MS NOW host and Friday PBS News Hour contributor Jonathan Capehart spun so hard on behalf of Democrats on Friday it is amazing he didn’t fall out of his chair. According to Capehart, the only reason the country is talking about the Alaska Senate race is not because of dirty tricks by Mary Peltola and Decoy Dan Sullivan, but because President Trump and the DOJ are investigating said dirty tricks.
After recapping The New York Times story on the matter and Peltola’s subsequent denials, host Amna Nawaz wondered, “Jonathan, we all know here, look, these kinds of political tricks and stacking of the ballot, this is a story as old as time in America, third-party candidates being recruited as well to dilute votes. But was this a smart move for Democrats, or does this just fuel all the claims of fraud and rigged elections that President Trump has been making?”
Capehart rather pompously replied, “I mean, this is a story I could not muster any kind of enthusiasm for.”
Jonathan Capehart thinks Donald Trump, not Mary Peltola or Decoy Dan Sullivan, is the story in Alaska, "I go back to why we're even talking about Alaska in the first place. A week ago, we were sitting here talking about the president of the United States directing the attorney… pic.twitter.com/rgzWZv7e3Y
— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) October 31, 2026
When asked to explain why, Capehart added, “Well, because as you just said, these sorts of things happen all the time. Was it a boneheaded move and they got caught doing it? Absolutely.”
No, it doesn’t happen all the time. When was the last time someone with the first and last name ran on the same ballot as the incumbent in a ranked choice voting election?
Nevertheless, Capehart claimed Trump’s response to the dirty trick and not the dirty trick itself is the reason why it has become a news story, “But I go back to why we're even talking about Alaska in the first place. A week ago, we were sitting here talking about the president of the United States directing the attorney general of the United States to sue, proactively, Alaska to prevent them from certifying the election — the election for Senate in Alaska if the Democrat won.”
Capehart concluded by claiming, “There are at least three sins in what I just said. That is what I'm focused on. And, as we see, the administration is hell-bent on gumming up the works with the Alaska Senate race.”
Nawaz then turned to Wall Street Journal columnist Matthew Continetti and wondered, “Does this now devolve into some kind of legal fight? The DOJ is already suing in the Alaska case.”
Continetti began by correcting Capehart’s falsehood about the DOJ suing to prevent certification if Peltola wins, “Well, the extent of the legal fight will continue at the level of who wins and by what margin, but there's also now going to be investigations about whether there was coordination, whether there was lying, not just in terms of lying, as people may have been saying that had nothing to do with recruiting this decoy Dan Sullivan, as he's called up in Alaska.”
He then provided examples of ways the trick could actually have broken the law, “But, also, were there any illegal filings, campaign ballot filings you have to do that could be legally liable as well? So I think it will continue. But I think, fundamentally, since you talked about it last week, what interrupted the story was this New York Times scoop. And this is The New York Times. It's not Donald Trump, and they have the receipts here. And it's put Mary Peltola's honesty into question.”
Continetti’s comments about ballot fillings have some merit. Back in August, The New York Times had another article about Decoy Dan Sullivan. This week’s article was put the puzzle pieces together, but back then The Times put the pieces on the table, “Republicans… noted that he filed as ‘Dan S. Sullivan,’ using the senator’s middle initial instead of his own (J). He registered as a Republican on the same day he filed to be a candidate. And a longtime Democratic consultant, Amber Lee, helped him file to run, according to metadata from a filing document.”
Earlier, in non-Alaska news, Nawaz tried to provide cover for Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed amid Trump’s attacks, “In terms of a closing message, we have covered this too, he's really intensified a lot of his anti-Muslim rhetoric, specifically targeted at the Michigan race and the Democratic candidate there, Abdul El-Sayed.”
Earlier, host Amna Nawaz alleged that Trump, "In terms of a closing message, we have covered this too, he's really intensified a lot of his anti-Muslim rhetoric, specifically targeted at the Michigan race and the Democratic candidate there, Abdul El-Sayed. pic.twitter.com/q5VdXqx1yk
— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) October 31, 2026
Nawaz’s defense of El-Sayed and Capehart’s defense of Peltola is a clear example of the media’s habit of making Democratic scandals and the Republican reaction to them. While it was good that Continetti provided some balance on the Peltola story, he is ultimately just a substitute for David Brooks.
Here is a transcript for the October 30 show:
PBS News Hour
10/30/2026
7:44 PM ET
AMNA NAWAZ: In terms of a closing message, we have covered this too, he's really intensified a lot of his anti-Muslim rhetoric, specifically targeted at the Michigan race and the Democratic candidate there, Abdul El-Sayed. He's been commenting on men's bodies. He's been boasting about how much money oil companies are making. He's not centered on affordability, which is the number one issue. Is this the closing message Republicans want?
...
NAWAZ: I want to talk about Alaska. We have covered it a lot this week, specifically the Senate race there. The New York Times reported this week that the Democratic Party and the campaign of the Democratic candidate, Mary Peltola, played a role in recruiting another Dan Sullivan to run, that is Dan J. Sullivan, to dilute the vote of the Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan. Mary Peltola even last night denied any involvement or knowledge in that.
Jonathan, we all know here, look, these kinds of political tricks and stacking of the ballot, this is a story as old as time in America, third-party candidates being recruited as well to dilute votes. But was this a smart move for Democrats, or does this just fuel all the claims of fraud and rigged elections that President Trump has been making?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: I mean, this is a story I could not muster any kind of enthusiasm for.
NAWAZ: Why not?
CAPEHART: Well, because as you just said, these sorts of things happen all the time. Was it a boneheaded move and they got caught doing it? Absolutely.
But I go back to why we're even talking about Alaska in the first place. A week ago, we were sitting here talking about the president of the United States directing the attorney general of the United States to sue, proactively, Alaska to prevent them from certifying the election — the election for Senate in Alaska if the Democrat won.
There are at least three sins in what I just said. That is what I'm focused on. And, as we see, the administration is hell-bent on gumming up the works with the Alaska Senate race.
NAWAZ: Does this now devolve into some kind of legal fight? The DOJ is already suing in the Alaska case.
MATTHEW CONTINETTI: Well, the extent of the legal fight will continue at the level of who wins and by what margin, but there's also now going to be investigations about whether there was coordination, whether there was lying, not just in terms of lying, as people may have been saying that had nothing to do with recruiting this decoy Dan Sullivan, as he's called up in Alaska.
But, also, were there any illegal filings, campaign ballot filings you have to do that could be legally liable as well? So I think it will continue. But I think, fundamentally, since you talked about it last week, what interrupted the story was this New York Times scoop.
