Thanks be to Sts. Deb & Peter, the patron saints of lemonade

No offense meant (3.00 / 1)

I'm sure you meant no offense, Odum, by putting the observant Jewish Deb Markowitz in the Christian religious garb.

I dunno what Peter's religious preference is (though he says here that his dad was a "third-generation Jewish immigrant from Russia"). He'd probably be the first to laugh at being called "a saint."

Maybe they could be "champion" or "hero" lemonade makers instead -- picture on the Wheaties box with lemons, etc.

Perhaps more important, I'm not agreeing with you that Doug Racine's request for a recount is a "lemon." If there was no recount, Deb would be back in the SoS office overseeing the November elections. I'd say all three candidates were handed lemons with a vote outcome that was so close, and Doug Racine has made lemonade by asking for the count to be affirmed, to clear away any potential questions, to have an open process overseen by the County Clerks. So Racine also gets a "Champion Lemonade Maker" award from me.

NanuqFC
We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope. ~ MLK, Jr.

---

by: NanuqFC @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 21:42:15 PM UTC

Is it offensive... (0.00 / 0)

...to make saint jokes with non-Catholics/Orthodox? Has it really come to that? Am I to infer from your comment that someone of a different faith might consider Orthodox Christian imagery to be so dirty and untoward as to not even be worthy of use in satire anywhere near their name? I mean - what, exactly, is offensive about being cast satirically (but positively) in the role of saint?

Here, my only concern was that some Orthodox Christian might be annoyed that I played photoshop with an icon.

On the recount matter - of course, it's clear that we disagree on this at this site. Julie and Sue in particular are quick to respond to anyone that feels negatively about the recount request.

But I do feel negatively about it, myself, so I will continue to express that opinion. However, as this satirical post communicates, I think Shumlin and Markowitz are doing yeoman's work minimizing the damage, and in fact trying to turn some positives out of it, and the foregone conclusion it represents.

But every day that "1000 Vermonters for Change" and the nearly $40,000 represented there stay locked up and unusable by our candidate, I - as its admin - am keenly aware of the impact... and my concerns grow that some of the pledges will just fritter away over the next week and not materialize by the time the day comes I can message the group to fire away on those contributions (without running the risk of offending Racine supporters). It's something I've cognizent of every morning when I wake up since last week's announcement.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 22:24:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As an athiest... (0.00 / 0)

...I wouldn't object at all if you were to portray me as a saint.  

I don't see anything wrong with you feeling negatively about the recount request, by the way, and don't feel a need to respond to that.

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 22:28:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm... (3.00 / 1)

I don't know how big our "orthodox Christian" demographic is, but it doesn't seem to have gotten their ire yet. Funny.

And it wouldn't be nearly as funny were it on the Wheaties box.  

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. Politics. Godlessness. Music. Films of questionable quality. It's all there, folks.

---

by: JDRyan @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 01:30:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As a Jew (0.00 / 0)

I thought it was pretty funny.  As a politician, I thought it was dead on.  Doug is a good guy, but every day that goes by is a lost opportunity.

Unfortunately, I think that my previous predictions are coming to fruition.  This recount ain't going to be over for 3-4 weeks minimum.  I do not think that it was intentional or malicious, but it was naive and misleading for Doug to publicly state http://bit.ly/cjOvjF that it would only take a week.

Please reconsider Doug.  The outcome of the governor's race is hanging in the balance.

Best,
Ed

---

by: Ed Adrian @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 00:25:30 AM UTC

"3-4 weeks, minimum" (0.00 / 0)

where do you get this?

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 00:53:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Check Out (0.00 / 0)

My "Back to the Future" Post Analysis here - http://www.greenmountaindaily....

Plus the Court is not going to even start discussing the recount process until Friday - http://bit.ly/c4LDNr

Friday, 9/3/10 is a 1 1/2 weeks after the 8/24/10 primary date.  Seeing as nothing is going to happen until 9/7/10 at a minimum and even if things started on that date, I am willing to wager that it will take at least a week.  That puts us to somewhere between 9/14/10 and 9/21/10.  Which is 3-4 weeks out from the primary election.

What do you think Julie and what do you think about Doug's initial statements that this would only take a week?

Best,
Ed

---

by: Ed Adrian @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 01:26:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Got it (0.00 / 0)

I didn't realize you were just expressing your opinion.  I thought you had something new to introduce and that when you said it wouldn't be over for "3-4 weeks," minimum, you were using those words the way they sound: as though it would take another 3-4 weeks from today for the recount to be completed.

