From Nicole Gaudiano at the Freeps:

Vermont’s congressional lawmakers are standing behind the federal funding they secure for home-state projects, even as Republicans and some Democrats wage war on the practice.

Sens. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, and Bernie Sanders, an independent, said they will continue to seek money for earmarks for Vermont projects.

[…]Welch said the Vermont delegation has worked on “some terrific projects” to improve sewers, help local colleges and promote energy efficiency.

“It would be unfortunate to lose the opportunity to help communities that are helping themselves,” he said.

This earmark crusade is so many layers of stupid; earmarks account for a tiny percentage of the overall budget, supporting and funding homestate projects is supposed to be part of a Rep or Senator’s job, etc.

The problem with a bridge to nowhere is not that it’s an “earmark,” it’s that it’s a bridge to nowhere. Why is it so hard to judge these projects on their individual merits?

Of course we all know why. It’s the same psychology at work that went into the “Challenges for Change” nonsense – let the actual policy follow the reactionary soundbite – and then let the all the shrapnel fall where it may.

And the Democratic leadership in Washington (including – especially – the Obama administration) continue to demonstrate how desperately concerned they are about the politics of every situation, even as they demonstrate how incompetent they are at actually understanding those politics. It’s depressing that reactionary soundbite politics trumps all in our political culture these days.

So to Patrick, Bernie, Peter – thanks guys. Thanks for understanding the job you were sent to do and taking it seriously. At present, it’s a losing battle, no doubt, but the projects you guys have funded over the years – and by all rights should continue to support over the coming years – are worth it.

An anecdote to lighten your day.

I was working out in the gym this morning. Two male Norwich cadets came in as well, the first African American, the second Caucasian. I over heard some muttering about needing to do circuit training that they weren’t happy about.

The second cadet: “This is gay.”

The first: “Man, you shouldn’t say that. That’s not OK.” Some more followed that I couldn’t hear beyond the word “friend.” The second cadet gave some very low key acknowledgement and moved on.

Another step in the journey of a thousand, but a good one.

From WCAX:

current State Treasurer, Jeb Spaulding, will take over as Secretary of Administration. Lamoille County Senator Susan Bartlett will serve as a Special Assistant to the Governor. Bill Lofy, a political consultant and one-time staffer for former U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone, will serve as Shumlin’s Chief of Staff. Attorney and gay marriage activist Beth Robinson will serve as Counsel to the Governor. And Alex MacLean, Shumlin’s campaign manager, will serve as his Secretary of Civil and Military Affairs.

Bill Lofy as Chief of Staff is great news. Maclean at Civil and Military Affairs is, of course, a no-brainer, as its the job Vermont Governor’s always give their campaign person.

…but Spaulding? Secretary of Administration?? Whoa. Didn’t see that coming.

In the short term, it puts a conservative economic bent on the administration. Spaulding and Bartlett are both great numbers people (as good as anyone out there, really), but they are both far from the Keynesian side of things and tend to cleave further to the right in their perspectives on budgets, taxes, and governmental spending than many of their Democratic peers. In fact, Spaulding often serves as the token Democrat in Vermont Tiger’s symposiums.

But the obvious question, then, is what happens to the office of Treasurer? Well, according to the Constitution, Governor Shumlin will get to appoint a new one (Bartlett?) to serve until an election can be held (and it doesn’t seem to necessitate that the election has to be held any earlier than it would normally be held).

In case you haven’t heard yet. From the Guardian:

The Burmese military junta has released pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest. The Nobel laureate, who has been detained for 15 of the past 21 years, was greeted by jubilant crowds who had gathered in Rangoon in anticipation of her release.

[…] “If we work in unity, we will achieve our goal. We have a lot of things to do,” she said.

[…] Thousands of people wore T-shirts bearing her image and the words, “We stand with Aung San Suu Kyi”. It is a T-shirt that would have landed them in jail a few weeks ago.

I’m going to second what President Obama said: Aung San Suu Kyi has long been a personal hero of mine, and I’m thrilled beyond belief that she’s free from house arrest. It still bears mentioning, though – she’s been released before under the condition that she stop speaking out and organizing against the military junta. She has always refused to do so and landed back in house arrest. It should also be noted that the junta doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. International actions haven’t moved them from power, but it is clear that the military rulers would like to be able to fully rejoin the community of nations (just as they’ve been afraid to move against Aung San Suu Kyi in a more aggressive way than the muzzle of a house arrest).

