“It’s dull. Dull. DULL. My God, it’s dull. It’s so desperately dull and tedious and stuffy and boring and des-per-ate-ly DULL.”

The timeless words of Mr. Anchovy came to mind with distressing frequency during today’s broadcast of “Vermont Edition” on VPR. It was a good old Reporters’ Roundtable, with three Statehouse journalists* killing an hour by batting around political stories about Tuesday’s primary and the outlook for the general election. (Guests: Terri Hallenbeck of the Freeploid, Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau, and John Dillon of VPR. Host: Bob Kinzel.) And since there’s precious little suspense to be found in Vermont’s 2012 campaign, the reporters didn’t really have much to talk about.

*Given the diminished status of the Vermont media, a single IED could have decimated our political press corps. Paul Heintz would have been the Last Man Standing.  

Which didn’t stop them from talking, although it was pretty obvious that none of them had much enthusiasm for the task. It was like a group of shoppers in the worst second-hand store in the world — examining various forlorn objects, searching fruitlessly for something worthwhile.

(Although, funny thing, in their rote rundown of the political outlook, they completely omitted some stuff that I find fascinating.)

The biggest problem is the paucity of suspense in this campaign. Barring a huge surprise, the Dems will retain sizable majorities in the Legislature and will dominate the statewide races except for Lieutenant Governor and possibly Auditor. (With all due respect to Cassandra Gekas.) But the reporters couldn’t simply admit this. Tor one thing, it’d violate their false sense of objectivity; for another, they have a professional interest in heightening the suspense. They need stories, and in a time of ever-shrinking news holes, they need to capture the attention of editors and readers. (In that order.)  

So they started by tossing out the question of whether Annette Smith might wield some influence on the gubernatorial race. Well, for starters, the number of Progressive write-in votes is significantly short of Martha Abbott’s — and at least some of those write-in votes will be for other people. So her odds of winning a ballot spot are short indeed.

And even if she does get on the ballot, how much influence will she really have? She has the active backing of a few hundred single-issue voters. She’s never run for office before. And as for the gubernatorial debates, she might be a forceful advocate for her chosen issue, but what is she going to do the rest of the time? WIll she have any answers on health care, education, taxes, economic development, crime, corrections, infrastructure, etc.? I think the debates would expose her, instead of bolstering her cause.

But still, it was the closest thing to potential interest in the gubernatorial campaign that the reporters could find.

They then went down a laundry list of issues, asking the question, “Could _______ be a good issue for Randy Brock?” The answer, generally speaking, was “Maybe.” Left largely unspoken were some fundamental truths about the Shumlin/Brock matchup:

1. Shumlin has huge advantages across the board:  fundraising, organization, and most of all, the fact that he’s done a pretty decent job as Governor.

2. Incumbents never lose, Bill Sorrell’s close shave notwithstanding.  

3. Brock has failed to raise anywhere near enough money to be competitive.

4. Brock has shown no sign of being the kind of dynamic figure that could galvanize the voters.

5. Brock has run a hard-right campaign that will alienate moderates and cement Shumlin’s built-in edge with a left-leaning electorate. (This is a question I wish the panel would have tackled: “Why has Brock run so far to the right, when the only Republicans who do well in Vermont are centrists?”)

So, after ignoring all those salient facts, they dutifully ticked off the other statewide races. They spent a fair bit of time trying to gin up interest in the Attorney General’s race, pretty much omitting the fact that Jack McMullen is a joke of a candidate — even if you leave out the unfortunate Fred Tuttle affair.

There was, generlaly speaking, a curious lack of consideration for the role of money in the campaigns. They mentioned that Beth Pearce had vastly outraised Wendy Wilton, but otherwise the candidates’ relative fundraising prowess was largely ignored. Nobody mentioned Brock’s perilous financial state.

About the only time when the reporters went out on a limb — or, to be more precise, took a single gingerly step away from the trunk — was when they acknowledged that Vince Illuzzi has the early edge in the race for Auditor. They correctly observed that Illuzzi is more politically skilled than Doug Hoffer; but they did not broach the most interesting subject in that race: why the Dems and their donors haven’t done more for Hoffer.

The broadcast wasn’t helped by the fact that the reporters seemed to be walking on eggshells throughout — being very careful not to say anything that might be interpreted as bias or jumping to conclusions. Well, either that, or their natural speaking style is slow, halting, and colorless.

It made for an unrelentingly bland hour of radio. I don’t recommend that you bother catching tonight’s rebroadcast or listening online. You won’t learn much of anything.