Thanks for clarifying.

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 01:39:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No problem (0.00 / 0)

Julie - Do you still argue that anything beyond 3 weeks will become "a problem" - http://www.greenmountaindaily....

If so will you pledge to ask Doug to pull the plug at the close of business on 9/13/10?

In any event, I respectfully disagree with your analysis in the link above.  For the next three plus weeks, all we are going to hear on the Dem side is about the recount.  While on the R side we will be hearing about economic plans, train rides, planed national Dem attacks etc.  This has gone on for 1 week already which IMHO is 6 days too many.

Best,
Ed

---

by: Ed Adrian @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 01:47:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've never argued the recount as requested (4.00 / 1)

isn't a problem.  At this point, however, it doesn't much matter what I think about the recount.

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 09:49:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Respectfully (0.00 / 0)

Julie you did argue just that (that instead of a problem - a recount was a benefit) in your comment to the post above by Jack wherein you stated -

"A recount that lasts up to 3 weeks is a benefit to Dems: keeps their name in the story without having to put any money into ads.  Once you get past 3 weeks or so, it starts to become old news and fade off the circuit.  So if we can see a recount that lasts under 3 weeks, that's excellent.  Otherwise it could start to become a problem."

It always matters what each and every voter thinks. At all points in time.  Don't disenfranchise yourself and loose your voice.

Denise Barnard of Richmond (some irony there) called off the recount she requested in the Chittenden Senate race in 2008 because of pressure from constituents and supporters.  This then confirmed the election of hybrid candidate P/D Tim Ashe.

The chorus to call off the recount must rise.  The people must lead and the leaders should follow.

Best,
Ed

---

by: Ed Adrian @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 11:23:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looks like it may start 9/8 (4.00 / 1)

The clerk in my county (Grand Isle) has requested that we submit 40 names for the recount committee.  From our county party list:

The Grand Isle County Democratic Committee must provide 40 volunteers for the Vermont Governor's recount at the Grand Isle County Courthouse on Wednesday, September 8. at 9:00 a.m.  There will be two teams, 20 for Racine and 20 for Shumlin.

We must give the two campaigns the names, addresses, and homephone numbers of the volunteers by Friday morning.  Carolyn Prasch says she believes most Democrats just want a candidate for Governor and don't care to which team they are assigned, but we must ask, as this will be a part of the court record.

At least in our county, the clerk isn't waiting for the hearing on Friday to get organized.  There is an outside chance that it will complete by Friday 9/10 if all the other clerks are on a similar schedule.  That equals 2-1/2 weeks from the primary.  That is going to be an awful news cycle day, however, for the results to come out.

The logistics are going to be interesting, since all the tabulating machines will be brought to the courthouse along with the ballots.  This is the first recount I'm aware of under the new Act 40 machine recount provisions.  From what has been described to me, the recount teams will review the ballots for possible ambiguities, then scan those that don't need manual review.

This does provide some hope that we won't see a repeat of the slow, understaffed Chittenden County recount experience in the 2006 auditor race.

---

by: Michael Inners @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 10:35:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks! (0.00 / 0)

That's useful data.  Anyone else getting similar information from their own county?

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 10:38:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Counting, not campaigning (0.00 / 0)

Forty volunteers in Grand Isle is a lot of Democratic manpower that will be tied up with counting, not campaigning.

---

by: Liz @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 12:03:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, but... (0.00 / 0)

40 volunteers in Grand Isle counting 1,061 total Democratic primary votes shouldn't take all that long, right?

I'll guess that it takes 2 minutes, on average, to ascertain the intent of the voter (which I believe is a very generous estimate).

With 20 "teams" assembled that would mean we could reasonably expect that each volunteer team could verify 30 votes each hour.

That would mean that with 20 teams combined they could count approximately 600 votes per hour.

With 1,061 votes to count, and an average of 600 votes counted per hour, I estimate that it will take less than two hours for the 40 volunteers to re-count all of the votes in Grand Isle County.

In my opinion this doesn't count as being "tied up with counting, not campaigning".

---

by: farjas @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 14:43:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Multiply time by 4 (0.00 / 0)

Only 10 teams (a "team" is 4).  And in a manual recount, you go over each stack twice.  It will be interesting to see if using the machines makes much difference when going through a set of smaller towns. Setup between runs may very well eat up the time gains.  Large towns, I'm sure it will speed things up.

I do think we will have no problem completing Grand Isle in one day.  But from having done more than a couple recounts, I would be surprised if it doesn't take most of the day.  I expect some problems finding 40 people who can take the day off work (or whatever they do instead) - and for many, that will all we get out of them for a while.

