Not sure what to make of it, so I'll let you figure this one out, from today's vtbuzz:
Pollina, the Progressive who ran for governor in 2008 as an independent, continues to ponder his political future, but he said he's in no hurry to decide. He's weighing lots of options from running for state Senate to joining the four, soon-to-be five Democrats in a free-for-all primary to pick a gubernatorial nominee.
(This is a lot more important than my hummingbird photos. - promoted by JulieWaters)
Overheard in Montpelier -- Jim Douglas to Anthony Pollina:"Tony, here's $28,000, don't spend it all in one Party."
Anthony Pollina's campaign is not handling his departure from the Vermont Progressive Party with the aplomb expected of a politician who has run in three statewide elections since 1984.The current campaign finance flap was a foreseeable distraction, but he apparently had no pre-determined solution nor did he take proactive steps to stave off the problem before allowing a confusing political/financial/legal narrative to take hold.
The most important aspect of this story is also the most overlooked. No one seems to be discussing the fact that:
1. Mr. Pollina has broken no campaign finance law.
3. Mr. Pollina may legally continue to collect contributions as an Independent in the same manner that he would have done as a Progressive.
Pretty crazy considering both his response to this affair and the press he has received as result.
My opinion (glad you asked) Mr. Pollina owes Governor Douglas a big fat sloppy wet kiss because, thanks to the Governor, Pollina is not legally obligated to return a single penny. In fact, Vermont law does nothing to prevent him from going back to his contributors (caveat, good luck trying!) for more $$ -- all thanks to Governor Douglas.
Pollina will announce his decision tomorrow afternoon.
(Kinzel) When Pollina announced his gubernatorial campaign several months ago, there was no Democratic candidate in the race.
But that situation changed last month when House Speaker Gaye Symington entered the contest.
Progressive leaders won't comment about Pollina's future political plans except to say that their candidate would address this issue in Burlington on Thursday afternoon.
Initially, Pollina said that Symington's presence in the race wouldn't affect him. But Middlebury College political science professor Eric Davis says Symington has sapped a lot of energy and money from the Pollina campaign.
(Davis) ``It's become clear in the last months since Speaker Symington declared her candidacy that she has the strong and enthusiastic support of the Democratic Party. And whatever hopes Anthony Pollina might have had of receiving organizational and financial support from Democrats in the fall campaign have all but evaporated."
Hmmm?
Kinzel goes on to report that that Peter Shumlin thinks (correctly) that Democrats will support Pollina in a Lt. Governor bid and Eric Davis states the obvious that Anthony Pollina is running a third place race for Governor, which everyone knew from the beginning. He finishes with:
(Kinzel) It's also possible that Pollina will use his press conference to renew his candidacy for governor. Democratic leaders don't know what he's going to do and Progressives aren't telling.
Either the Pollina campaign is coyly setting-up the Vermont Press Corps for a serious All*Star Punking in Burlington today, or Anthony Pollina is setting his sights on Punking Brian Dubie.
So where does that leave us? Well, the speculation about the speculation, is below -- (and so is the answer)
As of last week, Deborah Richter M.D. was preparing her announcement event at the State House.
As of last week, the person who has done more to change the direction of the broken approach to the State of Vermont's most pressing, most crushing and most economically taxing problem on Vermont families, Vermont workers and Vermont business, was about to step into electoral politics.
As of a few days ago, Dr. Richter was prepared to give a bigger voice to the cause of health care reform via a statewide campaign and put herself in a position to be a more effective agent of change.
As of just a few days ago, Vermont's most passionate and articulate advocate -- for healing the wounds caused by Vermont's self-inflicted health care policy malpractice -- was ready to take the fight to the next level. She was preparing to campaign for the office of Lt. Governor. She was going to begin a campaing to force Vermont government, our media and our political conversation to focus on the one issue that literally means life and death, financial security or bankruptcy, or having a job or not having a job to thousands of us.
So what happened to Deb Richter? The process behind the story below the fold.
I believe there are times when Progressives and Democrats can work together, and times when we need to go our separate ways.
