Isn’t it refreshing to be able to talk concretely about the candidates for Governor so early in the cycle?
So its been months since the Favoritism/Voter File kerfuffle, and by all accounts, all are playing by the same rules and the Welch and Leahy offices are taking care not to get too close to it all. But to say the nascent scramble for the Democratic nomination for Governor has quieted down would be a big mistake.
Deb Markowitz supporters have been out talking down the very notion of a primary (which is so unbelievably wrong – a Primary is the medicine we need – after all, the last few cycles of anointed candidates hasn’t turned out so well… but I digress…). Meanwhile, Anthony Pollina and Doug Racine were spotted Thursday morning at a Montpelier coffeehouse discussing… well, it’s not hard to speculate. Both Markowitz and Racine are raising money (although Markowitz and a more prodigious rate, from all accounts), both have paid staffers (Markowitz a Campaign Manager and Racine a fundraiser). Peter Shumlin has managed to become an almost daily presence in the news, and almost always in a pro-active policy context, rather than playing defense to the Governor. And if all that’s not enough, the topic is also the only political subject anybody wants to talk about.
Still the better part of two years from the election, Vermonters are in uncharted territory. The old rulebook has been thrown out, largely replaced by the rulebook that the rest of the country has been using for some time, and it all makes for interesting observation, speculation and conversation.
I’ve found myself close to supporting a candidate, and then backed off again. It is, after all, very early. Still, I may well gravitate towards a clearer preference, which would limit the number and type of diaries I could really post on the matter. But like everyone, for me its about balancing an equation with roughly four variables; candidates’ stances on policy, how electable the candidate is, how serious the candidate is about the race and questions of character. Sprinkle in to that equation each candidate’s unique qualities (whatever they may be), and you’ve probably got the breakdown of the roadmap we all use – although each of us as individuals weight the value of those variables differently.
So follow after the fold and let’s take a quick snapshot of the four likeliest candidates and where they land in this equation (leaving off character, which is not only the most subjective of all the variables, its also – obviously – a touchier, more complicated one that I’d rather not encourage a flamewar in the comments section about)…
|
Candidate:
|
Bartlett
|
Markowitz
|
Racine
|
Shumlin
|
|
Policy:
|
In the right place on social issues, definitely among the more fiscally conservative of Dems. Early signs are she’d run as someone who could peel moderate Dems back from Douglas, which suggests a run to the right, but isn’t sending clear signals yet
|
No policy record, which is both a weakness and a strength, depending on how she and her opponents play it. Has been telling a lot of folks that she is more conservative than they think, sometimes even sounding a bit apologetic. Focusing on the middle/right end of the Dem spectrum seems to be the early election strategy.
|
Pretty strong lefty policy record (with some deviations) – identifies strongly with small business interests. Already looking to consolidate and shore up the left behind him
|
Has been piling up the policy headlines like a house afire. Will try to shore up the pragmatic, socially-liberal, fiscally-responsible meme with a record of victories and the associated alliances that come with them.
|
|
Electability:
|
Would likely depend on persuasion – that on the issues and in head to head comparisons, she will win over swing voters.
|
Money: Is already on the way to breaking fundraising records (hubbub is she wants to raise a phenomenal $250k by this summer’s reporting period). Looking to raise an amazing $2 million, which would be a massive advantage. Will present herself as a more competent manager than Douglas
|
Math: If he matches his previous numbers against Douglas and Hogan, but can add onto that total from his since-increased electoral clout in the Chittenden suburbs such as Essex and South Burlington (where he runs stronger than any other Senator), it’s over. Most likely to keep a Prog out of the race as well.
|
Has experience with a statewide campaign and will likely try to leverage relationships he’s made through high profile policy battles with the Governor into enough increased support to win.
|
|
Seriousness:
|
She sounds serious, but as Senate Appropriations Chair, has a particularly hard challenge in looking like a candidate until after the session. Will that be too late for her to get involved, or if she’s counted out early, does that create room for an underdog resurgence later – perhaps in the fall?
|
Clearly has a campaign plan and is acting week to week on it. Has called every potential major donor in the state so often, people are starting to chuckle about it (and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing – it’s impressive). Maybe gambling too much on her ability to scare the others out of a primary, where move to the right could otherwise hurt.
|
Has a special burden after previous unsuccessful campaign to show folks he’s serious early, and has not yet done that to the satisfaction of many who have supported him in the past. Further hamstrung by organizational/strategic comparisons to the better-funded Markowitz, although it’s clear he’s in this all the way.
|
Keeping too mum on his intentions at this point to really judge, but is generating more solid press through his position in the Senate than the other three combined.
|
|
Unique qualities (good and bad):
|
Pro: Can have a real no-nonsense, straight-talking quality when she gets going. Could appeal to primary voters.
Con: Only one in the crowd who’s never been on a statewide ballot. Fundraising will be tough
|
Pro: Has a coalition of supporters from the very liberal (Linthilac/Stetson) to conservative (rumor is that Harlan Sylvester is a supporter… interesting if true).
Con: Has been chummy enough with Douglas that many legislators are annoyed.
|
Pro: Uniquely appreciated among both liberal constituency groups and many in the business community.
Con: Has the baggage of his failure to be promoted from Lt. Governor to Governor (and related questions of his toughness) hanging over him.
|
Pro: Best person in the state on the stump this side of Bernie. Can raise a lot of money quickly
Con: Generates stronger negative feelings among his detractors than the others.
|
I’m leaning Markowitz right now, but if Racine can work with the Dems and Progs to unite us all behind a single candidate, that is a leadership skill we need in our Governor. I wonder if he is considering running in both the Dem and Prog primary…
I’m also hoping David Zuckerman will run for Lt Gov as a P/D.
Great summary. I was leaning to Racine initially, but have been impressed by Deb’s execution so far. Definitely holding off judgement though, especially until the issues hit the fan and we can see where each one really stands. Working out an agreement with the P’s would be a strong play, I agree.
Why don’t we see how Shap would fare in the analysis.
PJ
I would add “Previous actions at the state level” to the list of criteria, as actions always speak louder than words. The reason I (and the enormous majority) of democrat school board members abandoned Gaye Symington (and will not support Shumlin) is that they joined the Governor in denouncing school board members as “special interests” and passed the most ridiculous school funding law in the US. They blithely betrayed their core supporters…and Gaye, at least, received the same treatment in return.
Some actions can be excused or forgotten, but being stabbed in the back is not one of them. Your list of criteria are all valid; I would just add track record on key issues as another.
How about a “baggage factor” assigned to each. Be nice to know how much damage the Repubs could do to each before we find out the hard way by direct attacks and allegations.
The only one of the four on this list who is in it for all Vermonters is Racine. The others are in it for themselves and for their limited circle of friends. BTW, they all represent the same circle. If people want a change in Vermont government like we all wanted a change in national government, than Racine is the one. Otherwise we will get another two years of Douglas warmed over.
has the vision thing.