Official results from Secretary of State have been released: UPDATE: Racine calls for recount

Well played (4.00 / 2)

Congrats to Peter and the entire Schumlin for Gov. campaign.  Now, time to take the gloves off and go at Dubie.

---

by: raincntry @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 18:18:36 PM UTC

AP too (0.00 / 0)

http://www.chron.com/disp/stor...

---

by: Schrodinger's Cat @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 18:23:12 PM UTC

Racine about to concede? (0.00 / 0)

Press conference at 3:30 in Richmond Town Center, from facebook:

Doug Racine  I will be having a press conference at 3:30 pm at the Richmond Town Center to announce my decision based on the results from the Secretary of State's office.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 18:23:46 PM UTC

Time for Unity & the unity fund (4.00 / 2)

Congratulations Peter Shumlin, and here is to party unity and moving forward to beat Dubie.  Unity supporters get those checks ready.  Grassroots volunteers get ready to pound the pavement and make those phone calls.

---

by: Maggie Gundersen @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 18:24:22 PM UTC

VPR's numbers (0.00 / 0)

VPR had the numbers as a 197-vote margin for Shumlin over Racine and 426 over Markowitz.

And, btw, these are termed "unofficial results." The formal, official results will be out Tuesday when the statewide canvassing board meets to certify the numbers.

And just as an example of what can go wrong, in the county results I helped certify this morning, two towns had discrepancies in their numbers for side judges. One was off by 8 votes, another by 10. The County Clerk noted the discrepancies and passed it along to the SoS/Elections office. The County Clerk said that the towns may be required to file an amended report to account for the divergent numbers.

Each of the three parties was required to send a representative. The Republicans never showed. Part and parcel of their "disdain" for government perhaps?

NanuqFC
The time is always right to do the right thing. ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: NanuqFC @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 18:50:09 PM UTC

That's very interesting about the Republican no-show. (0.00 / 0)

Definitely worthy of comment!

---

by: Sue Prent @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 18:54:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

GOP no-shows (0.00 / 0)

No Republican showed for the Grand Isle/Chittenden Senate seat canvas either.  They don't usually show.

---

by: Michael Inners @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 20:02:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For folks who are all about "small government" (0.00 / 0)

you'd think they'd have a little more interest in citizen participation before the fact.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 20:15:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll break the ice - (4.00 / 1)

So, what things can we begin to do immediately to keep the fires stoked while we wait for the recount and the first Dubie/Dem debate - and - has anyone yet estimated the time this is going to take?

---

by: brattlebarb @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 19:54:42 PM UTC

oh well (0.00 / 0)

(sighs)

---

by: saygoodnightGracie @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 20:17:09 PM UTC

(After the update) (4.00 / 1)

As it should be.

It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 20:38:19 PM UTC

Recount! YAY! (4.00 / 2)

Go Bartlett! Pull this thing out!

Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change.

---

by: kestrel9000 @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 20:43:00 PM UTC

Funny.... [n/t] (0.00 / 0)

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 22:53:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kenny Rogers was right (4.00 / 1)

As I have stated time and time again, I really wanted Deb to win.  With that said . . . .

IMHO this shows very poor judgment on Doug's part.  Haik Bedrosian of www.burlingtonpol.com fame just posted this comment on BLURT - "

"Well I guess my prediction that there would be no recount was wrong. Kinda makes that "unity" rally look like a joke. I'm sure Doug Racine has made Brian Dubie very happy today." http://bit.ly/9DF1fz

I couldn't agree with him more.

Instead of fighting Dubie, we are just going to be fighting ourselves for the next 3-4 weeks.  And how is anyone going to raise $$$$?

You gotta know when to hold them, know when to fold them.  Doug got the straight-flush and Pete got the royal flush.  No aces are going to be found lying around on the floor as Odum already described.

Best,
Ed
http://twitter.com/CouncilorAd...

---

by: Ed Adrian @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 20:54:50 PM UTC

Recount (3.50 / 2)

With all due respect, Ed, how is making sure that the votes were counted correctly "fighting ourselves"?  It seems to me that Racine called for a recount and Shumlin supported Racine in that choice.  Where's the fight?  And even if there were a "fight", the blame for this should not be placed soley on Doug Racine's head: one could just as easily argue that, given the closeness of the vote tally, all three top candidates should have collectively advocated a recount, out of respect for the voters, to ensure their votes are counted accurately.  That would have really showed unity.

