Per the Rutland Herald:

Progressive Party gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina says he’s in the governor’s race to stay.

In a fiery address at a rally on the Church Street Marketplace in Burlington on Thursday, Pollina called it a “myth” that he and Democratic candidate Gaye Symington will siphon votes from each other and hand the election to incumbent Republican Gov. Jim Douglas.

Pollina, of Middlesex, says Vermont needs a change from the two-party system that has left Montpelier bickering and failing to address the real issues facing state residents.

His announcement is expected to put to rest rumors that he was considering dropping his bid for governor in favor of a campaign for lieutenant governor.

So… press conference to announce… no news?

The Burlington Free Press has a very similar announcement.

Pollina is in a tough spot going into tomorrow’s press conference (see CL’s diary below), as he needs to get his message back on track (after letting it fall apart into garden variety Dem-bashing following Symington’s announcement) lest he again fall prey to the dreaded spoiler narrative. Progressives are even trying to use that previously dismissed term themselves, in order to try and steal some of its rhetorical power.

Which begs the question – what do you think makes a “spoiler?”  

In a two-party system, is any third party candidate potentially a spoiler? What if, like Pollina, the third party candidate gets in first? Does the Major Party candidate on the same side of the political divide then become the spoiler? Does it matter if the third party candidate has no chance in hell? Is it fair to say any candidate has no chance in hell? If the Anarcho-Syndicalist-Marxist-Vegan-Druid-Prius Party put up their candidate first, would the Progs and the Dems then be spoilers for following?

What about Chris’s contention that spoiling is a function of intent? That what may make Pollina a spoiler is the brazen flip-flop from 2000 and 2002, when it was common knowledge that they were hoping for a second place finish and a win in the legislature, versus his insistence now that he never felt that way at all, (and his Dem-bashing scorn for the very idea)? Greenvtster (and others) suggests that by doing such a flip-flop, Pollina is intentionally pursuing a scorched Earth strategy, to guarantee that if he can’t have the prize, nobody on the left can – even if that means sabotaging his own prior strategy.

For my part, the spoiler tag has always made me a little queasy – but if any of the two leftist candidates really wants to avoid it, they should pledge to endorse the second place candidate, should they come in third (assuming Douglas does come in first – likely, but not assured) and throw their own support behind them in an IRV style argument, giving the legislature support to vote Douglas out if he’s short of an actual majority

(NOTE: Gram has an article on this today, which I only just became aware of…. that’s spooky).

Honestly, I’d like to see some letters to the editor on this. Such a pledge from Pollina and Symington would bury the spoiler argument for the rest of the election cycle. And Douglas would have a hard time countering it without looking like a flip-flopper, given that he himself was clearly depending on it as a fallback plan in 2002, had Con Hogan not pulled 60-70% of his votes from likely Racine voters and paved the way for Douglas’s inauguration (boy would I love to find some clips on this…. anyone?)

This all led to the following strategy, which should have proven to Pollina, the Progressives, and everyone else in Vermont what a losing argument it is (in fact I think it did, but they just can’t help themselves at any opportunity to mock Dems in a classic case of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face):

GOP candidates Jim Douglas (Gov), Brian Dubie (Lt. Gov) and their Republican henchman are getting ready to steal your vote. How? By arguing that the person with the most votes does not necessarily win. In Vermont, if no candidate for governor, lt. governor or treasurer gets more than 50% of the vote, the legislature chooses the winner. The last time this process was used to overturn the will of the voters and select a person who did not receive the most votes for governor was 1853. If the Republicans succeed, they will give new meaning to the term ‘take back Vermont.’ Don’t let the Republican make your choice on Election Day meaningless. Your vote is your voice. Write a letter to the editor. Demand that your local candidates for the legislature respect the will of the voters and will support the person that gets the most votes. Tell Jim Douglas and Brian Dubie that you won’t let them steal your vote!

(Full-disclosure repeat… I was all for this at the time as a matter of principle, but I’ve gradually changed my mind, in no small part due to the IRV debate)

Despite commentator/reporters’ energized opposition to the issue (such as that repeatedly articulated by Mark Johnson, with Terri Hallenbeck and Shay Totten nodding in concern-troll-style agreement on Vermont This Week), the press is likely to be of several minds on the issue. Here’s highly regarded (and influential) Randolph Herald editor Dickie Drysdale on the issue at the time:

Reporters and columnists seem to have unquestioningly accepted that democracy and political legitimacy would suffer a body blow if the legislature were to pick someone with the second-highest number of votes.

This is silly. It’s happened before and is likely to happen again with no ill effects. Indeed, the last time a second-place candidate was elected, it was because well-connected legislators knew something the public didn’t know-that the winning candidate for lieutenant governor was about to be indicted for fraud. The independent choice of the legislators saved Vermont considerable embarrassment.

There are other reasons, too, for a legislator to vote for the candidate who does not get the most votes, especially if the race is very close. Voting to support the majority in your voting district seems reasonable enough. It also seems reasonable to try to discern, in a three-person race, what the electorate was trying to say.

Can’t say it more clearly than that.

If we can push Symington a bit, and get Pollina to pull yet another 180… maybe we’ve got something, here.

A no-spoiler election.

Why is Bob Kinzel hinting that Anthony Pollina will announce he is running for Lt. Governor?