The next weeks will be telling, but regardless – for today, this is truly, truly wonderful news.

On Burlington’s much-discussed free weekly, 7 Days: the thing that happens when you produce weird, Beck-esque blog rants, or “bogus polls” that are in-kind contributions to Republicans (followed by the publisher digging in when called out on it) is that people start missing the good stuff you may also be doing.

And the thing that happens when this site has a history of receiving flailing name-calling, being called liars (with a wink-wink-nudge-nudge, rather than using the L word), having potential front page contributors intimidated out of participating, and more along those lines over the years, it becomes easy to miss the really good work that continues to be done over there. Ken Picard, for example, is someone I’ve repeatedly referred to as one of my favorite journalists in the state, and that shows again in his piece this week on the St. Albans-based federal unit that assists immigrants who are abuse victims.

But the real score this week is an article by Andy Bromage which is, frankly, a public service to Vermonters, and is especially relevant now that we’re on the cusp of a firmly Democratic controlled Montpelier. Bromage looks at the growing problem of homelessness in Burlington and comes up with this stunner of a statistic:

Every January, Vermont service agencies participate in the Winter Census, also known as a point-in-time survey, that counts the state’s homeless population in shelters and encampments across the state. In 2008, the number was 2286; today it’s 2782.

[…] That gives Vermont the highest homeless rate per capita in New England

That’s appalling. I suspect one of the reasons we don’t hear more about this is the same reason seemingly groovy Vermont types get all twitchy when racism comes up; its not consistent with the largely non-native driven mythology of what Vermont is supposed to be – and the white, upper-middle class groovy liberal crowd can get pretty worked up about defending that mythology. Of course, in doing so, they allow problems like this to fester.

So the piece is an important read, but it’s not perfect; quite unfortunately, it frames the “problem” in terms of landlords having their houses infested with pesky squatters, rather than the problem of people who are homeless. Still, I suppose that’s writing to the 7 Days audience, so I won’t get too perturbed. It’s still an important journalistic service to get the story out there.

When I was in college, I worked on a report on the differing perspectives on homelessness on the political left and right. It was eye-opening to simply not be able to find any material on the Republican right on the topic. To them, it’s simply a non-issue. With a Democratic Governor, maybe it can become the issue it needs to be.

In part two of the GMD interview with Shap Smith, the Speaker of the Vermont House takes on the prickly topic of last year’s “Challenges for Change” budgetary process (and the conflicts it created), prospects for “permit reform” in the next session, and volunteers his favorite website for staying plugged into the national progressive community.

Speaker of the Vermont House Shap Smith sat down to talk with Green Mountain Daily about the upcoming legislative session and the implications of the new House, new Senate leadership, and the first Democratic Governor in 8 years. Part one that follows is a bit wonky, and deals with the new lay of the land and the upcoming redistricting process.

Part two will get into the tougher topics of upcoming budget demands, permit reform prospects, and last year’s “Challenges for Change” process which so strained the relationships between the Legislature and the Democratic base.

Nearly-Governor Shumlin graciously carved out a few moments to address the GMD community about his thoughts on the election and the tough policy road ahead. At this stage of the game, it’d be a bit much to ask to pin down the outgoing Senate President Pro-Tem on too many specifics, so we stay in the realm of generalities. Shumlin did, though, reaffirm his commitment to such goals as as single-payer health care system for Vermont.

It’s no coincidence that his rhetoric sounded much like President Obama’s rhetoric going into the Presidency. That’s a good thing – after all, it’s good rhetoric. The problem with the way it has unfolded with the President, of course, is that his insistence that all voices will be at the table and that no one group should be expected to get their way turned out to be code for all the folks who are used to being at the table of power will still be there, and you progressives will have to be content being represented by me and trust that I’ll be enough. That, of course, has not worked out too well in terms of policy, and has been a disaster in terms of politics, given the “enthusiasm gap” that followed and the fraying of Obama’s coalition.

So while the similar sounding rhetoric may press a few warning lights, with a little good faith, its likely that both our new executive and his progressive-moderate-conservative spectrum of allies within the electorate can avoid Obamaesque pitfalls going into the next election campaign which, after all, starts virtually right away with a two-year term.

