UPDATE: The Smith recall petition was filed in the Washington Superior Court Thursday afternoon, and it is anticipated that the recall will be held next week.

I have been asked by the County Clerk for Democratic volunteers for the recount. Anyone who wants to volunteer for the recount should contact their local Democratic (or Progressive, or Republican) County Chair.

Jack McCullough

The state Board of Canvassers has met (again) and certified (again) the results of the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial primary.

Take Two: Martha Abbott 371, Annette Smith 370. The revised tally gives Smith 16 additional votes, thanks to errors in transmitting the results from two towns — Hardwick and Walden.

Smith left the Secretary of State’s HQ as soon as the canvassers concluded their very brief meeting; she wanted to get to the courthouse before it closed, to formally seek a recount.

Meanwhile, VTGOP Chair Jack Lindley represented his party at the meeting and delivered a harsh attack against the whole process. He raised the spectre of a Democratic/Progressive backroom plot to keep Smith off the ballot. His conspiracy theory: Abbott has already said she would withdraw and endorse Governor Shumlin; if Smith is the winner, she might stay on the ballot (she still hasn’t committed to actually becoming a candidate) and presumably siphon some votes away from the Guv. Hence, the Dems have an interest in an Abbott victory.

More details on this later.  

That was the first thought that crossed my mind when I saw this photo:

Mitt’s 6’2″ (viz. Teh Google), so Randy’s, what, 5’4″?

The photo was taken yesterday during Mitt’s folksy little stopover at LaValley Building Supply in West Lebanon, NH (great store, BTW), just a hop and a skip from Romney’s debate-prep HQ, the $3.9 million vacation home of former Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey near Woodstock, VT.

So Randy got to spend “ten or fifteen minutes” with the Mittster — after first getting the full Secret Service patdown and then standing around LaValley’s waiting for Mitt to finish a series of satellite interviews with national TV outlets.

For that, and many other juicy details about what it’s like to be adjacent to a Mitt Romney “availabillity” (Mitt had no time whatsoever for the local press, who were shooed forcefully out of the store by Romney staffers), I strongly recommend Paul Heintz’ account on the Seven Days website. Fun stuff.  

Well, this should be interesting.

Today at 4:00, the state Board of Canvassers will take a second crack at certifying the results in the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial primary. On Tuesday, the Board approved a final tally of 371 for Martha Abbott and 354 write-ins for anti-wind activist Annette Smith. That’s usually the last word in election results.

Not this time. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Jim Condos re-opened the count due to “human errors” and called a special Board meeting for 4:00 today.

And he told the Vermont Press Bureau that Smith’s revised total will be “at least 370.”

Oh boy.

After the jump: Do I have second thoughts?

So after the initial certification, I wrote a diary critical of Smith and Co. for wanting to pursue the issue further.

Was I wrong about that? Yes.

I relied on the Board of Canvassers’ certification as the final word. That’s a pretty safe bet under normal circumstances, but this ain’t normal.

Has an election ever been re-opened after it’s been certified? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this is a first in Vermont political history.

I still believe that the write-in campaign itself was a questionable move: taking advantage of a low-turnout primary to hijack an established party’s nomination. If Smith does, indeed, pull this out, I hope she takes some responsibility for representing the Party as well as her own cause.  

Oh, great. A day after the Board of Canvassers certified the “final” results, and after Secretary of State Jim Condos dismissed any concerns about the final results in the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial primary, he’s now admitted that “human errors were made” in the count.

It now appears that the margin separating Martha Abbott and write-in kinda-sorta-maybe candidate Annette Smith is just a bit closer. It’s unclear exactly how much closer, but Condos says the tally is now within the margin necessary to qualify for a recount.

The Board will meet tomorrow to certify the revised count. After that, Smith can ask for a recount if she wants.

This doesn’t much change my views on the subject. Smith will now be within her rights to call for a recount, and it’ll be fine by me if she does so. But it would be counerproductive to her own cause if she pursues this much further.

And I still think that the whole write-in campaign was a wrongheaded attempt to hijack an established party’s nomination.

I will add one more thing: I hope that, from now on, Jim Condos is a bit more careful about making categorical statements about election results.  

So the votes have been counted, the results certified, and yet Vermont’s Most Reluctant Candidate, Annette Smith, continues her battle for the office she isn’t sure she’s running for.

To recap: supporters of Smith’s fight against wind power threw together a last-minute write-in campaign to grab the Progressive Party’s nomination for Governor. And they nearly pulled it off; in a low-turnout primary with all the attention focused on the Dems’ race for AG, less than a thousand voters took Progressive ballots. The official tally was 371 for the Party’s choice, Martha Abbott, and 354 write-ins for Smith. A recount can only be conducted when the margin of victory is less than 2%. In this case, the margin was two votes above the threshold. So it’s all over, right?

