‘Fake Dan Sullivan’ Complicates Alaska Senate Race For GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan
Federal investigators in Alaska are trying to determine whether “fake” Dan Sullivan “entered the race to confuse voters and steal votes from the incumbent, Dan S. Sullivan.”
With more than 98% of the vote counted in the Alaska Senate primary, the field of 16 candidates has been winnowed down to four. [All candidates compete in a single primary, regardless of party affiliation, with the top four vote-getters advancing to the general election.]
The results were disappointing for Republican incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan and raise concerns about the GOP’s ability to hold the seat — and potentially maintain control of the Senate — in November.
Former Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) led the pack with just over 48% of the vote, while Sullivan finished second at 42.74%, a troubling result that puts his reelection bid in question. Compounding matters for the senator is a candidate with the same name. Former elementary school teacher Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a registered Republican, received 2.44% of the vote.
Reportedly, Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. was previously affiliated with the Alaskan Independence Party and changed his affiliation to Republican shortly before declaring his candidacy in this race. The Washington Examiner’s Byron York has dubbed him the “fake, dirty trick” candidate, which I’ll return to shortly.
In Alaska, the fake, dirty-trick Dan Sullivan finished in third place and made it to the general election. https://t.co/4VIU0kgYqV pic.twitter.com/WH4pVYZVeF
— Byron York (@ByronYork) August 19, 2026
Finally, two candidates, David B. Leslie (D) and Gerald L. Heikes (R), at 1.13% and 1.1%, are vying for the fourth-place spot. They are separated by just 20 votes.
But let’s return to Daniel J. Sullivan — aka the “fake Dan Sullivan.” It’s not a coincidence that a second candidate with the same name as the current senator from Alaska entered the race, which is why York referred to him as the fake, dirty-trick candidate. Rather, it was a deliberate attempt by Democrats tied to now-frontrunner Peltola to confuse voters ahead of the primary.
Adding to the ruse, fake Dan Sullivan initially asked election officials to list him on the ballot as “Dan S. Sullivan” — using the incumbent senator’s middle initial rather than his own.
Ben covered this story in July. At the time, the Alaska Division of Elections had barred him from the ballot, concluding that he had entered the race to sow confusion among voters. But the Alaska Supreme Court later overturned the decision, ruling that a candidate’s motivation for running has no bearing on his legal eligibility for the ballot.
Fake Dan Sullivan ultimately appeared on the ballot, though his party affiliation was not listed.
While both Peltola’s campaign and the Alaska Democratic Party have denied any involvement in the scheme, a series of suspicious connections, which Ben notes in his post, raised questions about those denials.
On Tuesday, NBC News reported that a source who was “familiar with the probe” told the outlet that the Department of Justice has issued grand jury subpoenas in the case. According to the source, federal investigators in Alaska are trying to determine whether fake Dan Sullivan “entered the race to confuse voters and steal votes from the incumbent, Dan S. Sullivan.”
DOJ issues grand jury subpoenas in dueling Dan Sullivans’ Republican Senate saga
Asked about why a Democratic consultant helped him file to run, Dan J. Sullivan declined to comment
Other fun fact:
Dan J Sullivan initially registered to run as Dan S. Sullivan, using the middle…— Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) August 19, 2026
In the clip below, Fox News’ Kevin Corke sheds some additional light on the fake Dan Sullivan. Despite claiming to be a Republican, he voted for the Democratic nominee in the last three presidential elections. He has protested against President Trump in the past and even attended a “No Kings” rally. Corke reports that he voted for Peltola in this race.
Corke explained why his candidacy is important. With approximately 600,000 registered voters in the state, if even a small number of Republicans accidentally vote for the fake Dan Sullivan, “well, that could hand the race to, say, Miss Peltola. Which is why many people are very upset about what they’re calling an obvious attempt to sabotage the real Dan Sullivan.”
