James Carville either has a book coming out, is just terrified at his rapid slide into irrelevence, or some sort of cognition-impairing brain disease. I’m sure everyone remembers last week when Carville famously blamed DNC Chair Howard Dean and his 50-state strategy for the Democratic disaster that was last week’s election (hey, check it out if you don’t believe me). The roars from the netroots and the State Parties in response were extraordinary, ironically followed by numerous other blog-posters across the country urging bloggers to turn down the rhetoric responding to attacks (verifiable and inferred) against Carville, Rep Rahm Emanuel (head of the DCCC) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (head of the DSCC). Despite their reputation, bloggers are nothing if not dutiful. Even in light of blog responses that Carville “drew first blood,” all the positive feelings around the election quickly brought down the heat.

But for whatever reason, Carville wants the heat back on and cranked way, way up. From yesterdays New York Times:

two leading party strategists rebuked Mr. Dean on Wednesday, saying the Democrats could have captured 40 House seats rather than 29 had Mr. Dean bowed to demands by Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, leader of the effort to recapture the House, to put more money into Congressional races.

“I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its incompetence,” one strategist, James Carville, said of Mr. Dean.

Mr. Carville, whose close ties to former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York have prompted speculation that he is attacking Mr. Dean on their behalf, said the Democratic National Committee had taken out a $10 million line of credit and used barely half of it.

“They left money on the table,” he said.

Asked whether Mr. Dean should step down, he responded, loudly, in the affirmative. “He should be held accountable,” Mr. Carville said.

It’s clear that, for whatever reason, Carville wants a war with Dean, the blogs and the State Parties. I don’t think we want it – near as I can tell, everyone would rather focus on the upcoming session and the next election – but Carville seems intent on foisting one upon us. Nor does Sen. Schumer want it, as he was lightning-quick hopping onto Daily Kos, thanking bloggers for their help, praising the 50 state strategy, and actually engaging with posters.

Smart man. Carville’s relevance will be stomped out in precious little time, and I don’t think anyone who wants to keep their reputation should be standing too close…

[originally printed in the Vermont Journal]

What a difference a week makes.

After last week’s midterm elections, we all woke up last week in a different nation, a different world – but seemingly not a different state. We still have the same Republican Governor, the same Republican Lieutenant Governor, and are still looking at an overwhelmingly Democratic state House and Senate. Same old, same old, yes?

Well, not quite.

With the virtual abandonment by State GOP Chair Jim Barnett of local Republican candidates to their own devices (a decision Barnett may now be paying a political price for), Democrats picked up even more state House and Senate seats. The result? A non-Republican critical mass that is mathematically capable of overturning a Douglas veto. In other words, depending on Speaker Symington’s skill at cat herding, the combined Democrats, Progressives and Independents in the state house could potentially shove Douglas right out of the Captain’s seat on the ship of state.

What this means for policy is an open question. There will certainly be renewed pressure to follow up the Catamount health plan with further reform, given that the Democratic rhetoric has always cast it as merely a first step. But whatever is on the horizon, one thing is certain: Speaker Symington and Governor Douglas are both going to be on the hot seat like never before.

In fact, it’s hard to say which one is in a less enviable position. Obviously Douglas’s future veto threats will be less-than-absolute bargaining chips, and on virtually every matter to come before lawmakers this biennium, he will be forced to compromise more than he is accustomed to. Political power is largely defined by perception, and Douglas cannot afford a single overridden veto, lest the perception of his power should start snowballing down into the ditch. As always, Douglas will stake out his own positions in simple sound bites and take them directly to the public, but after last week’s electoral losses for House Republicans, the Dems may not be as willing to listen, and the Governor may find himself making his appeals to an echo chamber made up entirely of his own base.

But if you think that sounds challenging, consider the pressure Symington will now be under. The Speaker is now the sole conductor of an orchestra with unlimited potential, and everyone – everyone – knows it. All eyes are watching, scrutinizing and Monday-morning quarterbacking her every move, whisper and feint. But what’s the reality? Getting that lot to unanimously agree to anything at all will be a challenge, and given the realities of social and political inertia, the more progressive or dramatic the policy proposal is, the more remote the possibility of any leader being able to hold an absolute consensus throughout a full-scale political collision. Despite this, enthusiastic activists feeling surges of power and inspiration at the phrase “veto-proof majority” won’t give her much breathing space at all not to deliver – in fact, one could argue that it’s not their job to.

So Douglas and Symington will be a couple of shaky political opponents, each trying to bluff the other. Douglas is the more practiced at political chicken, but each high-profile conflict he wins will draw the non-Republican majority a little tighter for the next head-to-head, as nature inches towards its balance.