Interview follows the flip:

GMD: First of all, congratulations. Folks like me are always looking for the weak links in the chain, but there really weren’t any in your campaign. How hands on were you in your campaign strategy day to day? Were you and Alex on the same page, or were there occasions when you either deferred to her and the team you put together, or alternatively told them “nope, we’re doing it this way?”

Shumlin: The fact is that I was extrodinarily lucky in choosing Alex Maclean to run he campaign. She pulled this thing off, there’s no question about it. She has incredibly political judgment, she works like a dog, and she has great instincts. We also had help – a really good inner team that worked together well. So there were occasionally times when I said ‘no we’re not doing this,’ and there were times when they told me ‘yes we are.’ It was a great partnership.

GMD: So you must be feeling some extrodinary vindication, here. I mean – you were the rising political star in the late nineties. You want to run for Governor, but in an era with a more rigorously controlled, top-down Democratic Party at the time, you’ve got a desire to avoid a primary and you’re encouraged to run for the Lieutenant Gov spot and let Racine go for gov. You run a good campaign, but see Pollina split the vote against you while Racine comes up short. Next cycle, you start making moves to run, but the establishment sees an opportunity to mend the Prog rift and coalesces behind Clavelle – pushed down a bit more there. Fast forwrd to the 2010 cycle, and Racine and Markowitz get all the nods as being the frontrunners. And after all that, you’re finally ‘da man.’ You must have been feeling a little like the Rodney Dangerfield of the party for a while.

Shumlin: You know, I knew the odds were against me as a candidate. When the legislature adjourned in May, first of all I was tired because, as the Speaker will tell you, it was a tough session – trying to negotiate a budget with Governor Douglas and trying to avoid a veto in an election year was – it was a long haul.

So we then polled it, and what we found in the poll is that I was down 2 to 1 against Deb Markowitz a distand third to Doug Racine. So we knew it was uphill fight just to get into the Primary. We – you know, I’ll be honest with you – there were moments in May where I asked myself if I was making the right judgment in running for Governor. I wrestled with that for about ten days, and then looked at myself in the mirror and said listen, I really want to be Governor. I think I can beat Brian Dubie. I understand the prospects of winning the Primary are not great, but what is there to lose? So we went for it and I never stopped after that day. You know, I worked 7 days a week from 6:30 in the morning to 11:30, 12 at night just pushing.

But you know I think, to answer your question, I understood that any of the 5 would make great Governors. I understood that to get the nomination it was going to be really tough for any of the 5 of us to beat Brian Dubie. We would all be broke. There was all of the (challenge) after a Primary of bringing people together, even when its a really positive Primary. The folks that are real die-hards for a particular candidate have a hard time making the shift, and understandably so. So i knew that whoever wins – one, would have no money and would have a – I dont want to say divided party, but a group of Democrats that might never be enthusiastic no matter who the other nominee might be. And Brian Dubie had a year and a half to amass a million dollars and do a lot of things right, and he’s a nice guy. And the argument that they didnt make very effectively but thought they could have of a divided government is a strong one.

So I thought, whoever won it was going to be a tough battle. I thought I could beat him if I got the chance, but I knew it would be close.

GMD: Okay, now you’re putting together a team, and you’ve brought Bill Lofy back to help, which is terrific news and I hope he’ll stick around. I’m sure you’ll be bringing on some conservative faces – even Republicans – into your administration. Obama caught a lot of flack for that nationally, but this is smaller, more personal Vermont so I wont expect anyone to fault you for that. There will be an eye, I think, in a couple specific areas where the left will probably have an expectation that they’ll be well-represented. First is the economic team. Are we going to see the continuing presence of people like Harlan Sylvester as the drivers of economic policy, or will there be room for the more Keynesian crowd like the Doug Hoffers out there?

Shumlin: Well you know I think there’s room for everybody. I think one of the mistakes that Governors sometimes make on economic policy is by coming up with a very small group of people and thinking that represents Vermont. I mean, its not campaign rhetoric, I’m incredibly optimistic about Vermont’s economic fortunes. I think that we can get jobs as we get off of our addiction to oil and move to other technologies. The other 49 states may not have the courage to make the infrastructure changes that allow us to get those jobs. And I’m not suggesting that we’re going to be, you know, this economic island that’s going to boom when everybody else fails. What I am suggesting is that I think the face of this economic opportunity is particularly well-suited for the Green Mountain State.

