. So that's sort of my background, but I think those principles and values are maybe most important, because I really intend to carry them forward to the governor's office.
So you were one of 60 legislators, and if I recall correctly, you won your first election at 23.
That's right.
By a handful of votes.
32 votes. Not that anyone's counting.
Not that anyone's counting. But to my knowledge, I don't think you've run a large organization. And the governor of Alaska runs a workforce of 15,000 people, a multibillion-dollar budget, and I'm curious what you would say to a voter who looks at your experience and says, I'm not sure if this person is prepared to lead such a large organization.
It's a very fair question. I have three answers.
The first is I'm very familiar with the organization from effectively being on its board of directors for 10 years. So, you know, it's a different kind of experience, but there is a fairly deep familiarity with what the organization that is our state government is. Two, I would argue, some of our best governors who equipped themselves, I think, you know, best in the eyes of history, similarly did not have direct experience running large organizations when they were elected.
Jay Hammond is the example I would give. He was a legislator, small business owner, guiding business bush pilot, but did not — he was not the CEO of a hospital in Anchorage or anything like that. So it doesn't guarantee doing well. But I would sort of point out that that is not required in order to do well.
And the third is — and I think humility is a really important value in your elected office — I sort of recognize, like, that is not a strength in my resume, and I think what's really important, especially as governor, is that you build a team and an administration and a cabinet that compensates for where you have thinner life experience. And building a cabinet with people who do have that experience and really drawing on their guidance and expertise is really important to me, and it would be something I would very much keep in mind when composing an administration.
You mentioned the bipartisan Fiscal (Policy) Working Group earlier. It came up with a number of ideas for addressing the structural deficit. The problem is Alaska spends more than it brings in, and sometimes oil prices make that less of a problem, sometimes oil prices make that more of a problem.
And you were also in the Legislature when lawmakers made the historic decision to tap the Permanent Fund for the first time to pay for state government, from dividends to schools to roads to prisons. And I'm curious if you can talk about how you would balance the state budget. And also, at the same time, do you see broad-based taxes like an income tax or a sales tax as inevitable?
The math on the budget, I think, is very doable, and in my mind, it's a three-part approach. And I think continuing to draw on the wealth that the state has in the Permanent Fund is important. And I mean it is. There's no way for us to even come remotely close to balancing the budget if we don't do that. But do it in a responsible way.
And I mean, just to circle back to your previous question or blend these questions, another issue that I was a leader on and feel very strongly about is protecting the integrity of the Permanent Fund and protecting it from overspending. And I introduced the first constitutional amendment that had been circulated in several decades that would have created a constitutional limit on overspending from the Permanent Fund. And that idea has gotten more and more momentum in your sense, and, you know, the Permanent Fund Corp. trustees endorse that approach. It has bipartisan support. So anyway, just, you know, (the) Permanent Fund is important, and it needs to be managed responsibly. And I think that's a really important reform.
Number two, I think we need to get our fair share from our resources. I don't think we are right now.
The fact that Hilcorp doesn't pay corporate income tax is, I think, inexcusable. And the fact that two of our largest oil and gas producers do and Hilcorp doesn't is patently unfair on its face. And I think it also violates the bargain the state has with the oil industry. And this sort of gets into the wonky weeds a little bit, but there are four revenue mechanisms, how we get our revenue from oil. Corporate income tax is one of the four. When you chop that leg off from the stool, you are disrupting the broader compromise that exists between industry in Alaska. So you can't just kind of pretend that it's irrelevant. I mean, there's a more significant implication from the fact that Hilcorp doesn't pay corporate income tax.
And I think beyond that, our oil and gas tax structure is wanting. And I'm the only legislator — excuse me, I'm the only candidate in this race to have voted against Senate Bill 21 in 2013. It's basically the reason that I dropped out of college and ran for the Legislature as a 23-year-old, was this issue of getting our fair share of oil wealth.
And so, I think, for the next governor, the next Legislature, looking at whether our minimum tax from oil is fair, whether the $8 in per-barrel credits are reasonable — to be clear, I think they're very overly generous — are all I think policy calls that need to be revisited, and I'm highly motivated to revisit, so that Alaska gets its fair share from its oil resource. So that's number two.
And number three, I think broad-based revenues have to be a part of the question, the conversation. You know, the fact that Gov. Dunleavy himself introduced a broad-based revenue bill, I think shows that we've gotten to the point that it is, you know, sort of mathematically important to have in the mix, and so I think, sort of, in partnership with the Legislature, having that be part of a broader fiscal solution is important.
So you talked about increasing oil and gas taxes, or you know, getting Alaska's fair share is how you put it. I'm curious how you would balance increasing resource revenue with not scaring off investors who, as the arguments go, can redeploy their capital elsewhere. They're choosing to be in Alaska. They're employing many Alaskans. They're employing a lot of outsiders as well, but many Alaskans.