🚨 ALASKA SHENANIGANS ALERT
They’re not even hiding it anymore.
There’s a “Fake Dan Sullivan” running in the Alaska Senate primary, a retired school teacher who:• Voted Democrat in the last THREE presidential elections
• Voted for the Democratic challenger
• Protested… pic.twitter.com/zrLd2B5ZsL— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) August 19, 2026
While Peltola’s 5-point lead in Tuesday’s primary is disappointing, a Republican political strategist who posts on X as @RedEaglePatriot provided some context on the Alaska primary results.
First, Peltola’s campaign outspent Sullivan’s by a 3 to 1 ratio. According to the Alaska Beacon, that is true. In addition to campaign expenditures, outside PACs also spent heavily in the race on both sides of the aisle.
Additionally, @RedEagle noted, “She got 51% in round 1 in 2024 and lost the general, for reference.”
This is also true. He is referring to Peltola’s bid for reelection to Congress in 2024 where she represented Alaska’s at-large district. In the primary, she received 50.89% of the votes compared to her Republican challenger, Nick Begich III, with just 26.57%. A second Republican candidate earned just under 20%, withdrew from the race, and endorsed Begich. Even with their combined support, Begich still trailed Peltola by 4.5 points. Yet he went on to win the general election.
Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system adds another layer of uncertainty, making the final outcome difficult to forecast.
Alaska's primary result doesn't tell us much. Peltola likely gets below 48% and she outspent Sullivan 3-1 during the primary.
She got 51% in round 1 in 2024 and lost the general, for reference.
And while Midterm primaries tend to be more R historically, they have moved left and… pic.twitter.com/dtHvD3lj7g
— Red Eagle Politics (@RedEaglePatriot) August 19, 2026
There is no sugarcoating Sullivan’s second-place finish. Peltola emerged from Tuesday’s primary with a clear advantage, and Republicans would be foolish to dismiss the warning signs.
But Alaska has surprised the pundits before. After a strong showing in the 2024 congressional primary, Peltola still lost to Begich. Between ranked-choice voting, the bizarre presence of a “fake” Dan Sullivan on the ballot, and uncertainty over how much outside money will pour into the race, Tuesday’s results may tell us far less about the ultimate outcome than we think.
One thing is certain: What once looked like a relatively comfortable Republican hold has become a race the GOP can no longer afford to take for granted.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The Dems had just 2 in the race and clearly are pulling shenanigans again
If it weren’t for cheating they would not have any races
Alaska always seems to have voter problems and get away with it.
And now they have the indescribably bad progressive tool of ranked choice voting also corrupting the process. Bad though only if you don’t want to preserve the elections process as a means for voters to express their real preferences. If you hate democracy, it’s great. Another progressive gift.
Whoops. Should have deleted the “don’t”. Next time i’ll let AI write it.
On the contrary, now you see how good that tool is for us. It prevents votes from going lost just because of confusion. Anyone who means to support the real Sullivan but votes for the fake one by mistake, will give he real one his second vote and all will be well. Whereas with first-past-the-post voting those votes would be lost, and would help Peltola.
Well, it’s weird.
If there were an Independant, ( There will be ) and you went through ranked choice, a Democrat would rank the Independent 2nd, and so would the Republican voting for Dan S.
That would pull mostly to the left. Peltola net winner.
No, there will be no independent. The candidates will be Peltola, Dan S, Dan J., and either Leslie or Helkes.
But assuming there were an independent, yes, Dems and Reps would both rank the independent second or third, how would that pull to the left? How would it help Peltola? Dems would still be ranking Dan S last, and Reps would be ranking Peltola last.
People who can’t tell the Dans apart will rank one of them first and the other second; since Dan S is sure to get more votes than Dan J, almost all of Dan J’s votes will end up with Dan S. The only ones that won’t will be from the few voters who are not confused, and actually support Dan J for some reason.
Nope. Ranked choice is a perverted, coercive tool designed to foment confusion.