If we can get some small sliver of it that we pretty much have not gotten – you know, we pretty much missed the tech boom, pretty much missed the industrial revolution historically. We can get a piece of this one. If we continue to do what we’ve always done, we wont. so my plan is to listen to the people who have helped build jobs in the past and to listen to those who have new ideas, and I think that’s our opportunity. As a businessperson I look at it this way; the businesses that have succeeded in the last 3, 4, 5 years, my own being one of them, are the people that —

When this recession hit, (those that) said “if we do things the way we’ve always done them, we’ll be okay and this recession will pass,” the people who have thought like that are failing. The businesspeople who said lets change the way we do things, we can turn this into an opportunity, but we’ve got to change the way that we do business, they have succeeded. And that’s the sort of way I see the environment – the economic opportunity for Vermont. I think there’s a bright manufacturing future, I think we have a bright ag future – really bright. I think we have a bright renewable energy and efficiency future. I think we have a bright biotech and tech future. And definitely a bright future in tourism and travel, but we’re going to have to do it differently, and therefore the answer is I wont listen to any one group. I want to be as inclusive as I possibly can, but we need new ideas, new energy and new vision.

GMD: You made some big committments on Health Care, and I think you’ve got a strong resevoir of trust in the progressive community on that issue. But what should reformers expectations really be over the first term?

Shumlin:Well, we’re going to get Dr. (William) Hsiao’s work back shortly. I’m going to start assembling in the next few weeks a team of people – I abhor ribbon commissions because they just sit on shelves collecting dust. what I do like is a group of really informed people that can sit around and chart an ambitious course. I’ll be putting that group together. I am convinced that vermont has an opportunity to pass a single-payer health care system that does three things. First, that contains costs so that we’re not spending a million dollars a day than we were before. Second, where health care follows the individual and is not a requirement of the employer. And third, where health care is a right, not a privilege. They’re the sort of pIinciples that i go into this with.

Now, I got a lot of criticsim during the campaign by Brian and frankly a lot of the Democrats over the Primary saying ‘he’s overpromising more than can be delivered.’ And what I’ve said about this health care vision is this is not a promise, its a plan. My promise is that I will work as hard as I can over the next two years to make this happen as quickly as I can. I understand the obstacles. Some people see the federal waivers. My own view is that the federal waivers is the easy part. I think the hard part is designing a system that actually works, and bringing together the players and getting them to agree to change, and making it fast enough so that we dont bankrupt the state, see more and more people lose their health insurance because they cant afford it, keeping the middle class from continually being (inaudible), and most importantly, keep our providers alive. You know, we’re in crisis. We’re losing our primry care providers in Vermont. We’re losing many of our health care providers. Our hospitals are on the brink because of this crazy reimbursement system. Because all the money we’re spending chasing money around, and because of a lack of technology and efficiency in the system. So – its a very ambitious goal, I get that, but I’m going to work as diligently as I can with as many people as we can and get it done.

I think that – let’s put it this way; part of the economic opportunity I’m talking about in terms of infrastructure is cracking this nut. If we can be the state where health insurance follows the individual, where its affordable, and where everybody’s covered. And where we’re sharing –  using technology to reduce costs. Getting rid of the waste – the percentage for insurance companies and bureaucracy – we beat the other 49 states to jobs, because that is the  single biggest challenge. Small business, middle class families – how do we afford the health care increases, 10, 20 30 percent a year? It’s just not sustainable.

GMD: As far as the waivers go – you’ve got some of this wave around the country of Republican Governors that got in. I was just hearing Rick Perry in Texas – arch-conservative – saying the same sort of thing, you know, they want waivers for medicare so they can do their own thing. Obviously their own thing is going to be very different, but do you see some potential for maybe getting together on that?

Shumlin: I do, I’ve already talked to (Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen) Sibelius about this. I had the pleasure of having a conversation with the President of the United States, told him I was going to be looking for three waivers. You know, we just – all I’m saying is I dont think the waivers are the biggest challenge. The biggest cahllenge is designing a system, getting consensus on a system, and passing it.