---

by: Michael Inners @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 14:58:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Running the numbers (0.00 / 0)

I have to stand by my assertion that this is going to detract enormously from other grassroots campaign efforts.  To back this up, I ran some numbers.  Let's take Grand Isle as an example, then I'll throw up the numbers from other counties.  Take 1,061 ballots in the county, and divide by the 10 teams = each team has to count an average of 106 ballots.  Now, per Michael's info, each ballot has to be actually counted twice, so each team is responsible for 212 ballot counts.  Let's take your number of 2 minutes per ballot -- which I agree may be on the high side, but we won't count lunch and bathroom breaks and administrative time at the beginning and end of each day for instructions and to distribute and collect ballots, so I think there's some evening out.  Thus, at 2 minutes each for 212 ballot counts, it will take 424 minutes, which is about 7 hours.

Now, here's the critical thing in terms of campaigning -- that's 7 hours in which 40 volunteers are otherwise occupied, so in total, the campaign is losing 283 volunteer hours (7 hours x 40 volunteers) in Grand Isle.

I've run the numbers using the county-by-county results posted on Green Mountain Daily (the calculations are pasted below) and the result I found was that statewide, we are losing 19,396 volunteer hours.  That's a little abstract, so I thought it would be helpful to couch it in terms of what that can actually get done on a campaign.  In my experience, a volunteer can knock on about 20 doors an hour canvassing (more if just lit dropping).  But, to be extremely conservative, let's say that volunteers in a rural place like Vermont can only average 10 doors an hour.  The 19,396 volunteer hours we're losing on the recount could instead be devoted to knocking on 193,960 doors (387,920 doors if you accept my higher number of 20 doors an hour).  Again, based on my experience, I think that a volunteer can make about 35 dials an hour when doing persuasion or ID calls (more if doing GOTV calls).  Again, to be very conservative, let's lower that number to 20 dials an hour.  In this case, the 19,396 volunteer hours could instead be devoted to making 387,920 dials in a phone bank (678,860 with my more realistic estimate of 35 dials an hour).

Again, to be extremely conservative, let's say that people see the recount as more pressing or urgent and are willing to devote 10 hours to a recount, when they otherwise might only devote 1 hour to campaign volunteering (in my experience, that's realistic -- it is a lot more difficult in most situations to get volunteers than we all might hope).  Even cutting my numbers by a factor of 10, we're losing between about 20,000 - 38,000 door knocks or about 39,000 - 67,000 dials in a phone bank.

So, in my opinion, this does count as being tied up with counting, not campaigning.

Here are the rest of the county by county numbers:

Addison = 4,677 / 10 teams = 468 x 2 counts = 936 x 2 mins per ballot = 1,872 / 60 mins per hour = 31 hours x 40 volunteers = 1,248 volunteer hours

Bennington = 3,371 / 10 teams = 337 x 2 counts = 674 x 2 mins per ballot = 1,348 / 60 mins per hour = 22.5 hours x 40 volunteers = 899 volunteer hours

Caledonia = 2,422 / 10 teams = 242 x 2 counts = 484 x 2 mins per ballot = 968 / 60 mins per hour = 16 hours x 40 volunteers = 645 volunteer hours

Chittenden  = 19,915 / 10 teams = 1,191 x 2 counts = 3,983 x 2 mins per ballot = 7,966 / 60 mins per hour = 133 hours x 40 volunteers = 5,311 volunteer hours

Essex = 523 / 10 teams = 52 x 2 counts = 104 x 2 mins per ballot = 208 / 60 mins per hour = 3.5 hours x 40 volunteers = 139 volunteer hours

Franklin = 3,856 / 10 teams = 385 x 2 counts = 770 x 2 mins per ballot = 1,540 / 60 mins per hour = 26 hours x 40 volunteers = 1,027 volunteer hours

Lamoille = 2,408 / 10 teams = 240 x 2 counts = 480 x 2 mins per ballot = 960 / 60 mins per hour = 16 hours x 40 volunteers = 640 volunteer hours

Orange = 3,030 / 10 teams = 303 x 2 counts = 606 x 2 mins per ballot = 1,212 / 60 mins per hour = 20 hours x 40 volunteers = 808 volunteer hours

Orleans = 2,124 / 10 teams = 212 x 2 counts = 424 x 2 mins per ballot = 848 / 60 mins per hour = 14 hours x 40 volunteers = 565 volunteer hours