The big winner in all this could well be the third high-profile player in the Montpelier mix – newly re-elected Senate President Pro-Tem Peter Shumlin. Shumlin – one of many players making a triumphant return from the political shelf this year – will have a far easier time setting the Senate calendar and maintaining caucus cohesion than his House counterpart. Depending on how he finesses his decisions on when to go for broke, versus when to play the cool-headed referee (and there will be times when both are called for), Shumlin will be in a position to both rebuild and enhance his political capital like never before.

Get out the popcorn…

The Auditor’s race was even tighter than we thought. The following numbers come from the SoS website:

Martha Abbott, Underhill, Progressive 23,545 9.3%
Randy Brock, Swanton, Republican 111,486 44.4% 
Jerry Levy, Brattleboro, Liberty Union  4,229 1.6%
Thomas M. Salmon, Rockingham, Democratic 111,349 44.4%
Write-in Votes  108 0.0%

That’s a measly 137 votes seperating Douglas’s right-hand, GOP go-to guy in the Auditor’s office from Dem challenger Tom Salmon Jr. This means a couple things – one, that Salmon should call for a recount, as I’ve seen more than half that number turn around in a single house district. Two, it means that if just six-tenths of one percent of Martha Abbott’s voters had voted for Salmon instead, Brock’s political career would be over.

Now clearly, if Abbott hadn’t been in the race, it’s indisputable from looking at these numbers that Salmon would’ve won. So although I would rather she hadn’t gotten into the race months after Salmon had already made his intentions known, it may surprise you to read that I’m not all that worked up about it. The fact is that Salmon’s race was so non-existent, it felt almost insulting to me as a voter. Abbott, on the other hand, busted her butt and had a solid campaign. So sure, if I ran the zoo, I’d rather have Brock out and Salmon in, but I aint shedding any tears over it, and can hardly bring myself to blame anybody for feeling so annoyed at having their vote taken for granted by Salmon that they decided to withold it. Candidates have a responsibility to run for the office they float their names for. If they don’t feel the need to, I have little use for them.

But as I’ve said before, if this is the best Brock can do against an opponent like this, Democrats have no excuse not to find a candidate who will actually campaign and bounce him right outta there in 2008.

If you haven’t heard already, Windham Senator Peter Shumlin has returned to his old position as Senate President Pro Tempore, defeating Windsor Senator John Campbell for the post.

Congratulations are due to Shumlin, an able legislator and articulate spokesperson for Democratic values. As I previously diaried, there was reason for optimism and concern had either candidate won, but Shumlin has often reached out to the activist left and has come out in favor of many issues near and dear to the hearts of progressives (such as IRV and state-initiated impeachment options), so there is certainly reason for optimism.

However, Shumlin did earn a reputation last time around for playing political hardball, not only against political opponents, but on occasion against allies as well (such as progressive advocacy groups and some Democratic colleagues). In this era of blogs, citizen journalism and an energized base that expects a bit more from its elected representatives, that sort of thing is not liable to fly. I’m optimistic that Senator Shumlin will be able to step up as a true leader who will respect both his caucus and the voters and help continue the process of making Vermont a national leader in progressive policy.

UPDATE about 5 minutes after I posted this: I’m even more confident now. I guess when I come home and blog, I oughta check my inbox first. Waiting for me was an email from Sen. Shumlin in response to the diary from yesterday, and sent before this afternoon’s meeting where the leadership was decided. It was a great and encouraging email, and I don’t think he’d mind me reprinting this last paragraph:

It is a close race, and I am grateful to John Campbell for running a thoughtful and ethical campaign.  We have done the same. At the end of today we will put our arms around each other and work together.  We have much to do based upon the challenges that Vermont is facing and not enough time to get it done.  Working harmoniously will be our key to success.

Amen, Peter, and welcome back.

At this point, the word is that the Senate President Pro Tem race is a two-man one: Returning Windham Senator Peter Shumlin vs. Windsor Senator and Caucus Majority Leader John Campbell. Returning Chittenden Senator Doug Racine – who will inevitably be an influencial force in the caucus – will not seek the top spot. As you might imagine, behind-the-scenes conversations have been underway for some time, and the scuttlebutt is that the caucus is in a virtual even split.

First a reminder to activists who may consider this discussion overly “inside baseball” or irrelevant; the winner of this contest will have unique power over the legislative agenda. The Senate leader will not have the wild-and-wooly crowd to deal with that House Speaker Symington does, and will be more able to put a stopper on many, many initiatives if he so chooses.