GMD: In terms of the inevitable cuts your going to have to make. A lot of people – well, virtually your entire base of supporters, really, were unhappy with the “Challenges for Change” approach, which seemed to be pretty arbitrary, and borne from the “drown government in the bathtub” approach, as opposed to a genuine point by point analysis of what works and what doesn’t, letting the numbers lead the policy rather than vice versa. I’m just wondering – that was such a blow-up at the time – what did you learn from the challenges debacle and how will you tackle these issues now that you’re Governor, given that you are going to be looking at these budget challenges?

Shumlin: Well, you know, I’m not shy about telling you when I’ve made mistakes. I’ve made hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of decisions as Senate President which is one of the reasons I was so vulnerable in this camapign. Many of my running mates like Doug Racine and others had similar challenges – we have long records in government. But you know, the (inaudible) for Challenges for Change was a bunch of Democrats who were frustrated that we couldn’t get this administration to manage government better. And we had this notion that if we hired a sympathetic consultant, from Minnesota who – to work with us and this administration – that we could somehow move government to be more productive. To deliver services in a more efficient way by using technology and other simple methods of management. The mistake we made was by thinking we could do it with an administration who wanted to decimate many of the services of state government.

So – it was a good idea that was extraordinarily poorly timed. My goal is to rethink Challenges for Change, to go back to the principles which were to challenge state government, the managers of state government, starting with the Governor, to think of ways to deliver services to customers more efficiently. It was never about cutting services to vulnerable vermonters.

GMD: Will you be staying in touch with the GMD community?

Shumlin: Absolutely. I’m looking forward to being as available and transparent and as honest as any governor has been about what our direction is, what the challenges are. You know, I’ll close by saying this, John; first of all, you provide a really important service… (inaudible, unfortunately)… but second – whoever won this race was going to face some really daunting challenges, I get that.

We have the dual challenges of a tough budget, putting the state back on a responsible fiscal course, combined with making these really bold infrastructure changes – health care, corrections, things I talked about in the campaign. Broadband internet to every last mile. Obviously, growing jobs. Our committment to education, from childhood education to higher ed – the list goes on.

But no one is always going to be happy. We’re going to make tough decisions, we’re going to making things happen. When you do things, sometimes people feel a little shaken up. So our job is to have a really inclusive conversation about the initiatives that your going to see us put forward over the next 2 years. Because the more inclusive we are, the more we communicate, the more we get it right. But its not going to be another two years of ribbon cutting. We’ve got tough work to do, and I look forward to getting to work.

The turnover in power in the US House means the Speakership goes to the Republicans, of course, and it also means that the Dems lose one leadership position. Currently the hierarchy goes: Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn. Losing the Speakership creates a game of musical chairs for leadership, especially since Pelosi has indicated she intends to stay on as Caucus leader and run for the position of Minority Leader in the new congress.

Whither current Majority Leader Hoyer? He’s not willingly going into the night, and intends to run against Clyburn for the Whip spot and maintain his #2 status in the caucus.

Maryland’s Hoyer is known as one of the most savvy wheeler-dealers in the House. He’s also politically aligned with the moderate Blue Dogs, and got into the position with their support. Indeed, although most say he has worked well in the position, he has often made public statements that would seem to offer quick accommodation to the GOP and have been at odds with the more liberal Pelosi’s statements – often at key times on important policy debates, effectively undermining her position. Clyburn, on the other hand, is more of a liberal, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and is generally preferred by both the netroots and other progressive interest groups. A lot of speculation centers around whether or not Pelosi is intentionally moving to squeeze Hoyer out (she preferred the late Rep. Murtha for the position when the Dems rose to power in the House).

Of all the Dem groups that took an electoral hit, none was more damaged than the Congressional Blue Dogs. The resulting shape of the smaller Democratic Caucus would seem to favor Clyburn, but Hoyer has some surprising allies among the House progressive caucus – including Rep. Peter Welch. With fellow prog caucusers Polis of Colorado, Capps and Garamendi of California and Markey of Massachusetts, Welch signed onto a letter (visible here) supporting Hoyer against Clyburn, and a lot of the netroots is left scratching its collective head.

Welch’s backing should surprise no one, even if it is disappointing. Hoyer worked to help Welch win the office against Martha Rainville, and rose to his leadership position precisely because he has gone out of his way to help a lot of members of the House caucus to build up that sort of currency – currency that he once again needs to cash in on to defeat Clyburn.

