“Liar” accusation of the week. I’ll just raise it up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes. Does the writer have a point?

Hi Odum,

I think your post about the VT secessionist candidates (knitting with one needle) was very misleading. WONDERING is just a blogger for VT Commons and in no way represents the candidates. I am also a blogger for VT Commons and I think WONDERING is off their rocker. To equate the positions of one blogger with an entire field of political candidates is just inflammatory and lazy. VT Commons blog is an open forum (and maybe that’s not a good idea) but what you put out there was basically a lie.

Best, (name removed)

I admit, it occurred to me leaving the name of the sender in might foment a little grief in the ranks, but my better self prevailed. Although I do post emails when appropriate, its not cool to leave the names in.

– gasbag

Cross posted from Border Jumpers.

Zambians take great pride in their local foods and–thankfully for us–many of their traditional dishes are vegetarian.

Pictured here is Danielle trying “nshima” which is a kind of maize porridge and a staple food in both Zambia and Malawi. While not very attractive looking it was both filling and delicious, tasting a bit like mashed potatoes. Nshima is cooked from plain maize, corn meal, or maize flour known as mealie-meal among Zambians.

Eating at the KuOmboko Hostel‘s restaurant in Lusaka, we enjoyed nshima prepared with pumpkin leaves (a delicious vegetable dish comparable to collard greens), cabbage and carrots.

I wish WCAX would pay Research 2000 to run their polls with a real sample size. 400, even parsed out as professionally as the top-notch R2K folks do, is still small, and it leaves us with a 5% margin of error, which just seems too big. Usually, 600 is considered a good floor. Ah well, at least they’re numbers, and I thank WCAX for doing it.

So how do these numbers stack up, and what do they say when juxtaposed against what we now know are numbers from an internal primary poll?

WCAX has, this time, posted most of its crosstabs, meaning I don’t have to go fishing around for them and print them here as I have in previous election cycles with their polls. So here, again, is the link.

First of all, I wish the numbers were better, of course. Statistically, the leading candidates are in a tossup with Dubie, but it’d be nice if that quantum polling edge leaned a bit more our way. The early polls show Dubie ahead against 4 out of 5 Dems – the exception being Markowitz. Although her lead is well within the margin of error, its still bragging rights which should serve to regain much of her lost momentum in recent months. Racine sits behind Dubie at the outer edge of the margin of error – 5%.

That Bartlett lags back so far (18%) is no surprise given her name recognition challenges – and certainly name recognition is going to account for much of what we’re reading here. What may be a surprise is that Dunne trails Dubie in his head-to-head by 8%, while Shumlin trails by 10%. Well within the small polls margin, sure, but that’s gotta be a drag for Shumlin, who has been so prominent in the news of late. On the other hand, Dunne has appeared on a statewide ballot more recently, so that level of recognition is likely in his favor.

Putting Pollina into the mix was an interesting exercise (link), but it seems like unlikely (woops) he’ll run for Governor this time around, so its largely meaningless. His entry does draw down numbers from both the R and the D, but tend to impact the Ds more, even drawing Markowitz’s numbers under Dubie (all of which is still within the margin of error, though – that 5% is a mighty big grain of salt).

Of the three that sit closest together on the polls (Shumlin, Racine, Dunne) one has to call them statistically tied. Here’s where that margin of error also gives you strange results. Racine can be said to be statistically in a tossup with Dubie. Shumlin and Dunne can claim to be in a statistical tossup with Racine – and yet Shumlin and Dunne cannot therefore claim to be in a statistical tossup with Dubie themselves.

Arg. 600 people next time – please?

Anyways… the fav/unfavs give us a lot more to work with:

FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE NO OPINION

Brian Dubie 46% 33% 21%

Deb Markowitz 48% 28% 24%

Anthony Pollina 38% 31% 31%

Doug Racine 38% 30% 32%

Peter Shumlin 33% 21% 46%

Matt Dunne 34% 19% 47%

Susan Bartlett 26% 11% 63%

The good news is, when you compare these numbers to the head to heads, one thing stands out: the more the public seems to know the Democratic candidate, the better they look against Dubie. In Vermont, this trend is likely to continue over time as it generally has with Democratic statewide candidates (the exception being Symington, whose favorables took a big late-cycle crash as folks came to recognize her name, introduced to her, as many were, through the kerfuffle over her tax returns).

Markowitz is the more widely recognized Dem and is the one in the strongest position. On the other hand, she has fewer “no opinions” to work with.

It’s fascinating to me that Shumlin and Dunne have polled almost exactly the same when you look at the head to heads as well as the favorables. It’s surprising, but Shumlin can certainly take comfort that, while he isn’t polling as strong as he’d like against Dubie (or as compared to Dunne), there’s a surprisingly high number of “no opinions” he has yet to be introduced to (at least I was surprised – thought his name was out there a bit more).