The Executive Director of the Progressive Party, Morgan Daybell, lives in Franklin County, where a bunch of us liberals of whatever party and no party get together and shoot the breeze once a month over a beer. It's friendly and entirely off the record.
A week or 10 days ago, I got a call from Morgan asking whether Anthony could come to our March Franklin County Democratic Committee meeting to talk about his candidacy. I said I'd run it by the committee.
On Feb. 11, we were winding up the business part of our meeting when Peter Galbraith arrived as our speaker. It was awkward, but there was a request for a show of hands on whether we would allow Anthony Pollina to come the next month and talk to us. There was no formal motion (despite what you might read in Friday's St. Albans Messenger, which relied on hearsay and got the numbers wrong), some discussion, at least one vehement declaration that the declarer would not come to the meeting if Anthony was there. The show of hands came to 15 for letting Pollina come, 6 against.
Then Peter Galbraith spoke. It was a good speech, and his responses during the Q&A afterward were even better. Healthcare, the environment, diversified and renewable energy, housing -- Galbraith touched on all of them enough to confirm that he is a liberal Democrat, and definitely not a DINO.
Tonight Anthony Pollina goes to bed with a decision to make.
Mr. Pollina is the one person in Vermont who is entitled to choose whether Jim Douglas is assured another term in office beginning in January 2009. Depending on whether Mr. Pollina decides to run with the left, or against the left, will determine whether Jim Douglas wins reelection -- either by plurality if not slim majority vote.
Anthony Pollina owns the choice. Depending on what Mr. Pollina does, Jim Douglas goes back into the Governor's office in 2009, or Jim Douglas faces a very good chance of being replaced by the most liberal and most progressive governor Vermont has ever had.
Even if, beginning in January 2009, the most liberal governor ever elected to serve Vermont is not Anthony Pollina, Mr. Pollina is still the one who is going to bed tonight deciding whether roughly half of us -- i.e., the Vermont voters who want and who are likely to vote for a Democratic/Progressive nominee -- will have the opportunity to make the choice to replace Jim Douglas.
In 2008, the Democratic primary is the functional equivalent of an instant run-off primary election. If Mr. Pollina joins his fellow travelers on the left side of the political spectrum in a September primary, the person emerging with the Democratic nomination will be the person who can otherwise expect to win the most “number one” and “number two” votes from that large and that potentially winning block of left/liberal/progressive voters who want to bring change to the governor’s office. The Democratic primary may not be the perfect vehicle and it’s certainly not Anthony Pollina’s favored vehicle to the governor’s office; but the fact is, it is the only path to a win in November.
For Anthony Pollina, or whoever wins the Democratic primary, there is a great opportunity too. The opportunity to run against an incumbent Republican Governor whose popularity is sagging and the opportunity to do so while holding the unified banner of the left.
I’m really not trying to bust on Mr. Pollina (seriously). Were I wearing the shoes of any of the potential contenders, or the incumbent for that matter, I would be doing (or at least considering) what is strategically in my best interest to clear the field of potential rivals to gain my best shot in November. Mr. Pollina apparently perceives his strategic short-term interest is best served by staying out of the Democratic primary. and running against an incumbent and an extremely progressive Democrat simultaneously in November. With the only chance to secure a victory for a progressive agenda in 2009 coming from a consolidated left (which can only come from a primary between those who want to represent the left), Mr. Pollina is also telegraphing a belief that his interests, and the best interests of a progressive agenda, are mutually exclusive. He’s wrong.
It is time to cut to the chase on how we can elect a liberal/progressive Governor. The decision Mr. Pollina has and the opportunity he can give to the progressives and liberals who want a serious change in direction in the governor’s office looks something like this . . . [after the jump]
If Anthony Pollina, or any other candidate challenging the incumbent Republican Governor, cannot win the Democratic primary in September, forget about winning the general election in November.
