Even Whoopi Goldberg Calls Alaska Election Tactic Shady

Whoopi Goldberg turning Republican?

Don't bet on it.

But something extraordinary happened on ABC's The View Thursday morning.

A program known for its frequent criticism of Donald Trump and Republican politics found itself discussing a political controversy involving Democrats—and several of its hosts openly condemned the alleged tactic.

Even Whoopi Goldberg called it shady.

Joy Behar acknowledged that Democrats had made a mistake. Sara Haines described the alleged tactic as dirty. And Alyssa Farah Griffin delivered perhaps the harshest condemnation of the morning:

"I think it stinks to high heaven."

What could possibly generate that kind of reaction from a television panel that rarely agrees with Republicans?

The answer takes us to Alaska, where one of America's most consequential Senate elections has become entangled in allegations of deliberate voter confusion.

And the story is far more serious than two candidates sharing the same name.

Two Dan Sullivans. One Senate Seat. And a Remarkable Investigation.

Republican Senator Dan S. Sullivan is seeking reelection against former Democratic Congresswoman Mary Peltola.

Alaska's November 3 ballot also includes a retired teacher named Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.

That means two candidates with virtually identical names are competing in the same Senate election.

The incumbent is listed as Dan S. Sullivan, Republican and incumbent. His namesake appears as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., without a party designation.

For months, Republicans questioned whether the second Sullivan had entered the race specifically to divert votes from the sitting senator.

Then, on October 28, The New York Times published an investigation reporting that political operatives connected to Peltola's campaign and national Democrats had worked to recruit additional candidates, including the second Sullivan.

According to subsequent reporting by Alaska Public Media, the investigation drew on communications and testimony concerning efforts to locate candidates whose presence could complicate the incumbent's reelection.

This was no longer merely a Republican campaign accusation. It had become the subject of a major independent newspaper investigation.

Peltola has denied knowing about the recruitment effort, and her campaign denies involvement. Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. maintains that he is a legitimate candidate.

Whether the conduct violated election law remains under investigation.

But the underlying ethical question is difficult to ignore.

If political operatives deliberately recruited a candidate because his name might confuse voters, what does that say about their respect for the electorate?

Hell has frozen over. The women of The View acknowledged that Democrats made a misstep and did a dirty trick in Alaska intentionally running a second Dan Sullivan. https://t.co/Kj6mJ4Q2wo

— Natalie Jean Beisner (@NJBeisner) October 29, 2026

The View Could Not Ignore What Happened

The October 29 broadcast produced an unusual moment of agreement.

Goldberg called the alleged recruitment a shady tactic, while emphasizing that the allegations still needed to be established.

She also argued that Alaska voters were capable of distinguishing the candidates because the ballot identifies the incumbent.

Behar criticized the maneuver but quickly pointed to examples of misconduct she attributed to Republicans, including Donald Trump's actions following the 2020 election.

Haines questioned whether the tactic underestimated voters' intelligence.

Farah Griffin was more forceful, arguing that political candidates should compete on their merits rather than attempting to confuse the electorate.

Sunny Hostin expressed surprise that such candidate-recruitment practices might not violate election law.

The remarkable development was not that Goldberg suddenly embraced Republican politics. It was that the alleged conduct was troubling enough to provoke criticism across a panel with differing political views.

And that matters.

Because election integrity should never become a principle that applies only when one's preferred political party is losing.

Now the Justice Department Is Involved

The political controversy escalated rapidly.

Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy ordered a state investigation into whether the alleged recruitment effort violated election laws.

The U.S. Justice Department issued subpoenas as part of an ongoing criminal investigation and expanded its civil lawsuit concerning the election.

The lawsuit seeks to prevent certification of a potential Peltola victory under certain circumstances involving votes cast for the second Sullivan.

The Alaska Supreme Court previously allowed Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. to remain on the ballot.

As of October 30, no participant had been charged with a crime in connection with the alleged recruitment scheme.