And isn't "3-4 weeks" a bit of an exageration for the time it will take?  I'm certainly not an expert in this area, but the news reports I've been hearing have indicated more like up to 2 1/2 weeks.  

Finally, I'm not sure I get all this concern about fundraising.  Is a 2-3 week delay in fundraising really significant?  It seems plausible to me that there is a certain aggregate amount of money out there that donors are going to give to Dubie.  And likewise there is a certain aggregate amount of money that donors will want to give to the Dem nominee.  In the end, 2-3 weeks will not significantly alter those aggregate amounts.  In other words, the Dem nominee once the recount is completed, will "catch up" with fundraising and in the end raise the same amount he/she would have otherwise. But I admit I'm not an expert in fundraising...maybe there is some evidence out there that would prove my theory incorrect?

---

by: bostaurus @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 09:26:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fundraising (3.50 / 2)

A 2-3 week delay in fundraising will be an enormous disservice to the nominee -- be it Shumlin or Racine -- for a number of reasons.  I think it is such a disservice, in fact, that I would argue it will be a crippling, and perhaps fatal, blow to the general election campaign.

First, while I understand there is a certain logic behind your aggregate amount of money idea, that's simply not how it works in political fundraising.  To be sure, when the nominee is certified and the clouds surrounding the nomination clear, there will be a certain influx of money that occurs on its own (think of this as the influx from people like those here who have already pledged to give money and who go online and make their contribution immediately after the nomination is settled).  However, there are likely some who pledged (be it here online, or when the candidate was making fundraising calls, etc.) who won't immediately make their contribution.  This can happen for a number of reasons itself:  They're having second thoughts about the candidate, their financial situation has changed, they only told the candidate during call time that they'd give money because they were trying to get them off the phone (it happens), or because it's simply human nature to cleave to the status quo and some times forget these things.  Any of these quite common reasons represent yet another delay in getting the money in the door.

Second, some money will come in right away from folks like the ones who have pledged money here on GMD.  But the vast majority of the money won't come in the door on its own.  It will require fundraising emails and letters and fundraising events.  All of these take time to put together (an email, maybe only a couple hours to write and prooofread -- then hours or days for people to respond and send in money; a letter can be maybe a week to draft, proof, get printed, and mailed -- then a day or two to get to the recipient, then more time for the person to respond; a fundraising event obviously takes even more time -- probably weeks -- to plan, get invitations out, actually have the event, and then there are days or weeks of follow-up because a lot of people, believe it or not, don't actually give their money at the event, they make pledges and then you have to go chase that money).

Of course, probably the bulk of the fundraising is done through call time.  This will not only delay when the candidate can start making fundraising calls (Racine will probably have a really tough time getting people to give money on the phone because, as it stands with the official results that will soon be certified, he didn't win the race; Shumlin will be in perhaps an even more prickly and agonizing situation -- at this point, again according to the official count, he's won this race, but I imagine he's concerned about alienating Racine's supporters who are holding out hope if he starts raising money now; and again, there's a cloud over the election, so a lot of people will be hesitant to give until it's resolved).  And, when this is resolved - in 2 or 3 or 4 weeks -- call time takes an enormous amount of time out of a candidates schedule.  Candidates should be spending hours -- I mean hours -- on the phone every day raising money.  After a primary, it's not uncommon to essentially do nothing else for a weeks or so to refill the coffers.  That's time that the candidate can't be spending on other things like debates, press, canvassing, honk and waves, and all the other more obvious grassroots efforts.

All of this adds up to more delay.  And delays matter enormously because, while we're waiting say 2-3 weeks for the recount, and another 1 or 2 or 3 weeks to actually see the coffers refilling because of the additional delays I've outlined here, the candidate can't make other preparations.  He can't write and produce new TV ads for the general election because you need money to pay people to write the ads, and camera crews to film them, and editing teams to put them together, and media buyers to book the air time.  He can't prepare more direct mail because you need money to have photographers get any additional shots, or license stock photos, you need to pay people to write the mail plans and draft the pieces, then you need to pay the designer to make the pieces, it costs money to target the universes to which you send the pieces, then you have to have them printed and pay for postage.  It costs money, even, to engage in grassroots activities.  It's not as much as putting ads up on TV, but phone lines cost money, office space costs money, staff to organize volunteer activities costs money, it can be extraordinarily difficult to get the number of volunteers you need when you need them on a good day, much less when people aren't fully on board with the candidate (I know, I've worked on campaigns that simply didn't have support from the base), so the truth is that sometimes you need to pay for phone banks.

