As I always say, “with great bandwidth comes great responsibility,” and as such, I’m delighted to be partnering with the Vermont League of Conservation Voters to help pump up excitement and turn out voters through the votegreengov.org project (Yup… I’m consulting for ’em… full blogger disclosure). Over the next couple days, you should start seeing us all over the web. I’ll be collecting stories and testimonials from early voters and clerks… I should be tweeting and blogging and… vlogging again – and that means the return of my zannel channel, resurrected from days of covering the Democratic National Convention, lo those many (two) years past! Here’s the first installment.

How can you get involved? First off, check out our Facebook page. Did you send in your early vote ballot today? Did you talk to someone about the election? Encourage them to vote? Let us know about it on FB, or drop me an email at vtgreenvoter@gmail.com. Have your own video? Drop me a line at that email and we’ll get it posted on the zannel channel.

And head over to votegreengov.org and take the voter pledge! Over the next few days, the site is going to change dramatically and become more interactive (not to mention the daily new vlog posts from me and Zane), so check back often – particularly next week when some great new opportunities for you to help get out the vote should become available.

So – keep in touch and VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! (not three times, but. you know what I mean).

It’s too serious around here lately, let’s have some fun along the lines of this pointless diary from last year.

Consider that archaic vestige of ye olde loyaly oath to the crown that we still practice: Vermont’s Voter Oath (formerly entitled the Freeman’s Oath, a name replete with offensive subtext). Remember it or not, this is the oath we all had to take when we first registered to vote in the state. It reads:

“You solemnly swear (or affirm) that whenever you give your vote or suffrage, touching any matter that concerns the State of Vermont, you will do it so as in your conscience you shall judge will most conduce to the best good of the same, as established by the Constitution, without fear or favor of any person.”

So to be allowed the privilege of voting (hrumph. As if we should have to jump through an utterly pointless hoop to exercise our fundamental rights as citizens in a Democracy…but I digress…), you offer a legal oath promising that you will only vote in a way you “judge (in the) best good of (Vermont).” Now to be clear, that’s not Vermont the geographic position on a map, but Vermont as defined in the state Constitution – that document which tells us what Vermont is as a political entity.

Consider: a secessionist candidate runs on the premise that Vermont as defined in that Constitution as one of 50 states in the USA is a bad thing and should be eliminated, to be reconstituted as an entirely different entity with more-or-less the same name. In other words, the secessionist goal is to destroy Vermont as we (constitutionally) know it.

Now it seems to me that it is a naked contradiction to suggest that destroying something is conducive to its best good.

Remember – this is an official document. Vermont means something specific in its context. You don’t get to make up your own definitions of specific, legal terms in legal documents. So, does voting for a secessionist candidate by definition, therefore, break that legal oath? Would it thereby be an illegal act?

And to be clear – I’m not advocating this as a cause, just I wasn’t really concerned when I asked if the statue of the ancient greek goddess Ceres atop the State House was a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. This is just a mindgame, and if nothing else, makes the point that anything smacking of a “loyalty oath” should be consigned to history’s dustbin, just out of principle. Frankly, if somebody wants to use their own vote to vote in a way they judge to be the worst interest of Vermont, that’s their own business.

Well lookee there. That’s what I get for reading funky text files when I’m mad.

Note below that I indicate that National Life gave $1000 to Brian Dubie in 2006. So sorry, I misread the report… turns out the contribution wasn’t to Mr. Dubie specifically after all. Here’s the email I received from National Life Corporate Spokesman Chris Graff (who doubled today as objective elections analyst) who just happens to see the recent poll from VPR as good news for the GOP standard-bearer (emphasis added):

John

Please correct your posting: national life did not and has not contributed to Brian Dubie.

The link you are showing is a contribution to the state GOP committee.

Chris

Not just “did not” but “has not” too. Wow. That’s like a double… not, even.

Well, consider it corrected, Chris. As long as you’ve got my email address, perhaps you can drop me an additional line responding to the actual susbstance of the criticism; that a Vice President for Communications for a major corporate interest in Vermont that dabbles in campaign contributions (with an apparent party preference) really has no business playing objective political analyst in a mainstream media context with no disclaimer whatsoever.

Of course, if you feel that’s really a criticism of VPR (and VPT, as you do fill in on Vermont This Week from time to time), I’d say that’s fair. Honestly, it’s hard to really hold it against you if these professional news operations are simply going to open the door for you.