And yet, in many ways, Hoyer is the very embodiment of old-school, politics-as-usual and is exactly not the sort of face the Democratic caucus needs right now.

But it’s all about personal relationships on the Hill – which, frankly, is the way all human institutions seem to work. So the question is: Welch’s backing of Hoyer – politics as it shouldn’t be, or simply politics as necessary? And if Pelosi truly does intend to squeeze out Hoyer, and feels strongly enough about marginalizing him that she wants to cash in her own currency with Welch (who has been given some plum positions despite his relative newness to the scene) where will that leave our at-large Representative?

In 2010 nationally, self-described “conservatives” made up the highest percentage of the vote since 1984. The electorate was 4% more white than in ’08, 7% less “young” (18-29 year olds), and less “liberal” (by 2%), less “moderate” (by 5%).

We can talk about enthusiasm gaps or whatever, but there is an undeniable fact, whatever the reason: nationally, the 2010 electorate was a different electorate that 2008’s. This was not the same “America” changing its mind, this was a different group of people directing our democracy.

Why didn’t the previous Obama voters show up? You can analyze the particulars all you want, but logic gives us two options: they were unable to vote or they were unwilling to vote. Reason rules out the former.

Everyone saw this coming, as well, hence the aformentioned “enthusiasm gap” narrative. What did the Obama crowd do to get those people who had been their supporters in ’08 but sounded disinclined to rouse themselves to vote in ’10? Pretty much they derided them. Chastised them. Sometimes insulted them.

See how well that worked?

Much is made of Obama and his moderate supporters being “pragmatic,” but there is nothing pragmatic about facing the intractable dynamics of social psychology and thinking that intellectually lazy petulance is an effective way to deal with it. Whatever the combination of communication and actual policy action that was needed to bring the ’08 America back the polls was, it’s clear that a strategy of whining-only was going to be a failure, and the easy acquiescence to the President’s desire to whine is the opposite of pragmatism. It is, as any parent can attest, lazy self-indulgence, and it never gets you what you want. Maybe it did in Rahm Emanuel’s and Robert Gibbs’s houses growing up, but one of the things we liked about this President was that he was supposed to be smart.

The root of the national Democratic meltdown was an easy, arrogant laziness. The “captive constituency” thing. The left will always turn out to vote because they’re not as smart as we are, and besides – who else are they going to vote for?

The lesson here is that it’s not just about who else they’ll vote for, it’s also about who they won’t bother to vote for, whether that’s the way any pundit, politician or supporter thinks they should have behaved or not. This isn’t about how someone or other thinks human groups should behave – it’s about how they do behave.

With an outgoing Republican administration and the resultant fired up liberal base, Peter Shumlin did not have Obama’s problem. He may not have that problem in 2012 either, since it’s likely that the ’08 America will re-engage for the next Presidential election.

But that isn’t necessarily a guarantee in Vermont, which everyone assumes will go for Obama regardless of what he does. There is real potential for apathy there and a Vermont version of the ’10 midterms – in which Peter Shumlin will be on the ballot.

Also, Shumlin’s base isn’t going to give him as much leeway as Obama received. That’s because, now that the drive and focus of the general election is wearing down, lots of those voters are remembering “Challenges for Change,” and are concerned that now Governor Shumlin, along with Speaker Smith and likely Senate Leader John Campbell could feel empowered to deliver unto us some sort of Challenges-for-Change-on-steroids, given the new environment. SHumlin will inevitably do that reachy-outy thing and appoint a bunch of conservatives – even Republicans – to positions in his administration. Lefties in Vermont will be looking closely to see that they are just as well represented in the true positions of power in this administration.

It’s one thing to have the Governor’s office door opened for progressives, it’s another thing whether there’s a seat for you at the table inside, or if you’re just expected to stand around hoping someone will notice that your there. It’s a difference liberals won’t be able to be duped about.

Running and winning elections is about controlling the variables. Shumlin’s progressive base is one of those variables. Obama has showed us the wrong way to control that variable. The right way is obvious: be responsive and respectful of the base, and come through on promises (or at least make honest attmpts to meet those promises). That’s not always easy. It’d be easier to kick back and take the left for granted – deal with them when you feel like you absolutely have to.

Stepping outside what someone like Shumlin may like reality to be isn’t the easy way to do things, but as history has shown, it can be the pragmatic way.

And we like pragmatism on the left.