The reality is that every aspect of a campaign costs money -- some parts more than others, true -- but every decision you make to do one thing is a decision not to do another.  Most things on a campaign cost money up front -- it's always a bit of a gamble as to how much a candidate will actually raise, so the people who are making the TV ads or the mail (or the radio ads, or a dozen other things that I haven't mentioned) want the money up front to ensure they get paid.  And raising money, even if there is some logic to the aggregate amount of donations out there in the wide world take time.  That was the really long way of saying delays in fundraising can cripple a campaign because it's harder and takes longer to raise money than anyone ever thinks.  Right now, Peter Shumlin (or Doug Racine -- but at the moment, it's Shumlin) can't really ask for money.  And people generally don't give until they're asked.

Sorry if that's too much for a comment -- I've never posted here before.

---

by: Liz @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 11:58:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fundraising (4.00 / 1)

Thank you for this interesting explanation.  However, all of this would be exactly the same if the primary were held in September as in past years.  The recount should be finished at about the same time that the primary would have been held in past years.  I still think the level of angst about this fundraising "delay" is exagerated.  I could also argue that fundraising for the eventual nominee might be depressed if supporters of the other candidates feel disenfranchised by the lack of a recount in a close race.  They may feel less inclined to donate to the ultimate winner if that winner lacks the legitamacy afforded by a clear vote count.

---

by: bostaurus @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 12:33:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry, have to disagree again (4.00 / 1)

I have to disagree with your arguments yet again.  First, there is no guarantee that the recount will be completed before Sept. 14 when the primary was to take place.  I certainly hope it does, no matter what the outcome.  But, there are only eleven business days between now and then and I think Ed Adrian raised some interesting points about possible snags in the recount timing -- the official results won't be certified until Tuesday; the recount law seems to suggest that candidates need 5 days notice of the recount (business days?  calendar days?).  All of this is to say that hopefully the recount will be completed quickly, but we've never been through a scenario like this before, so we'll only know when it's completed whether that date is before or after Sept. 14.

Second, I don't fully buy into the legitimacy of that argument -- the reason why people on this site were so vocal about moving the primary debate was precisely to avoid these sorts of delays in the general election campaign (see here).  The fact that the general election would be starting 2 weeks later had the primary date not been changed is now inconsequential.  The primary was changed; the cause for delay now is entirely voluntary.  Thus this is akin to (but I suppose not quite) a fallacious appeal to tradition: Just because it would have been that way before things were changed justifies it still being that way now after things have changed.

And yes, you can make an argument -- with some legitimacy -- that fundraising for Shumlin might be depressed somewhat if supporters for Racine are upset by the lack of a recount.  There are certainly some (hard to tell how many) who feel that way.  To that I again have several responses:  First, some of Racine's supporters may still have been upset and not donated to Shumlin if the result had been by a wider margin and there hadn't been a recount, or some of Racine's supporters may still not donate to Shumlin if the recount is performed and the result stands.  Second, that is a only one universe of donors -- but by your argument, that universe is holding every other universe hostage (many of which are much larger, and together the other universes certainly outnumber the one of Racine's disillusioned supporters many times over).  What I mean is that now Shumlin can't or will have a very difficult time (because people want to wait for the uncertainty to resolve itself or because Shumlin himself doesn't want to further offend Racine's disillusioned supporters by being seen as campaigning before the recount) raising money from: 1) the people who have been sitting on the sidelines during the primary waiting for the general; 2) The supporters of the other candidates; 3) Racine supporters who, whilst sad that Racine just missed it, are perfectly happy to support Shumlin; 4) Out-of-state donors; and 5) Shumlin's supporters who gave some during the primary and will give more (maybe even max out) now if not for the recount.  There are also other outside entities (like the DGA and other progressive groups) that might be looking at some sort of IE or other support, but now have to wait and, frankly, because of the delays, may decide it's a better investment to jump into a race elsewhere than here in Vermont.