Well, no. Although Smith has still, as far as I can tell, not decided whether she actually wants to be a candidate, she plans to continue the fight against, oh, I don’t know, the Jim Condos/Dem/Prog/Repub/Every Town Clerk In The State conspiracy that’s obviously out to keep her from winning a spot on the ballot and in the gubernatorial debates. She’s even talking about taking the whole thing to court — even as the state faces a federally-mandated September 21 deadline to finalize the ballot.

Their arguments are wafer-thin, irrelevant, and sometimes contradictory. It’s the “throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks” style of reasoning. Some voters wrote in Smith’s name but didn’t color in the adjacent oval. Some voters wrote in her name in the wrong party ballot or for the wrong office. More than 200 voters took a Progressive ballot but didn’t cast a vote for Governor. Some Smith backers somehow believe that their ballots weren’t counted.

Most of which is irrelevant to the outcome. And all of which comes across as more than a bit obsessive. Free advice to Annette Smith and her supporters: concede gracefully and take credit for almost pulling it off. Turn your attention back to the cause you so firmly believe in. If you keep hammering away at this, you’ll risk losing whatever credibility you have in the public sphere because you will look like crazy people.

Now, a few thoughts on the write-in campaign itself.  

Martha Abbott must be a very patient person. Because if I were the head of the Progressive Party, I would have been royally pissed off at a bunch of outsiders trying to hijack my party.

I’m not a Progressive (or a Democrat), but I have lots of respect for the Progs who have fought so long and so hard at the toughest task in American politics: building and maintaining a viable third party. And then a handful of single-issue activists swoop in and try to name one of their own as the Progs’ statewide standard-bearer.

Smith’s backers have argued that since Abbott intended to withdraw if she won the nomination, they wanted to ensure that there was a third voice in the campaign.

Okay. Let’s say I own a car but I’m not using it. Does that give you the right to take it out for a spin?

No, it doesn’t.

The Progressives built up their party through a lot of diligent hard work. They have earned the right to do what they feel is best with their party. A bunch of interlopers do not have the right to usurp the party label, even if it would otherwise go unused.

This is not the best of times for the Progs. The last thing they needed was to have a non-Prog single-issue activist become their public face. It could have done considerable damage to their remaining credibility. And that would have been a shame.  

Well, it’s now official: Bill Sorrell is the Democratic nominee for Attorney General. And Martha Abbott is — barely — the Progessive candidate for Governor.

Last first. Per the Secretary of State’s office, Abbott got 371 votes and Annette Smith got 354 write-ins. (There were a total of 382 write-in votes, but the remainder were for other miscellaneous candidates.)

There has been talk from Smith and her backers possibly seeking a recount, even as Smith herself has waffled on whether she’s actually a candidate. We’ll wait to hear from them, possibly in the Comments below.

Sorrell’s final margin of victory was actually a bit wider than the unofficial count. He took 21,124 votes to TJ Donovan’s 20,410.  

A few days ago I wrote a diary criticizing a Reporters’ Roundtable on VPR for its lack of substance, its overattention to campaign minutiae, and its curious inattention to some actually interesting stuff. I mentioned, briefly, the program’s extremely brief consideration of the Auditor’s race.

Basically, the “analysis” boiled down to Pol v. Wonk. Republican Vince Illuzzi, master politician, gladhanding his way around the state while Doug Hoffer, tight-lipped wonk, sits in his office cranking out position papers.

Or something like that.

Well, I thought that little stereotype deserved a bit more attention.  

First, let’s consider the Pol. Yes, Vince Illuzzi has been involved in Vermont politics for a very long time. He certainly knows his way around the hallways and backrooms of the Statehouse. But is he really a skilled politician?

I say the jury’s out on that one. Sure, Illuzzi has won a fistful of elections, but always on his home turf. Has he ever faced a serious challenge before? And sure, he’s well-known under the golden dome; but how well do the people of, say, Brattleboro or Rutland or even Burlington know him?

Not to say that his experience in Vermont’s little version of the Beltway is unimportant. He’s clearly collected a lot of chits over the years, and that’s given him the early lead in fundraising. But it remains to be seen how effective he’ll be on a statewide stage. I think that Statehouse reporters don’t see that broader picture very well, and they overvalue Illuzzi’s insider cred.

Now let’s turn to the Wonk, Doug Hoffer. Who, actually, is the only one of the two who’s run a statewide campaign. He ran a respectable race against Tom Salmon, a lousy Auditor with the incumbent’s edge and massive name recognition.

