| This isn’t about someone’s “right” to a recount, nor is it about what the law allows. The fundamental law of elections is this: control all the variables to the extent you can. A recount is a fundamental ceding of control, and worse, in an open-ended, uncertain way.
There are those who would try an spin an idealized recount as a team building exercise; its not. It never has been and it never will be, as much as we might envision it otherwise. It’s also simply incorrect to suggest that we don’t need time to plan our message or approach because we know Dubie and know how to beat him. It is, in no way that simple.
The biggest fallacy in this argument is that it denies the need for nimble creativity. Winning campaigns have to be deft on their feet and responsive. The campaign plan can’t be a shackle. How to beat Dubie is a variable, not a constant. Such are elections. Freezing the operation needlessly – and in a way it was never frozen during the primary itself – is dangerous.
Also, different candidates need to message in different ways, message against Dubie in different ways, will be hit by Dubie in different ways, and they need to accomodate that. The winner will be altering their staffing structure – and that takes time. There is no one-size-fits-all roadmap.
Additionally, there will be no rapid response, from the Shumlin campaign during a recount, because responsing aggresively will be seen to be “presumptive” by members of the base that are hoping for a different result (and let’s be clear, elections can be won or lost based on the effectiveness of a Communications Shop’s rapid response). This leaves our candidate open to almost anything during a period where people are paying attention because we’ve successfully made them step up and take notice.
During the election, much was made by naysayers that the primary somehow allowed Brian Dubie to campaign unscathed and unfettered until the primary election was over. For a lot of reasons, that was a silly argument to make, but if we take a week or two out of the general election season when we don’t need to, the argument has teeth. For one thing, if there’s no movement in the count as reported when it becomes certified, then we all know how this is going to end up – and that includes Brian Dubie. We may pretend it’s not decided, but Dubie won’t have to, and he’ll be working the whisper narratives, doing the oppo work (that he was likely behind on, since the Repubs seemed to expect their opponent to be Markowitz), even cutting the ads – and all the while, Dubie’s mysterious 12-step program or 15-point plan or whatever stays tucked away, immune from analysis or critique.
I’m fully aware that a recount of 70,000 votes, with an army of eager volunteers ready to engage, will take less time than the auditor recount some years back. And again, if there’s any hint that something’s askew – that a town clerk screwed up or somesuch – then by all means, do it.
If there’s no such sign, I hope the Racine and Markowitz campaigns will take one for the team on this – not unlike the way Shumlin himself did when he agreed to run for the #2 slot, rather than the Governorship, in 2002.
We’ve all been saying that any one of these five would make a great Governor. Let’s show that we meant it. |
Dear Deb, Doug and Peter:
Congratulations on running such an enlightening and interesting campaign. The virtual tie you find yourselves in reflects the great integrity with which you pursued the nomination, making it exceedingly difficult for members of the Vermont Democratic Party to decide amongst you.
While I am disappointed that Matt didn’t get the nomination — I contributed to and voted for him — I am eager to get on board with our party’s nominee and put both my checkbook and body to work toward victory in November.
Given how close the vote was, I know that town clerks and folks in the elections office have been working very carefully to make sure all transcription errors are eliminated. While it is going to be terribly disappointing to be a close second or third, and filing for a recount will seem like a necessary thing to do, the two weeks of uncertainty will, sadly, make the Vermont Democratic Party look bad and provide endless fodder for our mutual enemies.
I would like to suggest that prior to filing for a recount that you ask Chairperson Judy Bevans to convene the Executive Committee of the Vermont Democratic Party State Committee and seek their collective blessing before going ahead.
I ask this of you as someone who is unabashedly for a much stronger party organization in Vermont. Too often the party organization is treated as a necessary evil and merely a funnel for the biennial coordinated campaign. Here is a chance to voluntarily put yourself in the hands of its most respected strategists.
Thanks for considering this proposal,
F. X. Flinn
Quechee, VT
c:802-369-0069
FXFlinn@gmail.com
Hartford JP
Hartford Town Committee (former chair)
I accept the common sense from Odum:
“If the certified total is way off what we were told – in any direction (meaning, if Shumlin is suddenly winning by 300, or by only 80), there’s something wrong and we have a responsibility to recount, as inconvenient as that may be. If the certified total is only marginally different – say, a dozen or two one way or the other – a recount becomes a foregone conclusion; an exercise in futility”
And also strongly agree with Julie:
“UNITY: a recount, if endorsed by Shumlin, Racine and Markowitz enhances party unity. If Shumlin wins, he comes across as a leader and gains the good will of other candidates’ supporters by showing respect for their votes. If Racine wins, he shows himself to have the chops to win even when under serious pressure to withdraw. If Markowitz wins, it produces a very dramatic narrative to support her campaign.”
“…In the meantime, while a recount is in play, we (meaning every Democrat in the whole state) could be working heavily on emphasizing Dubie’s negatives: his invisibility with respect to his current job, his lack of a clear policy and his lack of any sort of unifying vision is something we can continually address.”
As Julie points out, the Salmon recount involve nearly three times as many votes. Point being, re-counting a lesser number of ballots logically shouldn’t take a huge chunk of time and I think it could be done in one, rather than two weeks.
I’d still like to see one; I don’t believe that an ultimate loss would lay in the time it takes to do one, and as Julie said, It produces a great deal of free publicity for the Democratic party for the cycle.
Luckily, we don’t have to vote on this – it’s going to be up to the Shumlin, Racine and Markowitz to decide, (I assume, together)
It’s not like recounts have never happened before, and if the vote total is that close, there is always the chance that a recount would find a different winner.
There is a reason we have recount procedures. If we want our democracy to have meaning, we need to be willing to do the hard work of ensuring accurate counts – so that we can be sure that the winner is the winner. I am not comfortable or eager when it comes to tossing aside, for the sake of political convenience, a procedure whose purpose is to ensure that the “representative” modifier in the term “representative democracy” has meaning. If the top 2 candidates are close enough in votes to call for a recount, by all means, let’s have at it and stop wringing our hands.
BTW – I voted for Dunne, so I have no dog in this fight. I simply don’t want us to create a precedent of waiving an important procedure simply because it’s untidy to follow that procedure.
a recount means fund raising is delayed, a recount places three teams (M,S & R) in limbo, a recount means Dubie has more time to avoid debate, a recount means Dubie wins…. I don’t care who gets certified the winner, its time to unify and move forward around that person ….
This isn’t about choosing straws. It seems to me that we had an election between five great candidates and somebody will be certified as the winner. If the goal is only to be certain that the certified winner really won and should be the Democratic nominee, then a recount is great. However, that goal means Dubie has more time to raise funds and more time to avoid debate. Whoever is certified deserves the chance to move forward against Dubie, not stand idle for a few precious weeks. It will be hard enough for any of the Dems. to win without a recount, and well neigh impossible with one.
Let’s work on dispelling illusions, and standing up for real American values.
Let’s start with talking about the GW Bush values that Dubie was learning about instead of campaigning.