I don't know that I can make any stronger case that concerns about the fundraising delay are "exaggerated," beyond what I already wrote above.

As for the feelings of disenfranchisement -- I am truly sorry that you and some others are feeling that way (maybe - I could be reading too much into your comments and if I am, I apologize for that).  But, your vote has been counted.  The official results have been released and will be certified and Shumlin did come out ahead.  Could there have been a mistake?  Yes.  Were there mistakes?  Likely -- there are probably always some mistakes.  But, that's true for every election.  In the last election, some ballots were probably miscounted, but that doesn't mean that the electorate was "disenfranchised" because there were mistakes.  By that logic, we would always have to have recounts.  And we'd have to have recounts of the recounts.  The fact of the matter is we can never say with absolute certainty that the results of any election are 100 percent, without-a-doubt accurate.  But, in my opinion, that doesn't mean voters have been disenfranchised.

---

by: Liz @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 13:53:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Response (0.00 / 0)

I don't have much time, so I'll just respond to your last argument because it's a new one (sorry I don't have more time today).  I don't agree that my logic suggests we would always have to have recounts.  The issue here is a very close finish.  The probability of enough errors to have caused an inaccurate outcome in this race is significant.  In a race with a much greater "point spread" the probability that a recount would reverse the outcome becomes increasingly smaller, and therefore the need for a recount less and less significant.  That's why there is a 2% threshhold for requesting a recount.

---

by: bostaurus @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 21:26:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disenfranchisement (0.00 / 0)

I appreciate your time in responding -- I understand that my comments were long and take time to respond to.  I completely see your point that with a greater point spread, the probability of a different outcome becomes smaller, and I also completely understand that decreasing probability is why there is a two percent threshold for a recount.

That may have been the point you were trying to make above, but that's not precisely what you said before.  What I take issue with, if I may quibble, is your use of the term "disenfranchisement" -- which is a very strong word and one that, if I'm not mistaken, is being bandied about with some frequency.  Your comment above reads to me like Racine supporters might feel that they are being systematically deprived the vote because some mistakes (everyone concedes happen) may be made.  This equation of mistakes made = disenfranchisement suggests to me that we must never settle for a vote count unless we're sure it's 100% accurate.  But if that's true, how can we be sure that the second count is any more accurate?  If the first count is so deficient, why do we use those counting procedures in the first place -- why not launch into a full-blown county-by-county count after every election to ensure accuracy?

My point is that this is an explosive situation and words and comments and the way we talk about the situation matter.  Disenfranchisement has an historic and social meaning and I think when we talk about these issues, it's important to thank about how our arguments affect the next step and the next and the next.  I think the recount was and is a terrible idea.  I think it deals a huge blow to Democrats in the fall and, although I am encouraged that the ship seems to be shakily holding itself together, I fear that the set-backs will be difficult to overcome.  But, since the ship has sailed, my biggest concern now is ensuring that everyone will come together and support the presumptive nominee now -- to the extent possible -- and the final nominee after the recount.  I worry about that because I've been through enough campaigns where, despite talk to the contrary, the base doesn't rally, and I think in this situation the way we talk about the delicate situation can impact whether that happens here or not.  Being out on a campaign and not having your friends come along is a lonely, lonely place to be.

---

by: Liz @ Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 13:15:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We are Debating/Fighting (0.00 / 0)

About it right now.  Nothing in life is certain.  Even a recount will not "ensure" anything.  

2-3 weeks is a huge delay, not only in fundraising, but in being able to debate Dubie.  The AAPR just postponed its debate until Sept. 26th.  http://bit.ly/b8FA0s  Maybe they know something we do not know.

Best,
Ed

---

by: Ed Adrian @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 12:26:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How's this for an interim activity? (4.00 / 1)

Who had the Dubie cut out?  I say drag it to the town hall and let's start the debate.  Who wants to play the part of the "mystery dem" and ask the first question?  
Here's my suggestion for an opener:
"So, Brian, can you really count to ten?"

---

by: brattlebarb @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 21:38:23 PM UTC

Back to the Future (0.00 / 0)

Has has been stated, the law and process does not require recounds (as it does in some states) it merely allows for one to be requested.  We have a lot of things that society allows us to do, but that for one reason or another we decide it is better not to partake.  