The Democratic primary is the only contest that will allow one of the potentially serious gubernatorial challengers to clear the field for a clear shot at Jim Douglas. Mr. Pollina cannot expect to beat Jim Douglas - AND another left/liberal/progressive candidate - by waiting until November to face the voters for the first time.If he is unable to make his case to the progressive/liberal/left voters in September, then a wait-till-November campaign will be nothing but a vanity race that takes himself far more seriously than his campaign.
Mr. Pollina, don’t waste our time, our money or effort in November if you cannot make your case in September. It's that simple.It may not be the best way (for you, not the left you claim to represent), it may not be the fair way (to you, not the voters), it may not be the preferred way (for you, not progressive voters), but it really is that simple.
For Anthony Pollina, or whoever wins the Democratic primary, there is a great opportunity too.The opportunity to run against an incumbent Republican Governor whose popularity is sagging after winning and holding the unified banner of the left. It is a recipe for victory, and it is the only path to victory.
If Anthony Pollina runs (à la Bernie Sanders 2006) in the Democratic primary, he has a chance of beating Jim Douglas. He can win the governor’s office, but he will win it only by clearing the field in September and then taking the consolidated Progressive/Democratic block into the November election.
If Anthony Pollina runs (à la Ralph Nader 2000), then he has no chance of becoming governor. Jim Douglas will win a plurality or even a majority by default, apathy or inertia.
[This post is part I on the practical, mechanical and some historical context of the 2008 gubernatorial Progressive/Democratic primary election decision. Tomorrow in part II, I'll post on the politics of Anthony Pollina's decision]
After the jump, why the Democratic primary is the only path to the Governor's office for a Progressive/Democratic candidate.
Well, for better or worse, Anthony Pollina announced at the Progressive Party convention today in Royalton that he "expects and intends" to run for governor. From WCAX:
Pollina, a Progressive, made the widely anticipated announcement this afternoon at the Progressive's annual convention. He is the first candidate so far to unofficially challenge incumbent Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican.
Pollina made the announcement before an enthusiastic gathering of over 100 supporters at the Progressive Party's annual convention in South Royalton at the Vermont Law School.
He also said he is actively seeking the support of Democrats and would accept the nomination of the Democratic party.
"I would accept the Democratic nomination and I would be pleased to run as a Democrat-slash-Progressive because I think that's what it's going to take to bring people together to make sure we can defeat Jim Douglas," said Pollina, who says Douglas would undoubtedly easily win a fourth-consecutive term if Democrats and Progressives each run a challenger.
At the very least, it's good to know somebody is running against Douglas, and it's also good to finally hear an acknowledgement that a three-way race mans 2 more years of Whinin' Jim. Whether Pollina's got what it takes this time remains to be seen, but at least there's now a race to talk about. More to come... Poll below the jump.
Okay, okay... sheesh, I figured everybody'd be all over this poll. Guess it's up to me (for the record, over the last 24 hours, I have finished this post twice only to have the app crash on me and lose all my work... ARRRRG!!)
42 percent said they'd vote to re-elect Jim Douglas.
33 percent said they'd replace him.
25 percent said they were not sure.
Roper & company are trying to be blase about it, but this is a dramatic sea change. At this point in the last two cycles, Douglas's re-elect numbers were in the 60's. What's more ominous for the GOP is the significance of that number, which they no doubt recognize: 42%. It's roughly the mean, historical, hardcore GOP voting block that their statewides can depend on cycle after cycle. That's what he's down to, in terms of firm support.
16% percent of Vermonters say Governor Douglas is doing an excellent job. 38% a good job, with only 5% of people not sure how he's doing.
But when you put these numbers together, you've got a clear picture; the "nice guy" Douglas image is still intact, but moderates and independents are no longer confident that he's the right man for the job. It's probably not helping him that he's been using his so-called "listening tour" to TELL voters (through the media) what's important to them, rather than - y'know - listening. That only widens the perception that he's out-of-touch.
And if you think they're not scared, consider this: The original title of the WCAX web piece on the poll was "Questionable fourth term for Douglas." If you'll notice, it now reads "2008 Governor's Race Starts To Shape Up". The station reportedly responded to a reader's question about the change, saying they had received "internal and external complaints" about the original headline.