Only a week ago, my own perspective on this matchup seemed completely clear, but after conversations in recent days with a couple people I have tremendous respect for, the landscape seems much murkier. What is clear is that each of these Senators will present unique challenges to those of us who would like to resurrect many progressive priorities that fell – or were cast – by the wayside in the last legislature.

It wasn’t that long ago that Shumlin was the ringleader, and it is likely that he would exercise power in much the same way. Shumlin is unmatched on the stump and in front of cameras as a voice for Democratic values. He is also a proven fundraiser for the caucus and it’s election operations.

Shumlin has also gone out of his way to court the activist wing of the party that would like to see Vermont take more of a lead in progressive policy making. Shumlin was very nearly unique among his peers in his signing of the online petition directing the Vermont legislature to pass a state-based impeachment petition to the US House under Section 603 of the Jefferson’s Manual – an early guide to governmental procedures that was the basis for the so-called Rutland Resolution that – along with the Town Meeting resolution movement, personified by Dan DeWalt – made up the Vermont impeachment movement that became so influencial nationally (man, it’s a shame they don’t give out prizes for run-on sentences! Wa-hoo!). Here is an excerpt from the petition:

Looking good, but Shumlin presents challenges as well. First, he controlled the agenda tightly, letting only a small group of trusted allies in the Senate into his inner circle. He is accused by some outside of that circle of actively marginalizing foes or rivals – even when those rivals were ideological allies.

He is also often accused of being an “operator,” which is a code word for both playing hardball politics with interest groups for support and access, as well as having a tendency to tell others what they want to hear a bit too readily. When the dust settled, he had a solid lefty record, but many advocates will suggest he often had to be dragged into it.

Campbell presents other challenges. He is widely regarded as the most conservative in the caucus, and does not have the reputation of – shall we say – being terrifically receptive to alternate points of view.

It is only fair that I issue a personal disclaimer of sorts here, and in doing so share an anecdote that may actually illuminate the concerns many have over a potential Campbell ascension.

My first election cycle with the Democratic Party was the year Campbell was elected to the state Senate (2000). My primary duty was maintenence and development of the Party’s “voter file’- that database of Vermont registered voters that contained demographic, polling and contact information. I was brought on to do what had been done the year before, basically (a job this last cycle performed by two staffers under, shall we say, far more technologically conduscive conditions). The lists were a disaster and the job was a bear, but what I learned that cycle informed the upgrades and process of improvement the following cycle. This process continued under highly capable guidance after I left, and became fully manifest after the E911 process had finally run its course, and under the regime of the new statewide voter checklist available from the Secretary of State’s office.

But that first year was hard. Despite all the paid professional cleaning and enhancing, as well as the work of a network of about 90 volunteers statewide, mail would bounce back from bad addresses like nothing I’ve seen before or since. There was a period of about three weeks – when several high-quantity Senate mailings went out – that we all had to deal with a cascade of complaints from candidates who looked at the stacks of 10%, 15%, even 20% rates of returned mail and assumed somebody must have blown it.

Generally, it wasn’t the case, and candidates grudgingly came to understand why (particularly hearing stories from officeholders who’d been around longer and remembered when it had been even worse). But I did find one case when I had sent a universe of names to a mailing house that I had inadvertently neglected to run through a standard bad address filter – and that was a mailing for John Campbell. It was depressing, although in retrospect under the rather insane conditions, I’m surprised it didn’t happen more often. I and others in the Party bent over backwards to compensate (within the bounds of our legal expenditure opportunities, of course). Campbell’s response?

He demanded I be fired.

Am I being petty? Sure, maybe. But yeah, you’ll understand that a Campbell regime makes me personally uncomfortable. On the other hand, it’s hard not to consider this a window into his temperment, labor ethic and style.

…and yet, some of the most progressive Senators for whom I have tremendous respect are backing Campbell, and feel confident that he is committed to leading in an inclusive, consensus-driven manner. If this truly is his intent, it becomes a strong argument in favor of his support by the activist left.

The reality? I think it’s anyone’s game right now, but my gut tells me that it’s advantage Campbell by a smidgin. I suspect that in either case, the leader of the Senate is likely to prove to be a challenging hurdle to implementing some of the legislation that progressives and activists are expecting the enhanced, veto-proof majorities in the State House and Senate to deliver on.

So don’t get too comfy. We’ve got a lot of work to do.

Here tis:

With the exception of the early Dem Lite Guv primary poll which had I think 200+ responses, our lil GMD polls never net more than mid-thirties in votes. Even our first poll ever on the 08 Presidential contenders in our first week of existence had 35-ish respondents, and that was back when we had about a sixth of the traffic we do now. I wonder if it’s the same people voting?