Check out the newest version (including the 2010 leg amendments) of the recount law at the Secretary of State's website here -  http://bit.ly/bLw1Pr

Now focus on 17 VSA 2601 - 2602k.

Here are some highlights -

1) "A petition for a recount shall be filed within 10 days after the election. The petition shall be filed with the superior court, Washington County, in the case of candidates for state or congressional office . . . . The petition shall be supported, if possible, by a certified copy of the certificate of election prepared by the canvassing committee, verifying the total number of votes cast and the number of votes cast for each candidate." 2602(b)

2) "The superior court shall set an early date for the recount, notifying all candidates at least five days in advance." 2602(c)

You can see that Doug was not clear about whether certain provisions of the law could be waived in his speech - http://bit.ly/cjOvjF

Lets assume that the law means what it says and the petition needs to be accompanied by the canvasing committee certification.  That is on Tuesday.  Then the court as to give candidates at least 5 days notice.  Presumably this is business days, so that would mean that the earliest the recount could start would be on 9/8 since the 4th and 5th are weekend days and the 6th is a holiday.

Looking at all of the other procedures that need to be followed, it looks like at least 10 days.  Would that include weekends?   Lets say not for argument's sake and the counters go 10 days straight from 9/8.  That puts us to Sept. 18th before we know who the candidate is going to be.  That is 3 weeks.  I hope my time calculations are wrong.  

Best,
Ed

---

by: Ed Adrian @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 23:17:16 PM UTC

ED?? (2.67 / 3)

So Ed, you supported Deb and now it looks like you are fronting her search for a job in what you think will be a Shumlin administration.  Or, does she hope for a job in a Dubie administration?  Doug did the right thing.  Debbie's comment that she would not have asked for a recount was a bad choice.  Of course, she wouldn't ask, she came in third.  However, one would expect that she would not challenge the decision of the "very-close-to-winning" second place candidate. While your time calculations may be correct, given every part of the process extended out to its maximum.  It is doubtful that it has to be that way.  Hopefully the Sec. of State's office is looking for the shortest route to completing a recount, not the longest.

---

by: reelvermonter @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 11:57:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It Has Nothing to do with the SOS Office (0.00 / 0)

It has to do with the law passed by the legislature as written above.

I take offense that I am "fronting" for anyone.  Why would I use my real name if I was fronting for someone?

The Free Press report appears to support my calculations - http://bit.ly/cVDx7B

And it is not only money that is the issue, the real issue is a tete-a-tete with Dubie and that is not going to happen for at least another 2-3 weeks.  The AARP debate was just postponed for a month.  http://bit.ly/b8FA0s

Best,
Ed

---

by: Ed Adrian @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 12:21:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

wow (0.00 / 0)

This is a pointlessly snotty and insulting way to express your opinion. Says to me your afraid of the argument Ed is making, which seems like a perfectly valid one for discussion.  

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 13:53:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And so it begins... (0.00 / 0)

If you didn't think so before, you can see just from this thread that the recount is going to be divisive.

---

by: Michael Inners @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 14:06:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

exactly (0.00 / 0)

You can't change the basic laws of human nature.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 14:49:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No need to wait (4.00 / 1)

Ed, as I read it, the ten-day clock starts running the day after the election. No need to wait for the official certification from the SoS because the statute says that the petition must be supported by the certification "if possible". Clearly, if the certification isn't done yet it isn't possible to attach it to the petition.

With regard to the counting rules, you're right: Because we're talking about times of less than eleven days, Rule 6 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure dictates that intervening Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are not counted.

I do think the candidates can waive the five-day period, but I don't have any authority for that.

---

by: Jack McCullough @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 13:11:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mornin Jack. You would agree that untimately the Court would have to determine (0.00 / 0)

1) The meaning of "if possible".  It is "possible" to wait until Tuesday to get the results and attach them to the petition.

2) I did not see anything in the statute (and I did not look to hard) that would allow the 5 day period to be waived.
Unlike for example hand counting which can be waived pursuant to 17 VSA 2602l (that is 2602L).

Again, courts determining things take time. Sometimes lots of time. Want to give me odds on the Republicans trying to get party status?