And then, the other sort of argument that we hear about the pass-through entities tax, the S corp tax (structure) that allows large companies like Hilcorp, that are privately owned, to not pay corporate income taxes because they pass their income through to the person that owns it — the argument that I hear against that is that Hilcorp has invested a lot in producing oil and gas in Cook Inlet and on the North Slope, including in legacy fields, reversing you know production declines and things like that.
So, I guess, I'm curious how you respond to the idea that if we increase taxes, we will reduce investment in an industry that employs a lot of Alaskans and contributes quite a bit to the state budget.
I think those are largely like talking point-based arguments, and of course, everything is a question of degree. But I have a couple of thoughts.
With Hilcorp, first of all, it's just fairness. ConocoPhillips has invested a lot in the state. Why should Conoco pay corporate income tax and not Hilcorp? In what world is that fair? We're in Juneau right now. Heritage Cafe and Rookery Cafe are just a stone's throw from the studio. There's sales tax in Juneau. Would it be fair for Rookery to pay sales tax and Heritage Cafe not to pay sales tax? No, that's absurd. And so the notion that Hilcorp should somehow have a sweetheart exemption from one of our main forms of oil taxation is patently ridiculous in my mind. And that talking point argument, I think, completely ignores — and there is no response to what I am describing. So it's just a question of fairness, and Hilcorp should be held to the same standard that Conoco and Exxon are. And soon, Santos, which is also a C corporation and will soon be committing corporate income tax into the state treasury as well.
In terms of the other side of the question, in terms of driving investment away, I mean, I think this is more a question of degree. And I think there is fundamental merit to that.
I think, sort of, that specter of divestment from Alaska is often overwrought, but I also think there is merit to it at its base. And it's just a question of degree, again. I think I sort of have two thoughts on that.
The first is, in Alaska and the North Slope, there's a very big difference between the legacy fields where all investment has, decades ago, been paid off, and those fields are basically pumping profit, from the new fields that are attracting investment right now, like Willow with Conoco, and Pikka with Santos, and Horseshoe with Santos. And having an oil and gas tax regime that accounts for that reality, I think, is very wise, and having a more modest tax structure for new fields and new investment and new development, I think there's a lot of merit to that argument.
And also, looking at the legacy fields like Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk, which have been pumping oil now for more than a half century, and are highly profitable, and from publicly available data with Securities and Exchange Commission, with Conoco specifically, you know there is no argument that those fields are among Conoco's most profitable in the world. I think just those facts really kind of rebut that argument that they're going to walk away. But I do think accounting for that nuance, that new development is very different from the legacy fields, is important, and I think that should be part of the policy conversation.
Moving to another issue: you talked about protecting the Permanent Fund earlier. The dividend is a source of perennial debate. There's a formula in state law. The Legislature and the governor have not followed that formula in state law for many years -- for nearly a decade or around a decade. So I'm curious what you see as an appropriate way forward for the dividend, and how much do you think it's reasonable for Alaskans to expect in a dividend each year?
I believe in the dividend. I think it is a good program. And I know there are legislators and individuals who want to see it go away. And I think there is merit to the dividend program. Moreover, even if you don't believe in the dividend program, I don't think there's any way to broker a compromise that doesn't sort of respect the integrity of the dividend program. So I don't think there's any way around it. The dividend needs to be part of the conversation, and protected.
And also, the current statutory formula, I don't think is realistic. I mean, it was written in the early '80s, and a lot about the Permanent Fund itself actually has changed since then. And I mean, this is kind of down a rabbit hole, but the dividend formula, because of the way it's written, is highly volatile in terms of the amount that is produced by that formula. Because when the Permanent Fund was first created, it was all bonds in the Permanent Fund. Highly stable returns. Now, over the last few decades, we have stocks, we have private equity, we have real estate, and so the net income from the Permanent Fund, because private equity and stocks swing so much, creates a lot of volatility, and therefore the the dividend itself, per the formula, is highly volatile, and not always reflective of the health and strength of the Permanent Fund itself.
So that's just an example of how I think we've sort of outgrown the PFD formula as it exists now. I think we need to rewrite the formula as a part of a broader compromise, and I think it should be rewritten. And so do a lot of people, including, you know, hardcore dividend supporters, including, I think Dunleavy has even gone on record in support of this, in a percent-of-market-value framework. So every year we are taking a certain amount out of the Permanent Fund. I believe the PFD formula should be a function of whatever that annual sort of draw, that annual withdrawal, from the Permanent Fund should be.
Do you have an idea of an amount, like $1,000, $2,000, $4,000? What is reasonable for folks to expect going forward?
