CNN via SnapStream
On Monday, CNN This Morning struggled to reconcile competing accounts surrounding the growing controversy surrounding Alaska’s Senate race. This comes after a New York Times article that detailed an alleged Democratic effort to recruit a candidate who could swipe votes away from Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan to benefit Democratic challenger Mary Peltola.OnMessage Public Strategies executive vice president Abigail Jackson was adamant that claims of Democrat scheming in the Alaska race was not fueled by Republican speculation, but the facts. Jackson pointed out that Democrats’, “framing of ‘are Alaska voters smarter enough to determine the difference between Dan Sullivan’ is a bit disingenuous because that’s what Democrats were banking on when they got involved and recruited this other Dan Sullivan to arrive.” INSANE: CNN liberal “V. Spehar” — a “nonbinary lesbian” who uses they/them pronouns — claims there’s still zero evidence Democrats recruited Dan J. Sullivan to run in the Alaska Senate race against incumbent Dan S. Sullivan to help Democrat Mary Peltola. Has this lady not read The New York Times article?!?!— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 2, 2026 Rather than engage with The Times’ reporting, digital journalist and creator of Under the Desk News V. Spehar insisted there was no proof Democrats recruited Dan J. Sullivan, the retired school teacher whose name closely resembles that of the incumbent.“Who says that they actually — there’s no proof that Democrats definitely recruited Dan J. Sullivan,” said Spehar. Her evidence? Peltola claiming she had nothing to do with it.When Jackson attempted to explain that evidence against Peltola had emerged, Spehar again pushed back, claiming that it was “…A false statement.”Jackson went on to reference the findings from The Times article, which reported that Democratic operatives and people connected to Peltola’s campaign received orders and worked to recruit candidates who could syphon away votes from Sullivan:There is no proof, but let’s let The New York Times report it out a little bit more because it seems like there was some level of coordination that previously they denied they had any involvement. And now drip, drip, drip, a little bit more information is coming out and it’s — It sure seems like Mary Peltola’s campaign was involved and aware of this situation. Instead of addressing the new details in The Times’ report like a prepared journalist, Spehar attempted to distance Peltola from the allegations by pointing to her public statements denying involvement.“It doesn’t seem like that because she said very clearly, she hasn’t. I’ll tell you, Mary Peltola — didn’t even work with any influencers or anyone. The whole thing she said the entire time was, I’m going to win for and with Alaskans. Stay out of my election,” Spehar claimed.Jackson quickly countered, arguing that Peltola’s “campaign manager said something else.”Spehar’s argument on Peltola’s public messaging sidestepped the central issue raised by The Times’ article, and completely ignored whether people connected to Peltola’s campaign and other Democrats coordinated an effort to recruit another Dan Sullivan into the race.For Spehar, the discussion appeared to be more about defending Peltola’s denials than grappling with what The Times had uncovered.The transcript is below. Click “expand” to read:CNN’s CNN This MorningNovember 2, 202605:39:55 a.m. Eastern(…)ABIGAIL JACKSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ONMESSAGE PUBLIC STRATEGIES: I think the framing of “are Alaska voters smarter enough to determine the difference between Dan Sullivan” is a bit disingenuous because that’s what Democrats were banking on when they got involved and recruited this other Dan Sullivan to arrive.V. SPEHAR, DIGITAL JOURNALIST AND CREATOR, UNDER THE DESK NEWS: Who says that they actually — there’s no proof that Democrats definitely recruited Dan J. Sullivan. JACKSON: I mean, there is no — there is no –SPEHAR: That’s a false statement.JACKSON: — proof, but let’s let The New York Times report it out a little bit more because it seems like there was some level of coordination that previously they denied they had any involvement. And now drip, drip, drip, a little bit more information is coming out and it’s –SPEHAR: (INAUDIBLE) so when you say Democrats, do you mean Mary Peltola’s campaign because that’s not true. Do you mean, like, the DNC? Do you think Chuck Schumer did it? I don’t think so.JACKSON: It sure seems like Mary Peltola’s campaign was involved and aware of this situation. SPEHAR: It doesn’t seem like that because she said very clearly, she hasn’t. I’ll tell you, Mary Peltola –JACKSON: And her campaign manager said something else.SPEHAR: — didn’t even work with any influencers or anyone. The whole thing she said the entire time was, I’m going to win for and with Alaskans. Stay out of my election.AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Right. This is explosive reporting for The New York Times specifically because they were trying to prove in their reporting that there was some kind of coordination. So, that’s how this has escaped to be as big as it has. The question is, does it have reverberations past Election Day? (…)