In fact, similar to the games Democrats were playing with their fake spoiler candidate, ranked choice was pushed on Alaskan voters by a fraud liberal front group hiding its true identity by adopting the inoffensive name Alaskans for Better Elections.
Bullshit. The opponents of ranked choice are perverted, coercive, and corrupt. There are no honest arguments to make against it.
Far from coercive, it’s the only system that lets people vote as they honestly believe. It’s the only system that doesn’t force people to vote for the lesser evil for fear of getting the greater.
And no, Alaskans for Better Elections was neither liberal nor a fraud. The name was completely honest, and those who voted for the system knew what they were doing.
But I don’t know why they went for this weird hybrid with two rounds, with the first found not using it. There should be only one round, or if there must be two then both should use ranking.
There are no honest arguments to make against ranked choice voting? All these people making legal, constitutional, process and other arguments against ranked choice voting are being dishonest and deceitful. But the fake Alaskan democrat front group who sponsored this ranked choice mess in the first place first place was trustworthy?
No one has made any legal or constitutional arguments against it . There just aren’t any to be made. The only arguments to be made against it are political, and yes, they’re all dishonest. It is objectively the only system worth having.
And what do you allege is fake about the group that promoted it? What makes you call it a “Democrat front group”, other than your own prejudice and ignorance?
Another absurd absolutist assertion. This is beyond absurd. Since you have no intention of engaging in a serious discussion, this exchange has now concluded.
Nope. Anyone who votes for either “Dan Sullivan” will not make a second choice. Same for anyone who votes for Peltola. That is the whole point of putting a doppelganger on the ballot, as voters for prominent major party contenders do not make second choices. Anyone who votes for the fake Dan Sullivan by mistake will not cast a second vote because he thinks he is voting for the real one. If there is a 4th person on the ballot (that candidate can withdraw), that person’s voters will probably make a second choice.
He literally tried to register as ‘Dan S, Sullivan’ the EXACT name on the ballot as the real candidate, despite the fact that is NOT his middle name.
That single fact alone should have disqualified him. And it DID, until a judge decided that the board of elections doesn’t actually get to oversee elections and forced him back on the ballot anyway.
The court found that the statute doesn’t give the Division of Elections director the authority to remove candidates whose filings check all the boxes.
The statute says she must list all candidates who have “properly filed”; she read that as giving her the authority to decide which filings are proper, but the court said “properly filed” just means everything is filled out correctly, and has nothing to do with good faith.
Always quick to curse at commenters
As losers always do
Fun fact. Ballard Spahr represented this conman before the Alaska Supreme Court. Ballard, if you don’t know, is a big left leaning democrat firm. For some reason they decided to offer their services to help a “republican” candidate. And apparently for free, at least they not saying who paid them.
Milhouse paid them
Despicable.
Dirty pool on similar name but them’s the rules. All it takes is to change the rules to put the Political Parties back in control of which candidates may compete for their nomination and junk the goofy jungle primary system.
You seem to misunderstand the Alaskan system. The parties are completely in control of which candidates they nominate, if any. They can nominate one candidate, or many candidates, as they like. No one interferes with that. The primary is the first round of the general election. It does not choose the parties’ candidates. It decides, among all candidates, which four will proceed to the second round in November, assuming no one gets a majority in the first round.
Oddly, the first round doesn’t use ranked choice, but the second round does, There shouldn’t be two rounds; ranked choice means there’s no need for that. But if there is, both rounds should use ranked choice.
Bruh,
Alaska uses a jungle primary; IOW an open competition among all registered candidates regardless of party with the top 4 gaining a spot on general election ballot.
Alaska’s system interferes with the ability of the political parties to get their nominee onto the general election ballot. Even before that is the lack of more flexibility for a political party to deny a candidate to seek that nomination.