I supported as a legislator dividends in the $1,000 to $2,000 range, and I think that's a good starting place in the conversation. And I mean, ultimately, it's going to be a political compromise. And you know, if there's the political will to make the dividend bigger, it also needs to mean there's the political will to find revenues somewhere. And I'm open to that conversation.
Speaking of perennial debates in Juneau, I would love to talk a little bit about education. Dozens of schools across the state have been closing in recent years. School districts have pointed to things like flat state funding, but also you know a declining number of kids, more interest in so-called school choice options like homeschool, charter school, correspondence school. And I'm curious: what is your approach to fixing this problem?
Stable funding for education is the most important, and education funding has been cut in real terms year over year the last eight years, often by the veto pen. And the effects of that are right in front of our faces in every community in Alaska.
If schools haven't outright closed themselves, the teachers who've been there for decades are leaving the profession, or they are leaving the state. Sports are being cut, extracurriculars are being cut, electives are being cut, and public education is a shell of what it was when I was growing up in Sitka and got an amazing public education. So, funding is, you know, absolutely a core question.
I think in addition to that, forward funding education has tremendous structural merit in the state, and I believe can attract bipartisan support. I mean, (Republican Anchorage Sen.) Mia Costello is a sponsor of one of the forward funding proposals that exists in the Legislature. And what's been missing is the political leadership to champion it as a priority. Because I mean, there's so much just, like, firefighting, where you're just looking a couple inches in front of you — some of these structural changes that have unquestionably positive effects just get backburnered, and they never get the legislative attention to actually get done politically. And I want to provide the leadership to prioritize some of these structural fixes, like forward funding for education, that are unquestionably an improvement over how we currently do things.
And lastly, teachers need a retirement. And if you're a teacher in Alaska, you are committing financial self-harm. Compared to how you'd be paid and the retirement you would get in Washington or Idaho or Oregon, it makes no rational sense to teach in this state. And (for) that, we should be ashamed of ourselves.
And it's no mistake that teacher turnover in Alaska is 21%. More than one out of five teachers, year-over-year, is exiting the profession or exiting Alaska. Nationally, it's 7%. We're three times higher than the national average, and it's because there is basically no retirement if you're in teaching. So those are, I think, the three highest priorities in my mind in education.
I do want to talk a little bit about your fundraising. You are currently the top fundraiser in the race, having raised, I believe, $1.8 million. More than three quarters of that, though, came from out of state, including a $100,000 donation from a staff member at the AI company Anthropic. (And) a variety of folks in the AI and tech world.
You have emphasized in your campaign messaging that you have the largest number of individual Alaska donors of any candidate, more than 1,500. But you know, all told, they make up a relatively small amount of your overall fundraising. So the question that I have for you is: Why should Alaskans have the confidence that you'll represent the little guy, the everyday Alaskan, over some of the rich donors funding your campaign?
My funding raising record is no different than (Sen.) Lisa Murkowski's or (U.S. Senate candidate) Mary Peltola's or (U.S. House candidate) Bill Hill's. And, I mean the reality in American politics is, if you are a serious candidate in a statewide race with a chance to win, you can get national funding. And I work hard to try to bring those dollars in, just as Mary or Lisa or Bill or anyone else running statewide is doing. And, I mean, I think those national donors don't want to, like, light their money on fire. I think they see that we have a path to win this race, and we're grateful for their support.
I have a background working in science and technology policy, and I have worked nationally to advance AI regulation. And I'm very concerned about the effects of AI on society — actually, even on higher levels than that. And I think I have the most comprehensive platform in terms of trying to have protections and safeguards and structures on AI.
And the sort of irony is some of the people who are most concerned about AI actually come from AI themselves. It's a little like Robert Oppenheimer. I mean, he helped develop the nuclear weapon and was then the champion for trying to limit proliferation and protect us from this fearsome technology. And I share that concern, and so Drake, who grew up in Kenai, and is an Alaska kid, and comes back every year --
That's Drake Thomas. He's the $100,000 donor.
He's our largest donor. I mean, he just wrote an op-ed two days ago, sort of sharing that the reason he's supporting us is that we have the most aggressive platform on AI regulation. I mean, we're the first campaign to propose a moratorium on data center development in Alaska. So I think the the very high level optics are actually about 180 degrees from the reality, which is I have done arguably more, and have more experience than any candidate in the governor's field, working to advance AI regulation that will protect us — communities, Alaskans — and that's very much my goal as governor.
I did want to talk a little bit about the data center moratorium. You announced that policy proposal the same week that the fundraising data came out. It's, from what you just said, I understand that to be sort of reassuring folks that the fact that you're receiving a lot of money from AI companies does not necessarily mean that you support unchecked AI growth. Am I characterizing that correctly?
Well, quick correction: no companies have given us money.
Excuse me. Employees (of AI companies).