And for a supposedly ivory-tower-bound intellectual, Doug is sure pounding the pavement. He’s compiled a chart showing his past and pending campaign appearances around the state, which is truly impressive. (Pardon the formatting, which is due to my own computer-unsavviness. Doug’s original looked much better. But you’ll get the point.)

March 10 Randolph Dem Statewide Committee

April 10 West Glover Orleans County Committee

May 12 Randolph Dem Statewide Committee

May 12 Montpelier Prog Statewide Committee

May 14 Springfield Windsor County Committee

May 21 Rutland        Rutland County Committee

May 26 Essex Jct        Pancake Breakfast prior to Parade

May 26 Barre         Dem State Convention

June 1 Burlington        Aswad / Keogh fundraiser

June 2 Enosburg        Dairy Days

June 12 Burlington        Nurses demo at FAHC

June 12 Burlington        Ch. 17 w/Richard Kemp

June 12 Burlington        City Dem mtg. re. JPs

June 14 Montpelier Dropped petitions & met w/reporter

June 15 Montpelier Met w/VSEA board

June 19 South Burlington Met w/Firefighters

June 23 Rutland         Bernie event

June 24 Weybridge Dem fundraiser (Kunin)

June 30 Waterbury        Parade

July 3 Montpelier Parade

July 4 Bristol        Parade

July 8 Reading        Windsor Co. Ag Fair

July 18 Tunbridge Orange Co. Dem Committee

July 19 Burlington        VDP & Chitt. Co. Dems

July 20 Colchester Ch. 5 Interview

July 21 Burlington Phil Baruth / GMD picnic

July 28 Johnson        Lamoille Co. Field Days

July 29 Richmond        Bernie event

July 29 Ferrisburgh Bernie event

August 3 Brattleboro Windham Co. Dem HQ opening + Gallery Walk

August 4 Highgate       Franklin Co. Field Day

August 6 Burlington       House party (Suzi W.)

August 8 Quechee       Windsor / Orange Co. Dem HQ opening

August 9 Burlington       Fundraiser @ St John’s Club

August 11 Vergennes Addison Co. Field Days

August 12 Barre Progressive Party quarterly mtg.

August 16 Burlington Cass Gekas’ kick-off rally

August 16 Burlington VBSR in the Intervale

August 18 Barton Orleans Co. Fair

August 19 Burlington Bernie event

August 19 Morrisville Bernie event

August 21 Montpelier Community Access TV interview

August 23 Rutland Rutland Co. Dem HQ opening

August 24 Barre Barre Town Democrats barbeque

August 25  Lyndonville Caledonia County Fair

August 29  Burlington Dem Party Unity Event

August 29  North Hero Grand Isle Co. Dems

Sept. 1 Essex Jct. Champlain Valley Fair

Sept. 3 Burlington Bernie Labor Day event @ Battery Park

Sept. 5 Burlington VBSR policy forum (4:00 PM Main St. Landing)

Sept. 8 Montpelier Meet with VT NEA

Sept. 9 Jay Meet with AFL-CIO

Sept. 9 Burlington Bernie cruise

Sept. 10 Burlington Shumlin rally

Sept. 11 St Albans Franklin Co. Dem HQ opening

Sept. 12 South Hero Farmer’s Market & Fund Raiser

Sept. 14 Newport Orleans Co. Dem HQ opening

Sept. 15 Tunbridge Fair

Sept. 20 Waitsfield Dem meet & greet

Sept. 27 Swanton Fundraiser

Looking at this, you might begin to think that Doug actually likes campaigning. Who knows, he might even be good at it. He certainly doesn’t deserve the stereotype so casually attached to him last Friday on VPR.  

Hey, remember that Castleton Polling Institute survey of the Democratic race for Attorney General? The one that came out a week before primary day, and showed incumbent Bill Sorrell with a big lead?

The one that some experts questioned after it was published? Well…

“That’s a case where – I’ve talked about this here with colleagues – it was probably a case where we never should have released numbers,” said Rich Clark, director of the Castleton Polling Institute. “That’s my fault, probably, for putting out the numbers.”

Ah. Oh. Never mind, then.  

The poll, released on August 22, gave Bill Sorrell a 44-24 lead over TJ Donovan with a whopping 31% undecided. Its major flaw, according to Vermont Pundit Laureate Eric Davis, is that it vastly overestimated voter turnout in a late-August primary with only one significant contested race.

I have some sympathy for Rich Clark. The CPI is a new thing, and it’s risen quickly to prominence in a state that doesn’t get polled very much. I hope it overcomes this self-inflicted wound and becomes a stable, reliable source of polling. But this is not good. The result was wildly inaccurate, and may well have played a part in deciding the outcome of an extremely close contest.

My first reaction (as someone who voted for TJ Donovan) was that the poll result may have dispirited his campaign. Since TJ came within 700 votes of victory, the smallest doubt in campaign workers’ minds could have slowed his momentum enough to cost him the race.