In any event, consider the record corrected. Somehow, I don’t think it helps your case any, though.

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…

More from the VPR report. far as down-ticket toplines go, Democratic/Progressive candidate for Auditor Doug Hoffer is leading incumbent Salmon by a 38%-34% margin. CORRECTION: The VPR website had this flipped and have since corrected it… Salmon leads Hoffer 38%-34%. Bummer.

Also good news is the fact that Democrat Jim Condos leads Jason Gibbs in the Secretary of State race by 3 points: 39%-36% (still within the margin of error).

Steve Howard is lagging Phil Scott, 41%-32%. (Link)

VPR has provided a link to the report on its Mason-Dixon conducted poll in a downloadable format (credited as “VPR Vermont poll”). Definitely some interesting results. As many predicted, Phil Scott has a comfortable lead for Lieutenant Governor, but Jim Condos is ahead of Jason Gibbs in the SoS race. Strong positives for Leahy and Welch, indicating Vermonters like the jobs both are doing.

Also, Dubie has stronger positives than Shumlin, but not by a large amount – and Dubie’s positives are under 50%, which is great news. “No opinions” and “don’t recognize” responses of the both of them are virtually ically the exact same, so those final votes are completely up for grabs.

Here are some results from the link:

Senate: Leahy 62% (fav/unfav=61/23), Britton 27% (fav/unfav=19/7). For the curious, Freilich 1%.

US House: Welch 61% (fav/unfav = 61/17), Beaudry 25% (fav/unfav = 19/11)

For the following two races, only favorable/unfavorables are currently available. Head to heads are presumably coming. When those numbers are released, expect Scott to have a sizable lead over Howard, and Condos to have a statistically meaningful (if not huge) lead over Gibbs.

Lieutenant Governor: Scott fav/unfav = 29/11, Howard fav/unfav = 19/5

Secretary of State: Condos fav/unfav = 20/9, Gibbs fav/unfav = 17/10

The full Governor spread:

Brian Dubie, 44% (fav/unfav = 47/31)

Peter Shumlin, 43% (fav/unfav = 41/37)

Ben Mitchell, 1%

Cris Ericson, 1%

Dan Feliciano, 1%

Em Peyton, 1%

Dennis Steele, 1%

Undecided  8

Click here for my more or less accurate prediction and (therefore, more or less meaningful) analysis of the results. You can also tune in to Chris Graff on Vermont Edition, who will doubtlessly tell us that this is all good news for Dubie, because Vermonters love Dubie (because Jim Douglas has been teh awesome!), and the numbers probably don’t really show how far ahead Dubie really is.

UPDATE: VPR reports the first of it's results, and it is a statistical tie, well within the 4% margin of error: Dubie 44 – Shumlin 43. Independents are reportedly leaning Dubie, but if I heard right, Dubie's negatives are higher than Shumlin's (I heard wrong – see diary above for details). Maybe all of this is not what we'd prefer to see, but it's not good news for Brian Dubie and the Republicans who aren't used to being in a fight and the predictions/analysis below is more or less relevant given the results, so I'll let it stand. Sounds like undecideds are even lower than I expected at 8%. Rebumping the diary to the top.

Whether you'll think tomorrow's VPR-commissioned poll from Mason-Dixon is good news or bad news largely depends on what sort of expectations you're proceeding under. While we don't get the numbers until sometime tomorrow, we can take a look at the buzz in the media and on the streets, the limited previous polls and combine that with what we know about Vermont voters and make some pretty good guesses.

First of all, here's the Shumlin-Dubie polling to date, going back into the primary (and via pollster):

Pollster Dates N/Pop Dubie Shumlin Other Undecided Margin

Rasmussen 9/13/10 500 LV 46 49 2 3 +3D

Rasmussen 6/17/10 500 LV 55 36 6 4 +19R

Rasmussen 3/18/10 500 LV 51 33 6 10 +18R

We witnessed a peculiarly unique phenomenon when the Rasmussen poll came out; all the analysts and pundit-types falling all over themselves reminding us how unreliable Rasmussen is (this is usually the blogs' job, given that Ras skews R). Why the sudden skepticism? Because the conventional wisdom promoted by the conventionally wise is that this race is “Dubie's to lose.” Since that last poll didn't back that wisdom up, it becomes unreliable.

But Ras was basically right – this race is close, and the Mason-Dixon poll will also show a dead heat, well within the margin of error (which is roughly 3.9%).