There’s little to comment on here with so few numbers and a fairly predictable spread. I would dispute the conclusion that the votes for Scudder Parker are pure sentimentality (as has been suggested in email to me). There are plenty of people who thought this election for Governor was a foregone conclusion, and should be considered part of a two-cycle strategy for building support and name recognition to oust Douglas.

A couple weeks before the election, I ran into my old boss at the Clavelle campaign – former Campaign Manager Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur. She expressed frustration at what she predicted would be yet another qualified, compentent candidate for Vermont Chief Exec who was likely to be trounced by Douglas, and who – like the last one – would likely respond by picking up his electoral toys and going home. “One of these guys has got to stick with it,” she told me (or words close to that… don’t remember exactly). Her opinion came from the historically supportable perspective that first time statewide ballot candidates rarely win – but often do find success when they persist and build up their name recognition and positives over several years. Underlying this history is the real possibility that it may well necessitate back-to-back runs in order to ultimately retake the governorship. If so, by refusing to recognize this and embrace “campaign part two,” Peter Clavelle (and possibly Parker as well?) could arguably serve to set us back a full two years by walking away with an easy acceptance of defeat.

There’s a lot of truth in that sentiment – and quite possibly a lot of wisdom. It’s a perspective the grassroots and the potential ’08 candidates should be considering now – before the legislative session starts in January and consumes all political discussions. Sitting around licking our wounds is for losers, and I, for one, am not content to be a loser.

Here’s the picture: a powerful elite conclude that a specific political leader with a lot of resouces they see as potentially dangerous should be eliminated, and quietly make active plans to do so. When an event captures the public attention, this elite sees an opportunity to piggyback their agenda of regime change onto it and bully their constituency into supporting their plans.

Iraq? HA! You wish…

From The New Republic via MyDD:

Some big name Democrats want to oust DNC Chairman Howard Dean, arguing that his stubborn commitment to the 50-state strategy and his stinginess with funds for House races cost the Democrats several pickup opportunities.

The candidate being floated to replace Dean? Harold Ford.

Says James Carville, one of the anti-Deaniacs, “Suppose Harold Ford became chairman of the DNC? How much more money do you think we could raise? Just think of the difference it could make in one day. Now probably Harold Ford wants to stay in Tennessee. I just appointed myself his campaign manager.”

Where to begin? Now if you’re like me, you may need a minute to pick up your jaw after reading this…and the comparison to Iraq, while cutesy, only goes so far. 9/11 WAS a disaster, and to make his point, Carville is trying to cast the recent election as a Democratic disaster – which is laughable on it’s face.

Who exactly did win last Tuesday? And who lost? Many of the tight races that went the other way were DCCC and DSCC favorite targets such as Tammy Duckworth and Harold Ford. And as has been famously reported, many of the pickups were in races nobody had taken seriously before the polls started turning so dramatically. And if you don’t think that the 50-state strategy wasn’t critical in providing the infrastructure necessary to make the most of that rapid change in sentiment nationwide, just ask the local party leaders in red states where there were Dem pick ups who deserves more of the credit; Howard Dean or Rahm Emanuel.

Well, the hell with that hack Carville, I sez. I’m so tired of beltway insiders (and those who model themselves after beltway insiders) who seem exclusively concerned with maintaining their own status and primacy within an increasingly decentralized (and re-energized) Democratic left they see spinning out of their personal control. And that Carville and his ilk can look at the same election results as the rest of us and cast it as some kind of disaster in the face of all reason, logic and evidence should show us all once and for all what their judgment is truly worth. And we should make no mistake – the extent Carville views Dean as his enemy is exactly the extent to which he views you and me as the enemy, as we all represent the same thing; he and his crowd’s loss of influence, power, respect and credibility. I guarantee you that Carville draws little distinction between Dean and the blog crowd in his contempt. These are the “stay the course” Democrats who believe their own, obsolete model of Democratic power must be propped up at all costs.

As Kos said:

Dean was elected. If Carville has a master plan to stage a coup against Dean, I’d love to see it. But I doubt the state party chairs who provided Dean’s margin of victory are going to get too torn up about the fact that Dean is helping fund their resurgence.

Carville needs to shut the fuck up. If he wants a war, we’ll give him one.

And it won’t be a war that DC can win.

There’s more of us than there are of them.

Amen.