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.

UPDATE:  Meg Brooks fuels even more questions than answers when explaining, to Nancy Remsen of the Free Press, that the purpose of today's news conference is “to share how we processed [Gaye Symington's entrance into the Gubernatorial race], put an end to speculation and lay out a path to winning elected office in Vermont.”  When asked which “elected office” that would be, Brooks did not answer. Why, would a campaign manager not acknowledge the office for which her candidate is running? 

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)

Anthony Pollina has two excellent opportunities at this point in the election cycle (although he has chosen door number 3, below). 

1. Run in the Democratic primary for Governor.  Without a primary to clear the field and singularly lead the progressive/liberal voting bloc, Anthony Pollina will ONLY be building on his 9.5% showing from his last gubernatorial run. With a victory in the Democratic primary, Pollina walks away with a built-in 45% that any winner of this year's Democratic primary winner will receive by virtue of being the Democratic/Progressive nominee for Governor. This is a winnable race for Gaye Symington or Anthony Pollina as a gubernatorial primary winner.  A primary battle will help the liberal candidate immensely in drawing attention to a race the GOP incumbent is trying to keep as low key as possible.

For liberals, the race for Governor is a race to September.  ?

Absent a primary (the functional equivalent of IRV for liberals & progressives) Anthony Pollina Will.Not.Win.The.Race.4.Governor. He must clear the field on the left and winning the Democratic nomination is the only way to do that. He needs the Democrats. Simple math, simple politics, simple fact.  Gaye Symington needs Pollina in the Democratic primary if either of them is going to have a chance at winning the governor's race, and Anthony Pollina needs a Democratic primary victory if he wants a chance to be Governor. Simple math, simple politics, simple fact.

Anthony Pollina needs the Democrats and the Democrats need him. Likewise, the Republicans need the Progressives and the Democrats to run in separate primaries and split the vote.  Avoiding a primary in September means avoiding the State House in January for Symington and Pollina.

Alternatively —

2. He may announce that he is running for Lt. Governor.   At this point, it will be hard for any Democrat to join in the race given the political machinations leading to a switch in races.  (Remember Peter Shumlin took one for the team in 2002 and remember how HE was rewarded! Not to worry about that type of situation this year, I bet.).

Advice to Anthony, however, run as a Democrat this once. Your best showing was as a Democrat (almost 40%) against incumbent Jim Jeffords and you've averaged less than 17% of the vote in your two state-wide races (2000 & 2002) as a Progressive.

I'll put a “Progressive Democrat for Pollina” sticker on my rig tomorrow if you make that winning choice. Until we have IRV, which will be a boon for liberals and Progressives and most of all for Vermont, let's work on controlling the State House rather than just running for it. 

Then again, and the winner . . . .

3. Anthony Pollina may do just what Bob Kinzel said in his CYA finish to his story “renew his candidacy for Governor.” Won't that be fun.

So where are we? 

Today we were graced with the opportunity to see a seasoned Pol, someone who has campaigned in three decades and two centuries, Punk the press into showing up for a midday new conference. And what was the benefit to the press? Simple, they were on hand to hear the candidate for governor announce that he is, well, still a candidate for governor.

Hope nobody from the fourth estate called in sick today. 

Two years ago I wrote lyrics and came up with a tune in a grassroots effort to support the Scudder Parker campaign.  “Scudder, Scudder” was penned by yours truly and produced by Amy  Osha.  It was played on WDEV and written up in the Rutland Herald.  This was following the “Scudder, Scudder” debut on Vermont Daily Briefing with assistance from Peasants With Pitchforks.  Hat tip to Philip Baruth for being the first to help to bring out the tune.

Writing a campaign song is a lot of fun, and I would like to help make the musical tradition of politics more evident here in Vermont.  So, if you think this is a groovy idea and you know someone who might put their vocals out for the liberal cause here at home, please contact me. 

Below the fold:  which candidate gets the good vibes this year; the lyrics; a call for collaboration; and contact information.

While I lean toward the independent/progressive side of the political spectrum, I have decided to write a song in support of the candidate I feel has the best chance of defeating Jim Douglas.  For that reason, this song is an anthem for Gaye Symington.

Here are the lyrics.  There's a tune as well, but you'll just have to wait until “I'm Decided” comes out of production. 

I'm Decided On Gaye 

I'm decided on Gaye.
I'm decided on Gaye.
Time is wasting away.
So I'm decided on Gaye.

Douglas, what has he done?
In six years name just one.
Yea, he's cut a lot of ribbons.
Huh, I'm decided on Gaye.

Can we wait 'til 2010?
To get back to work again?
Or put up with Douglas spin?
Nah, I'm decided on Gaye.

I'm decided on Gaye.
Nothing more to say.
Time is wasting away.
So I'm decided on Gaye.

And here's the part where I call on my colleagues at GMD to spread the word about a campaign song looking for a singer.  If you are in a band, or you know someone who is in a band or can strum and sing, I'm looking for you.  Send me a note or give me a call and let's put this little ditty together.  It's a fun project, a great revival of an old campaign tradition, and there's a good chance we can get airtime!

Thanks again for your time and help.  

—
Nate Freeman

natefreeman@gmail.com
  in Central VT:     802-485-4428
  toll free:            888-244-2401