Political parties should be able to set whatever goofy criteria they want for anyone seeking to contest for their nomination so of the party says be a member of the party for 10 consecutive years and have voted in the party primary the last five Congressional elections that should be their choice.
The primary process of selecting the party nominee should be closed and restricted to members of the party. Membership should be at the discretion of the party to decide and to set the criteria.
Some rando doesn’t qualify for a party primary? Tough cookies. Nobody is telling him/her they can’t stand for election in the general. They just gotta meet whatever alternative general election ballot access requirements exist to pursue their candidacy, usually x # of signatures from voters in most or all of the counties depending on the State.
Yes. In other words they are not competing for any party’s nomination.
No party has such a right. Why do you think such a right exists? What’s special about political parties that should entitle them to a candidate in the final round?
The parties are entitled to nominate a candidate and support him or her in the first round, and then again in the second should s/he advance to it. Or they can nominate multiple candidates in the first round, if they like. But the people decide which candidates advance to the second round. How is that not fairer than allocating a slot for each party?
What does this mean? The parties have 100% control over whom they nominate, if anyone. That’s how it should be in all states. People who are not members of a party shouldn’t be able to tell it whom to nominate.
And in Alaska they can. In most states they can’t.
I agree 100%, and that is exactly how it is in Alaska. It isn’t like that in most states.
I don’t understand your objection, unless you’re somehow under the impression that the primary (i.e. first round) chooses the parties’ nominees. But you can’t be, because you described it correctly in your first paragraph. So I don’t understand how the rest of your comment makes any sense.
Party nomination in Alaska is entirely in the party’s hands. All candidates, whether nominated by a party or not, compete in the first round, and the first four past the post compete in the second round, where the voters can rank them. I don’t know why the difference between the rounds, or even why two rounds.
Ranked-choice voting will certainly help clown-boy David Leslie, who is currently tied for fourth.
More on this moron:
https://alaskawatchman.com/2026/06/26/alaskas-tanana-fair-rejects-conservative-parental-rights-group-moms-for-liberty/
How will ranked choice possibly help Leslie? Please explain yourself. Are you not aware that this election does NOT use ranked choice?!
I am not an Alaskan but it seems to me that this was planned to steal the election from the Senator Sullivan. Rank Choice Voting is not a good or safe way to vote in this country and this shows how it can be manipulated.
On the contrary, it is the best and safest way.
How does this show it being manipulated? The primary did not use it! Only the general election uses it, and when it does it will ensure that all this Daniel J’s votes will flow on to Dan S, so long as the voters put him as #2, which they will surely do. If they don’t then it means they weren’t confused, they actually don’t want him, and thus shouldn’t be forced to vote for him.
It was designed to keep Sen Murkowski in office by ensuring she wouldn’t have to compete in a partisan primary. Remember, Murkowski once lost a GOP primary and then won reelection as a write-in. Turns out, the Alaska system can be gamed by running a doppelganger candidate, as they are doing this year.
It reminds me of when Ralph Cramden and Ed Norton stumbled upon hobo named Conrad Hilton, and used him to open their own Hilton hotel .
How so? Even if someone is confused and gives Daniel J his first vote, so long as he gives “incumbent senator Dan S.” his second or even third vote, and puts Peltola last, the vote will end up where it belongs. So what’s the issue?
Also, Peltola got 2.8% more than the two Sullivans combined. Thus her lead is not Daniel J’s fault.
You really think anyone who is voting for a major candidate, or thinks he is voting for a major candidate will make a second choice? That isn’t the way it works. Only voters for minor candidates make second choices.
Just more jackassery from the cheatin’ Democraps.
People like this really need to have their faces broken.
Lying, cheating Democrats. Ho=hum. We might die of shock if they ever did anything else.
Here’s a “ranked” system that would wake the politicians up…
“None of the Above” … and if it rises to 50+% through Ranked Choice or in a general election ALL of the names are removed and NONE of them can enter a second contest … All new names on the ballot.