Rutland = 5,491 / 10 teams = 549 x 2 counts = 1,098 x 2 mins per ballot = 2,196 / 60 mins per hour = 36.5 hours x 40 volunteers = 1,464 volunteer hours

Washington = 8,786 / 10 teams = 878 x 2 counts = 1,756 x 2 mins per ballot = 3,512 / 60 mins per hour = 58.5 hours x 40 volunteers = 2,341 volunteer hours

Windham = 6,976 / 10 teams = 697 x 2 counts = 1,394 x 2 mins per ballot = 2,788 / 60 mins per hour = 46 hours x 40 volunteers = 1,858 volunteer hours

Windsor = 8,134 / 10 teams = 813 x 2 counts = 1,626 x 2 mins per ballot = 3,252 / 60 mins per hour = 54 hours x 40 volunteers = 2,168 volunteer hours

---

by: Liz @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 23:35:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed. (0.00 / 0)

I don't see how pretending this isn't true helps anything, whether or not someone subscribes to your specific numbers.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 23:44:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Count this. (3.00 / 1)

I was able to convince four people to volunteer to count votes today who have never participated in a campaign beyond voting for their preferred candidate. I'm guessing it took much less time for me to recruit them then it took you to compile your numbers.  Just saying...

---

by: farjas @ Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 02:23:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

Cause discussion and debate are such wastes of time.

And by all means, don't respond. Because in the time it takes you to type it, you'll let another volunteer get away! Why are you even wasting time on the internet?!?!?

Gag.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 02:27:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You win again Odum (dang you!!!) (0.00 / 0)

You continue to amaze me with your razor-sharp wit and intellect. Except right now it appears we don't need either to beat Brian Dubie, we need vote counters.  So when someone posted on your site that there's an urgent need to recruit volunteers, I did what seemed the right thing to do at the time. I helped recruit volunteers. Silly me. Had I known I might have avoided your ridicule by not wasting my efforts trying to contribute, and instead spent my time in the sandbox with you arguing whether or not the re-count should happen I might have avoided this embarassing loss to you.

Sleep well.

---

by: farjas @ Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 03:59:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

nice work Liz (0.00 / 0)

I hope Doug decides to call it off. The more you look closely at the numbers the more solid the case for giving up the recount becomes.

---

by: FXF @ Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:40:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Addison County Actual Data (0.00 / 0)

5,078 votes counted.

6 teams of 4 voluneers per team.

All votes counted in 6 hours.

24 volunteers x 6 hours each =
144 actual volunteer hours used.

Estimated volunteer hours needed to complete count: 1,248

Difference between estimate and actual hours used to recount:
1,104.

Not exactly tied up counting...

---

by: farjas @ Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 21:11:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So much noise, so little signal (3.75 / 4)

The recount is happening, it is being supported with good grace by all the candidates. It will make some people feel better about the result, and will make others feel annoyed at the delay.

OK. That's out of the way.

NOW, since it IS happening, let's do what we can to make it quick and efficient, while we all keep working our networks of friends and family to get them psyched up to work and vote in the general election!

If you've stopped getting your friends and family ready for the general, start. You do not need to know who the candidate will be (though it's probably safe to make assumptions), since you already know who the opponent will be, so work that angle.

If you haven't stopped, keep up the good work!

Yeesh!

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 17:02:07 PM UTC

Thank you, thank you, thank you! n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: MadamPince @ Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 17:09:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not "out of the way" in any way shape or form (3.50 / 2)

Because the Racine campaign can always call it off.

Let's be productive, but again you're not going to get those of us annoyed about this to become cheerleaders for it.

We are accepting the reality of the recount and are working with it. I think its incumbent on folks like yourself to reciprocate by accepting  the fact that many of us are not happy, will continue to share that opinion, and are cognizant of the fact that it could all end at a moment's notice with a single word from the Racine camp. Those are realities too.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 21:03:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This does make sense (4.00 / 1)

I respect that you're doing your best to work with it despite your opposition to it.

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 21:12:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks. (0.00 / 0)

I appreciate that.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 21:22:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Incumbent? (0.00 / 1)

I didn't think there was an incumbent in this race.

---

by: Boots Wardinski @ Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 21:35:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not calling for cheerleading (3.50 / 2)

I'm calling for all of us to focus on the next step, since this step is already in progress.

I thought I acknowledged the fact that some people don't and won't like it with:

It will make some people feel better about the result, and will make others feel annoyed at the delay.

I guess it didn't stand out sufficiently. Either way, my opinion doesn't change. So, while we're in limbo, I kind of thought it would be helpful to keep working toward the general.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 04:36:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]