So here's what we're going to see in tomorrow's results: Whichever candidate comes out on top will only be leading by 1 or 2 percentage points, and that means dead heat. It almost doesn't matter whether Dubie or Shumlin ends up leading, because this thing is that tight. Undecideds will be in the 10-15% range, leaving both candidates in the low-mid 40s.

All of which will be good news for Shumlin. 42-44% is the historic statewide Republican base vote. If Dubie has no more than that at this point, he needs to be worried. To get a sense of the dynamics underway, look to the self-identifying independents. When Republicans win at the statewide level, these voters break their way, but according to reports, Dubie campaign internal polling has shown his negatives rising among this group.

Dubie needs to show a statistically meaningful lead among this group. If he and Shumlin are even tied, it suggests a bad trend for the Lieutenant Governor, and implies positive momentum for Shumlin (even though Shumlin's negatives will no doubt be higher than we'd like). If this turns out to be the case (and I expect the indys will, in fact, be a clean split), Shumlin has good prospects as long as he has a strong GOTV operation (and doesn't do anything stupid). 

Not good enough? Want to feel even better about the poll? Then check out this hot-off-the-presses report from Pew Research suggesting that the oft-discussed cell phone gap in polls like this one could be skewing results as much as 4% towards Republicans… 

On the day before numbers from the recently completed VPR/Mason Dixon poll on the Governor’s race are expected to be released, there’s lots of hubbub in circulation – some reliable, some a bit more sketchy.

In the reliable department, word is that I’m not the only one who reckons that Mr. Dubie is hurting himself with a slash and burn campaign that is devastating his nice guy image – so are Republicans. All across the GOP hierarchy, there are concerns that Dubie has pushed too hard, too aggressively, and with too little regard for the truth, and that it may well be costing him.

Where I was wrong in my earlier piece – and this is where it gets more interesting – is that, according to insiders, Governor Douglas himself is among those urging Dubie to chill out (which blows my own theory that Douglas was in some degree of control of the Dubie campaign). Douglas reportedly expressed concerns that the negativity is distracting from the Secretary of State race and the Lieutenant Governor race, and that it could lead to an across the board backlash.

Turns out there are many people who work for the Governor and are active in his political circles who are still scratching their heads as to why Dubie hired an out-of-state political operative (Corry Bliss) to run his campaign in the first place, given the availability of local GOP election veterans such as Neale Lunderville, Dustin Degree, Kate Mitchell, Denise Casey and others. At the time, Dubie indicated he wanted “the best,” which didn’t go over well at the Republican Party and the Gov’s Office.

Few are happy with Campaign Manager Bliss, who many in the GOP feel has already permanently damaged the tenor of Vermont elections (privately, some in the media are saying the same thing, although they won’t come right out and say that, mired as they are in the false equivalence nonsense they use to shield themselves from the dreaded charge of “liberal bias”). Republican insiders continue to be concerned as Bliss spends unprecedented amounts of money on nasty ads, while allowing Dubie’s debate performances to be increasingly embarrassing.

And (unconfirmable) word is that they have reason to worry; Dubie campaign internal polling reportedly shows his negatives increasing among Vermonters identifying as independents. Think that Pinocchio ad from the Shumlin campaign was tacky? Maybe, but it sure scared the GOP crowd.

What’s even more eyebrow-raising is another rumor that should be taken with a few grains of salt, given the degrees of separation. A political insider sympathetic to the Shumlin campaign (but in no way associated with the Shumlin campaign) indicates that their source within Dubie’s campaign reported that Brian Dubie’s wife is unhappy with the nastiness from the Lite Guv and considers it unchristian (presumably given his trashing of the 9th Commandment’s rule against bearing false witness).

True? Who knows. Sounds iffy for sure, although the source is a good one, I must say.

But one thing is for certain: all is not smiles at Camp Dubie, and a lot of people on every side are holding their breath in anticipation of those upcoming poll numbers…

Less than a day after the momumental court ruling invalidating the Pentagon’s infamous “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy (which has resulted in a higher rate of gay and lesbian expulsions from the military than the unqualified ban on homosexuals it replaced), 19 US Senators have signed a letter urging the Obama Justice Department not to appeal the decision (ht FDL). If Attorney General Holder does not appeal to the 9th Circuit, the ruling will stand, and DADT will be expunged, once and for all – a goal President Obama has repeatedly claimed to support, but has done nothing to advance.