Of course, it’s also possible that the poll could have lulled Sorrell’s troops into a state of complacency; if they thought they had it in the bag, they might have eased off in the homestretch.

For that matter, it might have had little or no effect either way. The poll attracted a lot of attention among insiders and political junkies, but how many voters were even aware of it?  

We’ll never know the truth. But it’s an unfortunate incident in the young life of the Castleton Polling Institute.  

Following up on Sue’s previous diary… I was also dismayed by Governor Shumlin’s decision to cut down on the number of debates, but for a completely different reason.

The decision itself didn’t bother me much. Shumlin faces an underfunded and longshot challenger; it’s basic politics to limit the amount of time he shares a stage with Randy Brock. I’d be upset about it if he only wanted two or three debates, but he’s agreeing to at least five or six, which strikes me as an adequate number. Do we really need a dozen or more? (After a while, I stopped paying attention to the seemingly endless Sorrell/Donovan debates.)

And I don’t especially mind that Shumlin only wants media-sponsored debates. I’ve never before lived in a state where gubernatorial debates were sponsored by constituency groups; their absence wouldn’t trouble me much.

So, what did bother me? The Shumlin campaign’s transparently disingenuous bullshit about him being too busy governing to bother with campaigning.

Look, the Governorship is an elective office. Campaigning isn’t a distraction or an annoyance; it’s part of the job.

The Governor serves at the pleasure of the people. That means staying in touch with them and periodically seeking their approval. I get it that Shumlin is trying to position himself as a diligent administrator, but there’s a flip side to the “too busy for campaigning” notion: it lends credence to his reputation for arrogance. That’s not politically helpful.

So there’s my position on debates. Agree to a reasonable number, and I don’t much care where they are held or who sponsors them. But Governor, please stop pretending you’re above politics. You are a politician. Your job is a political one. And besides, you’re good at it. Why run away from it?

A better position would go something like this: Tell us that you enjoy campaigning, but that you have to balance it with the demands of the job. Be visible, both as a campaigner who loves interacting with people (or at least is good at pretending you are) and as a Governor, efficiently conducting the people’s business.

That’s not so hard, is it?

Nice little fluff piece on VTDigger about Vermont Republicans at the national convention. Jack Lindley bragging about screwing over the Ron Paul delegation (he’s hated them since they prevented Mitt from bagging a majority of the Vermont primary vote), Randy Brock working the hallways trying to pump some money into his rapidly-emptying warchest, and an intriguing little item about the difference between the state and national GOP.

You may recall this little convention-preview tidbit from the Freeploid:

You might wonder if [Randy] Brock is worried about how spending time at the Republican National Convention will go over with voters back home where the national Republican scene – including the rise to the prominence of tea party groups – gives some Vermonters the heebee jeebies.

Brock shrugged that off, suggesting he could be a good influence on the national party. “The best way to insure that their side prevails is not to participate,” he said. “I need to be part of that debate.”

At the time, I posed the question, exactly how does “their side” (the tea partiers) differ from Randy Brock’s allegedly kinder, gentler side? Well, here’s the answer, courtesy of one Craig Bensen, radical fundamentalist minister who’s still trying to overturn marriage equality AND who was the chair of the Vermont delegation to the national convention.

My view is that the two platforms are pretty much consistent. The national platform has a lot more pages and specifics, but the broad brush strokes are very similar.

But hey, don’t worry about it, Vermont moderates! The platform is so meaningless, it might as well be written on toilet paper. So says Randy Brock:  

Although the platform represents official party positions nationally, Brock argued that it isn’t really that significant as a political document, especially for the average Vermonter.

“It represents the position in some cases of those so-called ‘base activists’, not really relevant to those of us here in Vermont,” said Brock, who added that Vermont Republicans have been an “independent breed” and a moderating influence on a more right-wing national party platform. “But some underlying issues in the platform, particularly the size and role of government, and the need to revitalize our economy, are things we’re in closer alignment on.”

Profiles in Courage. Brock admits that the VTGOP stands with the national party on financial and budgetary issues, regulation, taxation, and giving the One Percent even more leeway to do what they want. (Hey, that’s the national GOP’s entire economic program, right?)

As for what makes Vermont Republicans an “independent breed,” not a clue. You might assume that the VTGOP is less stringent on social issues… but Randy doesn’t say so. And the party did choose Craig Bensen to lead their delegation — a significant honorific for a fringe character whose focus is entirely on social issues.

And about Randy’s claim that the VTGOP is a “moderating influence,” well, the available evidence suggests that the VTGOP has about as much influence as a fart in a windstorm.

And I’m still waiting to find out how the VTGOP differs from the national party.