Best,
Ed

---

by: Ed Adrian @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 13:43:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

VPR VT This Week Special Live 1-hour Broadcast (0.00 / 0)

VPT Vermont This Week airing 1-hour live special tonight (7:30 pm - 8:30 pm; re-airing Sunday at 11:30 am):

email questions or comments: connect@vpt.org call: 1-866-424-live

Morgan W. Brown

Montpelier, Vermont

---

by: norsehorse @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 23:58:39 PM UTC

er, i.e., VPT ... (not VPR) (0.00 / 0)

uff da!

Morgan W. Brown

Montpelier, Vermont

---

by: norsehorse @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 00:08:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What if? (4.00 / 2)

What if all five candidates used this time during the recount to take on Dubie - each in their own way??

Alright maybe not Bartlett because she is in Maine - but the other 4 could do that.  A united frontal attack.  They could each pick their favorite issue and start asking him questions.

What do you think Dubie would do if he had 4 on 1 for a week or two?

This would keep the press and the people engaged.  Free publicity!

---

by: Linda in the Northeast Kingdom @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 02:26:40 AM UTC

Vote on & add Ideas of how recount helps or harms ... (0.00 / 0)

Vote on:

How does a Democratic Gubernatorial primary election recount harm/help general election prospects? (here; via AllOurIdeas).

In addition, add your own ideas via the submission form found on the above page.

Morgan W. Brown

Montpelier, Vermont

---

by: norsehorse @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 04:37:24 AM UTC

While waiting (4.00 / 1)

which one(or all) of those in contention will step-up and take the fight to Dubie even as the counting continues?

It could be like money in the bank to keep the fight alive.

---

by: BP @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 12:44:56 PM UTC

which one can do that... (0.00 / 0)

...and feel comfortable they wont be accused by another candidate's partisans of being presumptuous?

Ugliness will simmer right under the surface during this process, and nobody will want to risk lighting the fuse.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 14:51:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure I agree. (0.00 / 0)

Now that the recount has been requested, neither one would be perceived as campaigning against the other by going after Dubie.  It might have seemed to some like an effort to forestall the request for a recount if Shumlin had gone after Dubie, hammer-and-tongs, before Racine asked for the recount; but now that argument couldn't be credible on the part of either candidate, because the die has already been cast.  I've been a Racine supporter all along, but am more than happy to support Peter Shumlin as he moves forward to take on Dubie.  They are no longer oppositional candidates.  They are now, for all intents and purpose, a single candidate united with all Democrats (and probably all Progressives) against Brian Dubie.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 16:22:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree. (4.00 / 1)

If any of the candidates are that gun shy about attacking Dubie and appearing presumptuous maybe some surrogates are available(party elders?).The Democratic party in Vermont isn't limited to five headline makers.
Douglas and Gibbs have been pretty good at this for their man Dubie.  

---

by: BP @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 16:55:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How to go after Dubie? (0.00 / 0)

I'm curious what you see as the best way for Shumlin or Racine to go after Dubie.  Dubie has gotten by for eight years by not saying or doing much at all.  The result is there's not much of a record to tie him to -- beyond some of the social issues like his support in 2000 for a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and his opposition to abortion.  I'm doubtful that these issues will fire up enough of the electorate this year to deliver victory in November.  

Shumlin and Racine could try to tie Dubie to some of the Douglas administration policies, but I see two problems on that front: first, it's very hard to get complaints about one politician to stick to another, especially I think in Vermont where the press corps is small and the number of players on the political scene is small so it's easier for the press to keep track of who did what and when.  I suspect they'll more or less roll their eyes if repeatedly offered this sort of attack and nothing more.  Second, beyond getting the base riled -- which it presumably already is -- I don't know that linking Dubie to Douglas will particularly bother much of the electorate.  Douglas's approval has slipped to be sure -- as approval of essentially everyone in office for a long time does -- but there's nothing to indicate that he's a particularly reviled figure among a majority of voters (unlike, say, President Bush a few years ago).

One of the appeals of being able to move cleanly into the general election was that Dubie would be forced into debates and to appear more in public to provide more of a record to run against.  Now that, too, has been delayed.