The signers make up an interesting (and encouraging) ideological range, from liberals like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, to conservadem Mary Landrieu. Our own Bernie Sanders signed the letter. So did neighbors Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) and Chuck Schumer (NY).

So where’s Senator Leahy?

I have an email into his office, and will update with any response. Since Soapblox isn’t letting me put anything after the flip today (grrrr…), you’ll have to click here to read the full text and see the list of signers.

UPDATE: From the office of the Senator:

While heading the Judiciary Committee he has refrained from telling DOJ how to manage specific litigation and DOJ has an obligation to uphold federal law.  He agrees with the District Court decision on unconstitutionality.  And as you know he is an original cosponsor of the legislation to repeal DADT and supported bringing it to a vote last month, but it was blocked by a Republican filibuster.

Sounds fair enough.

Re-election tool number one on Jim Douglas’s shelf was a doozy; his nice guy image. You have to remember, Jim Douglas never ran his actual campaigns as a nice guy going all the way back to the nastiness he threw against Patrick Leahy when he thought he wanted to go to Washington, but he managed to rewrite the book on himself with his folksy mannerisms and the electoral free pass he received from the Democrats in the late nineties when he was Treasurer. There’s nothing like an unopposed statewide election for having free rein to redefine oneself.

But Douglas never pushed the nasty envelope so far as to threaten that image. He was helped mightily in this by the elections calendar, which crammed the primary election painfully close to the general, as well as the mythology among the Democrats and conventional-wisdom purveyors such as Garrison Nelson that party primary contests were signs of weakness and sure tickets to defeat (of course, we have clear proof in Vermont now of what the netroots has always known – primaries energize voters and engage both the media and the non-partisan public far earlier and allow the winner to amass far more name recognition far earlier).

So, history would therefore suggest that since Dubie also had the nice guy narrative on his side, that this, too, would be his best tool for taking the Governorship. In fact, Dubie had that vibe stronger and more widely spread across party lines than Douglas ever did.

But right out of the gate – before the Democratic primary was even decided – Dubie not only went slash and burn, but he’s done so by repeatedly telling outright lies. Here’s the candidate popular with the conservative Christian set stomping all over the 9th commandment (8th if you’re RC or Lutheran) with a sort of casual abandon (Shumlin will release child predators, his phony “list of offenders” set to be released by Shumlin, how VT’s property taxes compare to other states, there was no collaboration on the RGA television ad, IBM will leave VT if Yankee closes, etc… boy we need a comprehensive list, don’t we?).

Even worse, when repeatedly called on these lies by the media, Dubie repeats them, digs in, and runs more attack ads trumpeting them further. The result has been the nastiest Vermont statewide campaign in memory, and that nastiness driver has clearly been “nice guy” Brian Dubie.

So one thing is clear; however this election goes, Brian Dubie’s “nice guy” image will not be a factor, because, for all intents and purposes, the Dubie campaign has destroyed that image utterly, once and for all.  

Win or lose, Dubie has become another example of lying politician in the eyes of all but his most hardcore supporters.

This image flip in and of itself is not enough to lose the election for him, but it does beg the question; why would the Brian Dubie campaign trash his best campaign asset?

The answer is twofold. One: as soon as national GOP election hack Corry Bliss was brought on board, it was clear Dubie was ceding control of his campaign to national Republican interests, channeled through Jim Douglas and his connections at the Republican Governor’s Association. These days, those national GOP electioneers have only one setting; smear, attack, destroy. It’s all they know how to do, and it’s all they have any interest in doing. It’s a one-size-fits-all strategy that, frankly, has served them well over the years – even if it’s shown signs of petering out over the last election or two nationwide.

Two: Brian Dubie is apparently not a very strong personality. As evidenced in this video from vtdigger, he is simply going where he’s ordered and doing what he’s told – and is either unwilling or unable to consider the ethical ramifications of running a sleazy campaign, or to take charge of his own operation. Neither option suggests qualities of strength, vision, or leadership – and those deficits are starting to show to even casual observers.

When facing the scariest economy since the Great Depression – an abyss into which Vermont has yet to fully fall but is teetering dangerously – the Republicans offer us an empty suit that is already being remote controlled by partisan, ideological interests who know next to nothing about Vermont, and couldn’t care less about it. That is scary, and that is a message Vermonters need to hear.