Now come on. Do you think if you or I had complaints about the message sent by a news headline that the Douglas communication offi- er, I mean WCAX - would give us the time of day? No freaking way. That was political damage control, pure and simple.
On the GMD polling matter; "Should Anthony Pollina be the Democratic candidate for Governor (assuming he would accept the Democratic nomination)? - it seems consensus eludes us. Democracy's just so messy, aint it?
So a week or two back, the playing field for Democratic gubernatorial candidates seemed to only contain a crowd of folks pleading former Lite Guv candidate Matt Dunne to run for the top job, rather than go for round 2 against the Dubester (and please, folks... he is so NOT getting that FAA job. We're stuck with him.) Then, the Pollina for Governor crowd hit the Dem scene and media hard, making their case for Pollina to be the Democratic candidate, running as a P-D (it should be noted that Pollina has yet to make this appeal in person, and I'm still dubious as to whether he would ever accept a D by his name).
Today, via Louis Porter, we have two new names; author, foreign policy expert, former Ambassador, and former Democratic State Chair (1977-1979) Peter Galbraith, currently being discussed in Greenvtster's diary below, and Windsor County Senate powerhouse John Campbell.
So - whereas a couple weeks ago, we were looking at a barren wasteland, into which no one could blame Dunne for not wanting to venture, it's now morphed into what will be in effect - if likely not in actuality - a political primary among an array of candidates appealing not only to a broad ideological spectrum, but an institutional one as well. There's the third party firebrand, flirting with the idea of reaching out his hand to those he has made a career of scorning, an economic moderate/social liberal with strong connections across the political spectrum, and an in-state political outsider with international credentials and a reputation as a serious intellectual with a considerable pedigree.
On paper, you've got to give initial polling advantage to Pollina, but Pollina would be unlikely to be able to redefine himself quickly enough to close the deal. Campbell obviously has more electoral deal-closing potential, but the business interests that Campbell has made inroads with are going to be surprisingly unwilling to ditch their buddy Douglas, even with a Dem they find more palatable. The underdog has to be Galbraith, but the notion of a political outsider and intellectual running the state is definitely appealing in theory (and I do think someone with zero name recognition could beat Douglas... the problem is that he or she would have to start on a serious ground game last May...)
So it's back on (especially when you consider that Dunne may still wanna go for it, although I'm betting not). Conventional wisdom says a crowded field is a bad thing, and I suppose the ideal would've been to have a consensus candidate back in the Summer. But given the perception of weakness the lack of a candidate has created, and the negative impact that would clearly have had going into the next legislative session, I'll take a crowded field any day. In fact, some sort of horse race may well be the only way to get the media to sit up and take notice of electoral opposition to the Governor. Lord knows, after the last couple times around, little else has seemed to do the trick.
Okay, let's get to it (and note the poll to left).
The question has been called by Terri Hallenbeck in today's Burlington Free Press, so the debate is on. What about Anthony Pollina as a "unity" candidate for Governor? According to the article, Pollina Martha Abbott and David Zuckerman were at Friday's Democratic fundraiser trying to talk up the idea. The Freeps also reports they've been reaching out to liberal Dems on this for sometime (and yeah, now that the conversation is officially out in the open, I was contacted by Dave Z last week about the idea).
First of all, its worth noting again that plenty of us saw this coming. With these press reports, the "spoiler" argument is now up for grabs, as Pollina seems to be the only lefty making any meaningful moves towards running. If he announces this month, and the Dems find somebody in December or January, he'll have a legitimate point of debate that it's the Dem who will be the "spoiler." To the leadership of the Democratic Party, I can only say: it should not have come to this.
But on to the matter at hand. The fact is, there's a lot to say on the topic, and a lot of air that would need to be cleared before meaningfully moving forward - if that seems like the wisest move. There are pros and cons - and a whole world of history, but while others will dance around it, I invite folks to flesh it out here (a GMD conversation which has already begun, actually). I'll lay out many of the cards after the fold...