But more importantly, I'm curious about the mechanics you propose for going after Dubie.  I'm certain the campaigns have done some research on Dubie, but there's not much there.  A more in-depth research job will likely require a professional researcher, which again costs money.  Shumlin and Racine could maybe do some press events, etc., attacking Dubie, but there's not much to go on and it's likely that the questions and story will end up being more about the status of the recount.  Dubie wouldn't be under as much pressure to respond -- all he has to say is that he'll respond when the Democrats settle on a nominee.  The campaigns can't start putting together TV ads or radio ads or mailings going after Dubie because all of that, as discussed in my previous comment, costs a lot of money up front, which the campaigns now can't raise.  They can send emails to their lists, but that's going to people that have already been convinced.

Finally, and I think something that's been overlooked even as so many people here champion grassroots efforts (it's a very important component of a campaign, to be sure), it will be very difficult for Shumlin or Racine to engage in any sort of grassroots efforts during the recount (I don't know, making calls or canvassing or something to talk about why Dubie is a bad choice) because much of the grassroots energy in the state will now be sapped by the recount -- I don't know the precise mechanics, but generally in recounts the campaigns need to have their volunteers at the recount locations to challenge ballots, etc.  Those are grassroots resources that now cannot be deployed in the field.

And, even if there are some excess grassroots resources left over that can be sent out into the field, the campaigns probably don't have the money for polling, so they can't really figure out what effective lines of attack against Dubie will be.  They can guess at it, but that's not how campaigns are won.

---

by: Liz @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 20:37:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

after Dubie (4.00 / 2)

"There is not much of a record to tie him to..."

Good point. Remind voters he is an eight year light weight Lt.Gov. with little to show.

"...his support in 2000 for a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and his opposition to abortion."

This is his record and part of the complete Dubie package he should always be linked with.

"...it's very hard to get complaints about one politician to stick to another,..."

Try it, and then keep trying.  

"...beyond getting the base riled -- which it presumably already is -- I don't know that linking Dubie to Douglas will particularly bother much of the electorate.'

A base motivated (riled-up) with their eyes on the prize is good unifying factor.

---

by: BP @ Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 13:50:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good for Doug (4.00 / 1)

It's a good thing that Doug called for a recount, and it's great that Judy Bevans is supportive of his choice.

Not only is the race within only a 200 vote spread between Racine and Shumlin, but there has been plenty of evidence that there are some discrepancies in the count, and I've heard that some absentee ballots haven't even been counted.  This is significant with only 200 votes separating the frontrunners, and as a voter I would feel hard done by if we didn't do everything we could to be sure that the vote tallies were accurate.

Vermont already has a pretty low rating for government transparency, and clarity has to start with the election process itself.  'Party unity' is a sham if the Democrats can't agree on a cause as clearly good as government transparency!  I'd like to see a Democratic party united in their commitment to fair and transparent elections, and good on Doug for leading the charge.

As a Dunne supporter, my candidate won't win in this recount, but at least I'll feel better as a voter knowing that every precaution was taken to make sure the election was fair.

---

by: GreenMountainAcademical @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 17:53:01 PM UTC

4 potential VT Dem Guv primary recount outcomes (0.00 / 0)

By the way, besides the Vermont Democratic primary vote recount making either Peter Shumlin or Doug Racine the nominee (Deb Markowitz's chances are perceived as highly doubtful by most political observers), as highly unlikely as the odds of such occurring were said to be for the primary election, the fourth potential result -- no one else seems to be mentioning as a possibility -- could be a tie (emphasis mine):

§ 2369. Determining winner; tie votes

Persons who receive a plurality of all the votes cast by a party in a primary shall be candidates of that party for the office designated on the ballot. If two or more candidates of the same party are tied for the same office, the choice among those tied shall be determined:

(1) Upon five days' notice and not later than 10 days following the primary election, the state committee of a party, for a state or congressional office; the senatorial district committee for state senate; the county committee for county office; or the representative district committee for a representative to the general assembly shall meet to nominate a candidate from among the tied candidates. (Amended 2010, No. 73 § 1.)

(2) The committee chair shall certify the candidate nomination for the general election to the secretary of state within 48 hours of the nomination. (Added 1977, No. 269 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; amended 2010, No. 73 § 1.)

Just saying ...

Morgan W. Brown

Montpelier, Vermont

---

by: norsehorse @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:27:24 AM UTC