There are valid concerns about a recount taking valuable time that could be spent fundraising and campaigning. I don't want to discount these fears, but I think there are benefits to a recount that may make it worthwhile, such as...
UNITY: a recount, if endorsed by Shumlin, Racine and Markowitz enhances party unity. If Shumlin wins, he comes across as a leader and gains the good will of other candidates' supporters by showing respect for their votes. If Racine wins, he shows himself to have the chops to win even when under serious pressure to withdraw. If Markowitz wins, it produces a very dramatic narrative to support her campaign. This brings us to...
DRAMA: a recount, if done with relative speed, adds drama and tension to the campaign. It produces a great deal of free publicity for the Democratic party for the cycle. If it were to go on for months, it would not be of value, but to have it timed so it can be completed by September 14th (three weeks after the election) would not cost a large amount of time and would give us momentum going into the Fall. In the meantime, we could be...
By odum
As things stand now, there's a historic reality: unless there's some kind of gross error (missing ballots, a town clerk that screwed something up, etc), recounts don't change elections by more than 100 votes. In Brock/Salmon, there was a screw-up, as evidenced by the discrepency in the early reports and the certified total.
And that should, in my opinion, be the standard. If the certified total is way off what we were told - in any direction (meaning, if Shumlin is suddenly winning by 300, or by only 80), there's something wrong and we have a responsibility to recount, as inconvenient as that may be. If the certified total is only marginally different - say, a dozen or two one way or the other - a recount becomes a foregone conclusion; an exercise in futility that serves no purpose but to drag out the "stages of grief" process for the supporters of the losers, give Dubie a leg up, and threaten the unity vibe already in the air (as nobody can say for sure how stable that really is).
THROWING OUR OPPONENT OFF BALANCE: Democrats don't need time to plan their message against the GOP nominee. We already know who he is and what he's doing. We are prepared to fight him. This goes for every candidate in this race. Dubie, on the other hand, has no idea who his opponent will be. He'll be working triple duty during the recount process, unable to run an effective campaign against an unknown opponent and with no potential to target his message to highlight his opponent's negatives.
For this to be effective, it has to, as I stated above, be a quick process. This is likely given that it did not take long for the Auditor's race recount to take place and that was with a great deal more votes than this primary.
The other caveat is that it has to be supported either by all three campaigns or by Markowitz alone. To have Shumlin not on board with a recount request could cause Racine harm in the long run and lead to disunity. Therefore, Markowitz would have to be willing to be perceived as the potential "spoiler" in the race. Racine could play the statesman and say "this is the law, so we need to abide by it and respect the process." Ideally, Shumlin should be the one to do this. It would help his campaign immensely to be perceived as humble, confident and ready to fight but he may not choose that route.
In the meantime, while a recount is in play, we (meaning every Democrat in the whole state) could be working heavily on emphasizing Dubie's negatives: his invisibility with respect to his current job, his lack of a clear policy and his lack of any sort of unifying vision is something we can continually address.
This isn't about someone's "right" to a recount, nor is it about what the law allows. The fundamental law of elections is this: control all the variables to the extent you can. A recount is a fundamental ceding of control, and worse, in an open-ended, uncertain way.
There are those who would try an spin an idealized recount as a team building exercise; its not. It never has been and it never will be, as much as we might envision it otherwise. It's also simply incorrect to suggest that we don't need time to plan our message or approach because we know Dubie and know how to beat him. It is, in no way that simple.
The biggest fallacy in this argument is that it denies the need for nimble creativity. Winning campaigns have to be deft on their feet and responsive. The campaign plan can't be a shackle. How to beat Dubie is a variable, not a constant. Such are elections. Freezing the operation needlessly - and in a way it was never frozen during the primary itself - is dangerous.
Also, different candidates need to message in different ways, message against Dubie in different ways, will be hit by Dubie in different ways, and they need to accomodate that. The winner will be altering their staffing structure - and that takes time. There is no one-size-fits-all roadmap.
Additionally, there will be no rapid response, from the Shumlin campaign during a recount, because responsing aggresively will be seen to be "presumptive" by members of the base that are hoping for a different result (and let's be clear, elections can be won or lost based on the effectiveness of a Communications Shop's rapid response). This leaves our candidate open to almost anything during a period where people are paying attention because we've successfully made them step up and take notice.
During the election, much was made by naysayers that the primary somehow allowed Brian Dubie to campaign unscathed and unfettered until the primary election was over. For a lot of reasons, that was a silly argument to make, but if we take a week or two out of the general election season when we don't need to, the argument has teeth. For one thing, if there's no movement in the count as reported when it becomes certified, then we all know how this is going to end up - and that includes Brian Dubie. We may pretend it's not decided, but Dubie won't have to, and he'll be working the whisper narratives, doing the oppo work (that he was likely behind on, since the Repubs seemed to expect their opponent to be Markowitz), even cutting the ads - and all the while, Dubie's mysterious 12-step program or 15-point plan or whatever stays tucked away, immune from analysis or critique.
I'm fully aware that a recount of 70,000 votes, with an army of eager volunteers ready to engage, will take less time than the auditor recount some years back. And again, if there's any hint that something's askew - that a town clerk screwed up or somesuch - then by all means, do it.
If there's no such sign, I hope the Racine and Markowitz campaigns will take one for the team on this - not unlike the way Shumlin himself did when he agreed to run for the #2 slot, rather than the Governorship, in 2002.
We've all been saying that any one of these five would make a great Governor. Let's show that we meant it.
250-1
75-1