Vermont has overwhelming Democratic majorities in the state House and Senate. 4 of six statewide, constitutional offices are held by Democrats. Democrats (in reality, if not name) control each of Vermont's seats to the national Congress.
But no Democrat has stepped up to the plate to even make meaningful noise about running for Governor. It's an embarassment.
For months, people have been warning that somebody needs to get off the dime on this (even while resentment has been growing at the prospect of an avalanche of A-list Dems who will likely go what they see to be the easy route - stepping up for the office when Douglas eventually steps down voluntarily - instead of stepping up now when their party and their state need them). For months people have been warning that if a Dem doesn't announce, Anthony Pollina (the former Progressive Party candidate for all things statewide who seems to have no interest in doing anything other than starting at the top), would get out in front and label the Dems weak, ineffective, and try to turn the "spoiler" argument on its head. By the end of the summer I've said...
Pollina plans to hold a series of meetings around the state in mid October to gauge support for a gubernatorial bid. If there's strong grassroots support - it's likely that he'll run.
For those just tuning in: first Freyne reports that Progressive Rep. Dave Zuckerman sez"He (Peter Shumlin) came up to me at an event in Montpelier...and said we’ve really got to talk about how we’re going to get rid of Jim Douglas, and I think Anthony Pollina should really consider running.”"... then I report that Shumlin sez "From his recollection, it was Zuckerman who brought up Pollina....Says Shumlin: 'I have told anyone who will listen that the best candidate, in my judgment is Matt Dunne.' (and Dunne verified Shumlin's encouragement in an unrelated conversation with me a ways back)."... then Stewart Ledbetter on Vermont This Week (in a reference to "dueling blogs") sez"maybe the story that Shumlin was pushing Anthony Pollina is simply not true"... then Freyne sez"Maybe the Moon is made of green cheese?"... then Freyne goes to Zuckerman who sez"I respect Stewart Ledbetter... but that's irresponsible journalism."
Ahhh, so many sezzes, so little time!
Truthfully, "irresposnsible journalism" is a whopping big charge. Especially when we're not simply talking about journalism. We're also talking about blogging, gossip and even interpersonal relationships, inasmuch as they relate to who believes whom.
Even the casual observer will notice that Peter Freyne at Seven Days has had little good to say about Speaker Symington and Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin. Hey, we've all had complaints - he's hardly alone in that. But Freyne may be seeing so much red when he looks at those two that he's losing perspective.
First was his reaction to the gay marriage commission, in which he mocked the two Dem leaders mercilessly, but couldn't squeeze out a single comment on the merits of the issue (despite his tireless support for civil unions). The latest is this week's column reporting that Shumlin is pushing Progressive Anthony Pollina to get into the Governor's race. It quotes Progressive Rep Dave Zuckerman as saying that "'He came up to me at an event in Montpelier,' said Zuckerman, 'and said we’ve really got to talk about how we’re going to get rid of Jim Douglas, and I think Anthony Pollina should really consider running.'" The account mentions a follow-up conversation, and Shumlin's desire not to go public during his "calculating."
Well, Sen. Shumlin remembers things a bit differently. From his recollection, it was Zuckerman who brought up Pollina. While Shumlin recalls being complimentary of Pollina (and has since reached out to him to mend long-broken fences), he says he has long maintained (to "anybody who will listen") that Pollina could not take the middle, and would therefore lose such an election.
Who would Shumlin really like to see run? Says Shumlin: "I have told anyone who will listen that the best candidate, in my judgment is Matt Dunne." (and Dunne verified Shumlin's encouragement in an unrelated conversation with me a ways back).
It doesn't make very thrilling copy, or very juicy political theater, but it does make a lot more sense, no?
