Virtually the first words out of Chris Graff’s mouth when asked about the VPR poll on Vermont Edition today? “It is good news for Brian Dubie.” What’d I tell ya?

For the last decade and a half, Graff has been the most predictable voice in the Vermont media. Here I’ve been annoyed by the greater professional media buzz that this election was Brian Dubie’s to lose… I guess with Graff predictably on the opposite extreme, this is so supposed to average things out…?

Snark aside, it’s outrageous that Graff is still turned to as a voice of wisdom in media circles, even though he is, at present, the Vice President for Communications at National Life. How it is that any self-respecting, professional news outlet can continue to put a man whose professional responsibility is to promote the interests of his major corporate employer in the media, into the position of objective analyst of the political landscape is way beyond me. According to a quick search at the Secretary of State’s website, since 2004, National Life has contributed $1000 to the State Democratic Party (in 2008), and $2000 to Republicans, including a $500 contribution to “Republican Victory Committee 2004,” $500 to the GOP’s “Senate Majority Committee 2004” and… wait for it… $1000 to Brian Dubie himself in 2006 (see above diary).

Frankly, if they’re involving themselves in the political contribution game at all that should be enough to disqualify Graff from playing this role in the media. The fact that they have a clear party preference and have financially supported the current Republican candidate in a previous election (again, see above diary) just makes it a borderline obscenity.

(Details on what the National Life spokesman opined after the jump…)

So, what did Graff have to say? Predictable, paper-thin silly stuff. His premise is the super-simplistic idea that Vermont is an all-blue state. It’s not, obviously, as Jim Douglas has owned the position in question for years. But simply from “looking at the Congressional delegation,” Graff concludes that the fact that Dubie is not 30 points behind means he’s got mojo (never mind the fact that head-to-head Rasmussen polls during the primary had Shumlin trailing Dubie consistently by nearly 20 points. If I were writing a Dubie campaign plan last Spring, I’d’ve planned to be at least 10 points up in the polls at this point).

Of course, peppered in between his repeated explanations of why Shumlin is in trouble and Dubie is da man were odd little contradictory disclaimers to hedge his bet (“this is good news for both campaigns”)

But the failures of Peter Shumlin were the theme. You’d think Shumlin would be doing better in southern Vermont… Shumlin needs to do better in Chittenden… Shumlin doesn’t have the name recognition that Racine or Markowitz would have at this point…

That last point was just bizarre and makes one wonder whether Graff really looked at the poll, which showed Shumlin’s name recognition virtually the exact same as Dubie’s (4% unrecognized for Dubie, 5% for Shumlin). At this point, Racine and Markowitz could be doing no better. That much is obvious.

As to how poorly Shumlin is doing in Chittenden County, that’s just silly. Chittenden is Dubie’s home county. He comes from the state’s second largest city – yet Shumlin leads him in the County by 11%. Part of the appeal of Dubie  to Republicans would be his geography, and the potential to offset the Chittenden liberal vote. Clearly it aint working.

The question about southern Vermont is, at least, understandable. But southern Vermont, for purposes of the poll, refers to the “lower four” counties of Windsor, Windham, Bennington and Rutland. It’s northern Vermonter myopia to think these four are anything close to monolithic. Rutland is the biggest, and trends R. Bennington does too, and Windsor is more of a swing region.

Windham is Shumlin’s home county and trends D for sure. In fact, it was the only county that went for Peter Clavelle in 2004 – despite the fact that Clavelle was the popular mayor of Burlington itself. What the numbers from that year (and subsequent years) tell us is that Windham turns out big for Dems – and will likely turn out even bigger for a native son. My guess – and I don’t have the breakdowns, so this is a gut check – is that the 33% of the sample that came from the south likely underrepresented Windham as a percentage of what that regional turnout will actually be in November – which would be good news for Shumlin.

But Graff’s thesis was, in his words, that “clearly Peter Shumlin has not closed the deal” (as though he sonehow should’ve been expected to by now). This is because Graff has a very simplistic opinion of all this that he’s not going to let go of, regardless of the reality staring him in the face. First of all, he’s absolutely insistent that “we should see a democratic candidate doing much better – we dont,” and he blames that on the primary contest, which – as he put it – gave Dubie the “summer off.”

Really – isn’t this line of nonsense long-since debunked? 70,000 people cast ballots in the Democratic Primary. 70,000 That’s an unprecedented level of public engagement at that point in the process.

From March 1 of 2004 to October 15 of 2004, a Google news archive search reveals 274 hits for then Democratic candidate Peter Clavelle. The same period for Scudder Parker in ’06 yields 180. Symington in ’08 (and she was the Speaker of the House), 276. All things being equal, we have some consistency in play, and Peter Shumlin’s hits this year in the same period should be in that mid to upper 200 range. Instead, he clocks in at 368.

What’s the difference? The primary. Duh. And what does that translate to? Higher name recognition, higher voter interest, higher voter engagement. Duh and duh. Compared to polls from this time in the last couple cycles, Shumlin’s name recognition is through the roof.

Thanks to the primary.

But Graff can’t see straight on this stuff. That’s how he can make absurd statements on the radio like this one on the name recognition issue: “no one really knew him (Shumlin) before he won the primary in this big area, Chittenden County.” If that’s so, how did Shumlin walk away with nearly a quarter of the Chittenden County vote in the primary (he carried 23%, to Racine’s 31% and Markowitz’s 24%). Silly.

And while Dubie may have had the “summer off” in Graff’s words, what did he do with it? At two weeks out the last three cycles, Douglas could take a vacation and phone it in. Right now, Dubie is running for his political life.

The other piece of Graff’s dogmatic narrative is that this will all come down to who gets the self-described “independents,” and Dubie is ahead in that department.

Well, the fact is that since we don’t have party registration, all these party labels are, frankly, somewhat impulsively self-designated. I fully expect Dubie to have an initial advantage among that crowd because more self-identifying indys tend to be conservative – especially as the tea party crowd has grown. Having said that, I think, based on the rumors of Dubie’s increasing negatives among this crowd, Shumlin will likely pull even.

But Graff doesn’t really mean “independents.” That’s his code for “moderates.” He – like so many others in his former field, simply as a matter of routine – think this is going to come down to who is the most moderate.

And guess what – he’s wrong on that too.

When a race is this close – and I’m assuming it will stay this close – it comes down to get out the vote operations. Which side has more energy to turn out more voters. Those efforts are largely base driven, and largely turn out base voters. This is politics 101. A nailbiter always turns on turnout efforts, rather than the pundit classes notions of idealized political moderation.

And while the “enthusiasm gap” favoring Republicans at the national level is well-documented, we’re looking at a different dynamic in Vermont, where left-leaning Vermonters are hopping up at down at the first real chance to do away with the Douglas era in nearly a decade. Enthusiasm is very, very high.

So aside from the question of whether or not Mr. Graff should even be playing the role of political expert in the media, the fact is that his perspective is a simplistic reflection of what he wants the election to be about, rather than what it is.

Ah, well. On the other hand, there is one thing I suppose I should be grateful for. At least he’s not among the choir of the more active media crowd who figure this is all Brian Dubie’s to lose. At least I can see where those folks are coming from. Here I was wishing we’d heard the last of that narrative, but I guess you should be careful what you wish for…