In fact, as a ratio, all the Dems favorables-vs-unfavorable numbers track very, very closely. They’re all on the same curve. That’s interesting. On issues, sure they have all been very similar, but they cut very different public figures. What this says to me is that this has as much to do with their identification as partisan figures, as their individual identities as candidates.

This could suggest that the trend this year will be less about individuals – more Democrat versus Republican than Dubie vs whoever. If that holds true, it could also be more bad news for Dubie.

However, Vermont has a tiny voting population, and tiny voting populations turn on a dime. Republicans often win through game-changing gimmicks – video of a bad press conference, poorly released tax returns, etc. They’ll be on he lookout for that.

On the other hand, their own candidate is going to be uniquely vulnerable to embarrassing moments, so they’d best watch out.

How does all this fit in to the leaked primary data? Well, that’s a completely different animal. Here’s a reminder of what we were told yesterday:

Its a poll of likely primary voters and will reportedly show Racine at 30%, Shumlin, Markowitz, and Dunne tied at 16%, Bartlett at 3% and the difference presumably undecided….And the pollsters apparently mispronounced Dunne’s

name as “Dune” – could it have cost him a point or 2?

Name recognition, for one, is going to be closer to universal among likely primary voters – the exception being Lamoille Senator Bartlett who still has to get to know many of the Dem voters).

Primary voters are a smaller – and more dynamic – lot, and they will be driven to support who they think is electable in the general election on the one hand, and on generally progressive issues (especially via constituency groups) on the other. Certainly all the candidates can make the electability claim (although Bartlett would have to speak very theoretically with those numbers on her back), but the WCAX poll could well give Markowitz the boost she needs to start breaking out of that second place primary pack (which she can’t be happy about being in, given the time and money already invested).

What’s interesting is that Racine’s strong showing among Dems cannot easily be written off to name recognition. It says that concerns about the “fire in the belly” passion issue will not be enough in and of themselves to keep him from winning, so his opponents will likely have to start hitting him more directly and specifically if they want to close that gap. With one candidate that significantly ahead of the others, this could well coalesce into a 2-person, rather than a 3-person race as we go through the summer. Markowitz and Dunne both come at the game from outside the legislature – Dunne even from outside Montpelier – which will make it simpler for them to distinguish themselves. Both could be well-positioned to consolidate the non-Racine primary vote and scoop up a lot of those undecideds over the coming months.

Shumlin, as the Senate President, will have to make his case on leadership and gravitas, and will more directly eat into Racine’s numbers if he gets the traction.

Bartlett clearly has work to do.

A big moral to this story? All of these name recognition numbers are already stronger than most of our non-primaried gubernatorial candidates were at this time. That’s only going to increase as the primary further heats up. And as we see above, the more the public knows the Dem, the better they fare against Dubie and that rock-solid Republican 42-46% that he can expect come November.

So as simple as 1+1=2, then, there is no question that this primary is a good thing, and could well play a vital role in a Democratic return to the Governor’s race – so long as it doesn’t get out of hand.

Let’s work hard to be sure that it doesn’t.

Press release from the Speaker’s office:

The Vermont House of Representatives today passed S. 117,  An Act Relating to the Date of the Primary Election.  The bill moves the primary election up from the second Tuesday in September to the fourth Tuesday in August.

The bill allows Vermont to come into compliance with Federal law which mandates the ballots to be mailed to overseas voters-including deployed members of the Vermont National Guard-at least 45 days before an election.  Under current law, Vermont’s primary election results would not be certified in time to meet that requirement prior to the general election

“This bill is about giving our troops who are fighting for democracy the opportunity to participate in democracy,” said Speaker Shap Smith.  “Our troops overseas deserve to have the same opportunity to vote that we have here at home.”

“Not only does moving the primary support our troops, it allows us to comply with Federal law,” said Rep. Donna Sweaney, Chair of the House Committee on Government Operations.  

S. 117 was passed by the Senate last year, 21-7.  The House approved the bill today, 139-6.  It will be read for final passage on Thursday.

GMD has learned that a soon to be released WCAX poll of likely Vermont primary voters will reportedly show the following:  

Racine at 30%,  

Peter Shumlin, Deb Markowitz and Matt Dunne tied at 16%,

Susan Bartlett at 3% and the difference presumably undecided

It may be significant that Matt Dunne’s name was spelled incorrectly as “Dune”

WCAX usually uses Research 2000 polling and the typical error margin is +/- 5%

(Continuing the policy of promoting diaries from officeholders and officeseekers – promoted by odum)

On Friday, the Senate Finance Committee will be voting out a bill about Vermont Yankee’s future. This bill will come to the Senate Floor on Wednesday. The bill asks whether the Public Service Board can grant a Certificate of Public Good to Entergy to continue the operation of Vermont Yankee past its original license, which ends in March 2012.

I will be voting “No” when this bill comes to the floor. I am opposed to the continued operation of Vermont Yankee after the license expires.

Many have tried to reduce this question to a political argument. They say we need cheap power and Vermont Yankee provides jobs that we can’t afford to lose.