We don't take any corporate money or corporate PAC money. And all the individuals who have supported us are, like — they have signed public petitions arguing for national AI regulation. Some of them even asked for a national moratorium on AI development because their concerns are so significant.
So, I mean, these are people who are really concerned about the effects of this technology on the world, a concern I share and have been a leader on. And I mean, I think it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise, given my record.
And the moratorium on data center development was actually on our website before that whole press cycle. But I realize people don't necessarily have cause to wander to our little old platform website, so we just wanted to sort of emphasize how strongly I feel that we need to protect Alaskans when it comes to data center development (and) not having any regulation at all on the books, and also in the absence of no national regulation of AI, which is crazy.
This technology is going to change society as we know it, potentially. And our federal government has done not a darn thing to address it. States need to step up, and I want to lead that charge.
I do have a few more questions, and I recognize that our time is running a little short, but I do want to get to these if you have a minute.
On the moratorium, I'm curious how you would actually implement it. Is that something you could do with executive power alone? Would you need the Legislature? And then the other question I have on that particular point is, how do you make sure that a moratorium until the Legislature does something about regulating AI doesn't turn into a de facto ban? Or should it turn into a de facto ban?
I don't think development should happen until there can be regulation that protects Alaskans' interest. Period.
And if the Legislature can't get to something that is reasonable, then I don't think development should happen. I don't think this is the kind of thing where we, like, build first and worry about the consequences later. Like, no, that's silly. We should think ahead. We should establish side guards, see where Alaskans are comfortable, and then and only then sort of consider any proposals.
And in terms of the moratorium, I think through (Department of Natural Resources) leases and permits, and also through Regulatory Commission of Alaska authority, particularly on electricity, those are mechanisms through executive action that you can sort of make sure that things are paused. And, I mean, to be clear, there's a lot of details to figure out. I also think just like the leadership from a governor saying, like, "We're putting pause on this until we figure some stuff out," — that, I think, just sort of, leadership alone has a real effect.
Broadly, Democrats sort of do have a reputation for saying no to big projects, especially in resource development. I think it's kind of fair to call a data center or a resource development project. It would probably rely on fossil fuels or even hydroelectricity.
But in any case, what would you say to somebody who thinks that Alaska's economy needs projects like those to expand to provide good jobs, keep families and young people from moving away, and that a Democratic governor might not deliver on that?
Well, I would argue, the other two candidates who've been most outspoken on data centers are an independent, Meda DeWitt, and a Republican, Edna DeVries, who is the Mat-Su Borough mayor, literally vetoed legislation that would have advanced data center development. So I think at least in this regard, it's pretty across the political spectrum.
I mean, I think development is reasonable and important for the state and it has to be considered on a project-by-project basis. I had Kensington Mine and Greens Creek Mine in my district for 10 years, and I thought those are great examples of responsible resource development. I think there are hard rock mines in the Interior that have been very responsibly developed, and the benefits clearly outweigh whatever costs might exist. You know, responsible oil development in the North Slope, Willow, Pikka. I've long supported those projects, and I think new exploration that's happening is a real positive for the state, and again, the benefits clearly outweigh the costs.
So, I guess I'm just not like a categorical yes or a categorical no kind of person. I mean, Pebble (Mine), on the other hand, like I've always been opposed, and I think the risks clearly outweigh whatever benefits might exist. So it's, I guess, a more nuanced approach, but I mean, resource development is an important part of Alaska. We have to do it responsibly, and on each project, you have to weigh benefits and costs and figure out if it's right for our state.
One final question for you: it can be difficult, though it's not impossible for a Democrat to win statewide office in Alaska. A Democrat hasn't won the governor's race in almost 30 years. This is a two-part question. Why do you think that you can win the statewide race, and why should voters who are to the center and to the left select you over Tom Begich?
This is an incredibly important question, and it's the reason I got into the governor's race. So clearly, I think I have an answer.
I ran against a Republican incumbent who was the co-chair of the House Finance Committee, and I won, which is not a walk in the park if you're running for office. For 10 years, I represented a district that voted for Donald Trump, which is not easy, and there are not a lot of Democrats in Alaska who can say that. And in those 10 years, I had some of the highest rates of crossover Republican support of any elected Democrat in Alaska. So, I have done for 10 years the thing you have to do to win statewide. I've done it on a regional level. But that is why I feel like we have a path to win: that I've demonstrated it, that I can do the things you have to do statewide.
And this is — you know, in a broader question, I'm the only Democrat running in this race who has run against a Republican. I'm the only Democrat in this race who has beaten a Republican, and I'm the only Democrat in this race who has won in a district that has voted for Donald Trump.
So when it comes to a record of not just having a walk in the park, but like, tough turf, where there's Rs and Is and you have to build that crossover support, I am the only candidate who has demonstrated doing that, and that's why I feel like we have the very strong argument that we have the best chance of winning the general election this November.