Legal experts have also questioned whether recruiting an otherwise eligible candidate, even for partisan advantage, necessarily constitutes a criminal offense.

There is an important difference between conduct that appears politically dishonest and conduct proven to be illegal.

But Americans do not need a criminal conviction to demand transparency from political campaigns.

If campaign representatives deliberately attempted to exploit voters' confusion, the public deserves to know who organized the effort, who authorized it, and whether campaign officials were aware.

Why Alaska Could Become a Political Turning Point

Before this controversy erupted, Mary Peltola had a strong competitive position.

She finished first in Alaska's August primary with 49.5% of the vote, compared with 41.4% for Senator Sullivan.

Recent polling also showed a close general-election race.

The RealClearPolling average through October 16 placed Peltola at 49.4% and Sullivan at 48.2%, a difference of only 1.2 percentage points.

Yet Alaska gave Donald Trump a victory of more than 13 percentage points in the 2024 presidential election.

That contrast illustrates the unusual dynamics of Alaska politics.

Republicans have a substantial recent presidential voting base in the state, while Peltola has demonstrated an ability to attract voters beyond the traditional Democratic coalition.

Now the ballot controversy has created a new political problem for her campaign.

Instead of focusing exclusively on the economy, energy costs, and Sullivan's record, Peltola must also answer questions about the conduct of political operatives associated with her campaign.

Republicans have seized the opportunity to place transparency and election integrity at the center of the closing campaign discussion.

And the issue has expanded beyond partisan media.

The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times have both examined how the revelations disrupted the Democratic campaign and complicated the fight for Senate control.

That is a genuine shift in the political narrative, although no publicly available post-scandal polling yet establishes that Republican support has increased.

Is This Cheating? The Answer Requires Accountability.

Let us consider the central accusation without partisan distractions.

If someone deliberately encourages a candidate to enter an election because voters might mistake him for another candidate, the intended advantage does not arise from superior policies, stronger leadership, or public persuasion.

It arises from potential confusion.

In my view, deliberately attempting to misdirect voters is a form of political deception, regardless of which party organizes it.

Whether that deception becomes legally punishable election interference is a separate question for investigators and courts.

Alaska's ranked-choice voting system may reduce some of the potential damage because voters can rank multiple candidates and have their votes transferred when lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

But it cannot automatically eliminate every possible consequence of a voter selecting the wrong candidate.

That is precisely why the facts must be established.

And why the rights of voters must remain more important than the ambitions of political organizations.

Republicans Are Seizing the Moment in Alaska

With November 3 approaching, Republicans have gained something significant in the final campaign discussion: renewed national attention to allegations that Democratic-aligned operatives attempted to manipulate the candidate field.

Senator Sullivan now enters the final days of the contest with a powerful election-integrity controversy surrounding his opponent's political operation.

Governor Dunleavy has demanded an investigation. Federal prosecutors are gathering evidence. National media organizations are examining the allegations.

And even The View has acknowledged that the reported tactic, if true, is deeply troubling.

That does not establish how Alaska will vote. Its voters remain concerned about energy prices, the cost of living, fisheries, and the future of their state.

Nor should any investigation be used to disregard legitimate ballots or overturn an election without lawful evidence.

But the political fallout is unmistakable.

A controversy that Democrats may have hoped would remain a local ballot dispute has become a national test of campaign ethics and voter trust.

Americans should not have to wonder whether political strategists are trying to manipulate their choices through misleading candidate names.

They deserve honest campaigns, transparent elections, and a system that respects the individual voter.

And perhaps the most revealing part of this entire story is that the criticism did not come exclusively from Republicans.

It came from journalists, investigators, state officials—and even the women sitting around the table on The View.

When an alleged political trick becomes too troubling for even a candidate's usual ideological allies to dismiss, the controversy itself becomes part of the election.

That is the momentum Republicans are trying to capture in Alaska.

And with one of the nation's closest Senate races just days from its conclusion, the consequences could extend far beyond the Last Frontier.