I guess I just don't understand Peter Shumlin anymore. I suppose I never did. I can come up with one "unified field theory" for the "Shumlin whiplash" effect described by Philip Baruth (first we oppose the Governor's education scheme, then we're putting it into legislation at the last minute - first we're hammering Vermont Yankee on their sweetheart tax deal, then we're taking a pass - we can't even discuss the gay marriage issue in the session, then we're all for it - impeachment, well...). All I can figure that makes sense is that he has poor impulse control. That instead of having all these conversations in his head - y'know, the kind of back and forths that we all engage in - he's playing them out in the wide open for everyone to ride along with.
(Let me be perfectly clear about something. Although I have no doubt I irk him, I've always liked Peter a lot. I'm not one to personalize these sorts of concerns, and I've never doubted that his heart is in the right place. I just want badly for him to be successful and effective. We all need him to be. Symington as well. Those who get understandably frustrated need to realize there are no pretenders waiting in the wings come January, so to advance our agenda, we have to make these two relevant and impactful, sometimes despite themselves)
The latest from Shumlin is another big, Jon Stewart-style "whaa...?" According to Freyne, the same Shumlin who has been pushing the notion of Republican Senator Vince Illuzzi running for Governor is now encouraging Progressive Party standard-bearer (and old Shumlin electoral nemesis) Anthony Pollina to get into the race (lemme hearya say "whaaa...?")
UPDATE: Okay, there's been a promise extracted from me to stop beating up on Illuzzi in regards to a Governor run. Again, I give the guy lots of props for some of his stances, but I think folks were detecting that I was really beating up on those that promote the idea of a run by proxy. But I've said my piece and I'll shut up now...
Given Bill McKibben's enthusiastic comment on this site in regards to a potential Illuzzi for Governor campaign, I feel a new need to nip it in the butt (sorry Bill...).
Here's how I see an Illuzzi campaign playing out. The GOPers stay loyal, as they always do, except for a few in the northeast kingdom. Outside of Caledonia and Orleans Counties, the average voters in the state gets introduced to Illuzzi by news coverage and campaign ads that detail his run-ins with, and casual dismissing of, the law (and as a lawyer, no less - which'll make it worse). They are horrified.
Meanwhile, the Progs absolutely do not let the opportunity pass, as they would never back Illuzzi, and see this as a perfect example for them to prove once and for all that there's no difference between the two major parties. They run somebody - an 'A' lister - quite possibly Pollina himself, who from what I've heard, was an inch away from running for Governor last time. Lefties abandon the Dems in droves rather than back an anti-choice, anti-gay rights Republican with a history of defying legal orders.
Pollina does a bit better than he did against Shumlin. He comes in at about 28%. Douglas's 60% stays solid, as the moderate Dems and Indys that always break for him are afraid to go with Illuzzi because they don't trust him. Illuzzi comes in third in a three way race at 22% and Douglas wins again.
McKibben offsets about 5% of that 20% with new voters and new interest. He offsets another 5-10% by getting over the name-recognition gap that stymies challengers - especially when they start so late. A McKibben campaign - started early enough - would bring in scads of money that would provide enough resources to get him properly introduced to Vermonters - and the earned media coverage given his celebrity would be far more advantageous than with Racine, Clavelle or Parker. Lefty enthusiasm drives up turnout, which buys you another 2 or 3 points.
Of the remaining 2-7%, you look at persuasion - and Douglas has opened a wide vulnerability on the energy front, on policy (the Dem proposals are money savers for taxpayers and small business) and on character, as an unabashed flip flopper speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
Most of those "moderate" voters are often not so much genuinely politically moderate, as they are politically indifferent. And as such, they vote on character by default - or what they perceive as character. And the flip-flopper narrative is an absolute character-voter-no-no. I believe that can buy you another 5% or more.
Finally, there's the small minority of genuinely intellectual moderates. Many of those voters who see themselves as pragmatic are being swayed by global warming and energy issues, and would rather vote for an intellectual, international leader on the issue than someone who is looking more and more like a global warming denier wrapped in a political opportunist. Their support buys you another 2-3%
See? No problem Bill. We've gotcha covered. Jump on in, the water's fine! Go and check out the draft Bill petition for a little encouragement!
250-1
75-1