Losers:

• Donald Rumsfeld: The ax has fallen. The press is reporting that Rumsfeld is “Stepping down.”
• Randy Brock: This may sound oxymoronic – sure he won his election (apparently), but by the narrowest of margins against a candidate who didn’t seem to run a campaign at all. I knew people who voted for Progressive Martha Abbott (who ran quite a competent campaign), who weren’t inclined to vote for a Prog, but felt downright insulted by Salmon seemingly believing all he had to do was be named “Tom Salmon Jr.” Brock’s unexpected vulnerability has placed a huge bullseye on him for 2008.
• Vermont Social Conservatives: The social conservative wing of the GOP lost its latest star in Sen. Wendy Wilton of Rutland County.
• State GOP Chair Jim Barnett: Barnett abandoned the House and Senate GOP caucuses to focus on the top of the ticket, and it shows – now that there is a combined, non-Republican presence enough to overturn a Douglas veto in each half of congress… and still, he presided over the painful loss of the US House race. Expect many in the state GOP to begin calling for new leadership, despite Barnett’s gubernatorial backing.
• Bush: Can you say “oversight?”

Winners:

• The Constitution: … or what’s left of it.
• Carolyn Dwyer: The Vermont Dem usual suspect faced her first serious test in running the Welch campaign. Sure, she managed the last Leahy campaign, but that was simply a coronation, rather than a race. Granted, Dwyer got a lot of help from the Rainville operation which ran a staggeringly bad campaign, but she ran a tight, disciplined ship that focused on its goal like a laser beam.
• Senator Leahy: It was Leahy who was largely responsible for bringing Bernie into the Dem Senatorial tent, and Leahy camp operative Dwyer who ran the successful Welch campaign. The Leahy operation only enhanced its influence over the VDP last night.
• Sen. Sara Kittell (D-Franklin): Senator Collins is a winner here too, but Kittell the perennial target in socially conservative, swing county Franklin has survived her strongest, most well-funded challenge to date, and may finally begin to move into local institution status, taking some of the pressure off.
• Bill Lofy: The former Wellstone staffer, State House Communications pro and recent Democratic Coordinated Campaign chief has cemented his superstar status in Vermont. VDP Executive Director Jon Copans has also seen his star rise, given that the vitories last night in the state were significant, and the losses hardly unexpected.
• The 2008 Vermont Democratic Coordinated Campaign: A new US Representative with a ‘D’ by his name means more resources from the national infrastructure than in the past. Expect the structural improvements the Dems were able to fund this year (such as an enviable early vote operation, despite the news reports you may have heard to the contrary) to continue and even improve next time.
• Joe Lieberman: I’m sure Joe is already making his demands known to leadership…

On the Seat of Heat:

• Governor Douglas: Facing a State House that now has the power to overturn a gubernatorial veto (the breakdown is 93 Dems, 49 Republicans, 6 Progressives and 2 Independents), the Governor is going to have to change the way he does business with the Dems.
• Speaker Gaye Symington and Senate President Pro Tem ???: WIth that same enhanced majority, Democratic activists are going to expect many of the progressive priorities that fell by the wayside to be picked up again – and that inevitably includes health care.

There is much, much to discuss after last night. No doubt everyone is nursing their psychic hangovers while still paying rapt attention to the wafer-thin margins that would seem to put the US Senate out of the “stay the course” campers’ hands.

In Vermont, of course, the evening was bittersweet, with Parker and Dunne coming up short – and in the latest tallies, Brock leading the Auditors race by about 1700 votes, which likely means it’s a done deal.

But let’s get right to a ridiculously early sense-o-the-crazy-blogreaders poll, just for kicks, eh? Regular readers have read what I think it would take to beat Douglas strategically, but who would you prefer (at this point) to see carry the Dem torch for governor next election? I’m tossing up a poll to the left that will stay up all week, and while it is admittedly a silly thing to do, it also packages a very serious message – if you’re interested in the job, start laying the groundwork now…

As it stands right now, not only have the Dems more than nearly doubled the number of House pickups to reclaim leadership (and the pickups – Iowa! Indiana! Kentucky! Dean’s 50-state strategy will be rightfully credited with supplying the local infrastructure to take advantage of the national wave…!), but thanks to the razor-thinnest of victory margins (that will be recounted) in both Missouri and Virginia (macaca-no-more!), a victory in Montana for Jon Tester will change the power in the Senate as well (and at the moment, although it’s still early, Tester has a reasonably solid held onto, what turned out to be the slimmest of leads).

Wow. This merits yet another, slightly extended Spongebob victory moment. Watch in stunned amazement, as Squidward’s Republican cousin Squilliam collapses in disbelief at the awesome sounds of celebration…