The “cheap power” has not been cheap, though — it has come at a great cost, in the form of tons of high-level radioactive nuclear waste stored on the banks of the Connecticut River. This waste will likely be Vermonters’ responsibility for decades to come. The recent tritium leaks have shown us that problems can occur — and tritium is a relatively minor problem compared with the issues that would be associated with spent fuel. Entergy has proven again and again that its profits come first and Vermonters come last.

In terms of the jobs, we must work to ensure a just transition for the workers at the plant. We should include the workers at Vermont Yankee in the discussions about how we transition to a clean energy future, and we should ensure that Vermont is working together with labor to provide retraining and new job opportunities for these workers. They are the front line at the plant with regard to our safety, and they deserve our best efforts to make sure they are not left behind when the plant shuts down.

That’s why my economic development platform includes focusing on Vermont’s strengths, including clean energy jobs, high-tech, and value-added agriculture processing.

Vermont needs a governor who will stand up for Vermonters and not for out-of-state corporate profits. I will be that governor. Vermont must have a clean energy future, and we must have good jobs for our people. This is not an either-or issue. We can have both.

I hope you will join me to move Vermont forward toward a brighter future for all of us.

We’ll need to work together to build a brighter future.

http://dougracine.com/

Cross posted from Nourishing the Planet.

Check out the most recent issue of the journal Science which takes a look at ways to improve food security as the world’s population is expected to top 9 billion by 2050. To best nourish both people and the planet, the journal suggests a rounded approach to a worldwide agricultural revolution by encouraging diets and policies that emphasize local and sustainable food production, along with the implementation of agricultural techniques that utilize biotechnology and ecologically friendly farming solutions.

Burlington Telecom would seem to be in trouble. It has to make a $386,000 payment on the interest on its debt. They’re already in trouble, of course, for dipping into city reserves without repaying them in defiance of their licensing from the state. Now the Public Service Board is saying “no” to their request to do it again, and a court has barred them from using other city money. Doomed? Probably not.

As I said, when the Mayor and the Council Progressives dug in on the issue of transparency and rule breaking, rather than just biting the bullet from the get-go with a “mistakes were made” moment, they upped the ante, making Burlington Telecom itself a partisan issue and putting its continued existence in jeopardy. That has clearly played out to the letter.

But now that BT is synonymous with the Burlington Progressives, it will likely be treated similarly to the now-defunct Vermont Milk Company. So here’s my prediction: A deal will be announced by Friday whereby an anonymous guardian angel “investor” will have emerged to cover the $386,000, and the status quo will live to be fought over another day.

And once again for the record (and as a firm supporter of this kind of public information utility): it should never have come to this.

There is apparently some hand-wringing in the House over the announcement that the Senate will vote on Vermont Yankee next week. Some (including some in the Senate) feel that now is not the time. Here’s why those folks are wrong – perhaps dangerously so:

• Some are arguing that the threat of a legislative vote against relicensure is leverage to be used against Entergy – but leverage for what, exactly? It’s only leverage in looking for a good deal on power. We need to be clear that the only good deal on power from this dangerous plant with its unfunded cleanup pricetag is no deal, and we don’t need any leverage for that.
• Remember: A no vote in the Senate on relicensing doesn’t change the fundamentals of the game board, but it shifts the power dynamics dramatically. Entergy will still have until 2012 to get a yes vote for relicensing, but they’ll have to get the Senate to vote to reverse themselves, while any allies they have on the House side will have become impotent. That’s a far, far bigger boulder for Entergy to push up the hill.
• Vermont Yankee is reeling, but Entergy is a massive corporation with resources above and beyond anything VY opponents will ever be able to bring to bear. All they have to do is play rope-a-dope during their public flogging until the leak is found and public opinion turns, and they will end up controlling the conversation.
• Those easily swayed swing votes in the legislature will only swing our way during a crisis. The crisis is now.
• It could be an entirely different ballgame after the Town Meeting break, as the armies of Entergy lobbyists will descend on Montpelier any day now.
• If the Senate votes no on relicensing, that in no way rules out further action or hearings.

The Senators deserve our full support on this. This is truly a no-brainer.

Take for example, the resume of Richard Heaps which references a research project he did:

The Economic Impact of the VY Station on Windham County and Vermont, February 15, 2008. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee for presentation to the Vermont Public Service Board.

Take, for example, a piece in today’s Brattleboro Reformer:

If Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon closes in 2012, nearly 1,300 jobs will be lost as will the $93 million in payroll income received by those workers.

That was the conclusion of Richard Heaps, of Northern Economic Consulting, Inc. in Westford, in a study commissioned by the International Brotherhood of Electronic Workers Local 300, which represents about 180 employees at Yankee.

So the IBEW did not hire an independent consultant to research this.  They hired someone who already had a prior working history with Vermont Yankee, someone who had recently worked directly for Vermont Yankee.  

To read the Reformer piece, you’d think that Heap’s company, Northern Economic Consulting, was doing a completely independent analysis.  

If, of course, you weren’t paying attention.