http://bigstory.ap.org/article…

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

Gov. Shumlin and Lt. Governor Phil Scott spoke this evening at the Vermont Rail Action Network annual meeting in Saint Albans. Governor Shumlin spoke first, and gave a rousing speech about rail and cross-border trains and their importance to Vermont’s future economic growth. The food by Twigg’s was delicious, by the way.

The room of about 150 railroad officials, government agencies, and legislators was a little surprised that instead of talking about rail, Lt. Governor Scott focused solely on last week’s election and slammed “Montpelier” for not listening to Vermonters.  I guess this is what the beginning of a 2016 gubernatorial run looks like: No More Mr. Nice Phil.

It was tough for me to sit there and listen to him slam the same people he helped make laws with for years, especially in a crowd that is so happy we’ve continued to find ways to invest in rail infrastructure that has benefited St. Albans and the rest of Vermont. I’m sad I won’t be back there next year to keep pushing for smart investments that will improve freight resources for existing businesses in our state and open up passenger service to millions of tourists from nearby markets.  Our new representative-elect in Saint Albans made it very clear during the campaign that he does not support the revenue increases that made these investments possible. It’s apparently not something we can afford.

I find it hard to be accused of not listening by someone who for the first time in his political life seemed to have gone tone deaf. Just when I thought I was going to put the politics to rest for a while, Phil Scott shocked the heck out of me when I least expected it.  

Scott Milne reportedly is growing less likely to demand a recount in his narrow loss to incumbent Governor Shumlin. It must have become clear to him, after almost a week, that a recount would not give him the more than two thousand votes needed to overcome his shortfall. The final decision in a race this close is required to be decided by the state legislature when they convene next year.  

Commenting to VtDigger.com about his eventful week and the race in general:

Milne said the past week, as he has declined to concede but not decided on a recount, has been fun, and a good learning experience. His status was a hot topic of conversation at his aunt’s 90th birthday party over the weekend. [added emphasis]

Experiential learning may have shortcomings. It is obvious one thing he didn’t learn was, that in the long run it might be wise to graciously accept defeat (however narrow) and conserve hard-won good will accumulated with voters and legislators.  

Milne’s failure to concede after the election and hints that he would lobby legislators’ votes for governor in January earned him a stiff rebuke from a major supporter. Former Governor Jim Douglas found it necessary to publically caution the first-time statewide candidate:

“It would seem to me unlikely that that would be a useful strategy.

[…]  “It would seem to me that the good will that he’s accrued during the last several days ought to be preserved,” said Douglas. “Scott has been well received by the people of Vermont, he has offered an important message and alternative, and I want to be sure that he’s available to offer that again.”

Milne says he was listening to folks and would come up with a plan and wouldn’t be pressing forward if he didn’t see an opportunity to win. He clearly doesn’t seem to be listening to former Governor Douglas.    

As he says, it may have been fun (it sure didn’t look like it), but considering his “strategy” over the last week, I really wonder what it was he learned.  

of the middle class & working poor caused by Shummy shmoozing with his rich VT friends & wealthy out-of-staters as well as his rightwing old-boy club makes him no different than a rightwinger while consigning his base to the bottom of the barrel.

This is why I opposed Douglas & voted against protege Dubie. He is not “teachable” or he would have waited for a possible recount & respected the democratic process to play itself out in the statehouse but instead siezed control though Milne did not concede.

Aside from already being a lawbreaker by dismissively ignoring in statute the law requiring him to release the information needed by the lawmakers to work on the requirements of Act 48 — now this. He has shown his disdain for the rule of law and as such has no business representing those of us who are expected to abide by the same.

Oh, sorry I forgot. With a vetoproof he apparently gets to break the law in VT. Must be a new custom. Forgive me I didn’t get that memo.

Well, this comes as no surprise.

TEPCO,  the energy giant that already came dangerously close to obliterating northern Japan, is now announcing delays in its plans for removing melted fuel from Fukushima Daiichi reactor #1.  We’re talking about clean-up of a meltdown that they initially denied had even happened.

Now, instead of tackling that dangerous mess in 2020, as promised, the company is  pushing back the start date for the effort to 2025.

You may recall that contaminated groundwater surrounding the facility is an ongoing dilemma, with more and more of it finding its way to the Pacific Ocean every day.  I wonder whether anyone has done an estimate on what additional volume of Pacific contamination will result from the delay?

Also delayed by two years are the plans for removing fuel assemblies from the spent fuel pool.  Like the spent fuel pool at Vermont Yankee, that at Unit 1 of Fukushima sits high atop the reactor, leaving it vulnerable both to attack from above and structural failure from below.

The change in plans no doubt reflects equal parts financial reluctance (or inability?) and technical challenge, both of which factors seem likely to worsen the longer the situation remains unresolved.

Nice for TEPCO that they enjoy the privilege of progressing at their own pace.

Former residents of  the Evacuation Zone haven’t had that luxury.  As a group, they are beginning to understand that their homes may never be returned to them.  Even if they are declared once again habitable, why would anyone believe this to be true after such a history of official lies and deceptions?  

Filmmaker Atsushi Funahashi has documented the plight of one small town, Futaba whose residents once could be grateful to Fukushima Daiichi for the economic vitality of their town.  Evacuated in the aftermath of the disaster, they waited and hoped for the “all-clear” that would send them back home, only to learn that Futaba has been slated to become a nuclear waste dump.

“I think this is almost a human rights violation,” said Atsushi Funahashi, director of “Nuclear Nation 2”…”(They) are forced to live in this temporary housing without hope for the future,”

Central to Mr. Funahashi’s film and to the tragedy unfolding in small chapters all over the Evacuation Zone, is the cultural blow that is dealt to any community so abruptly and irreversibly displaced from its foundations.  

In a country where identity and even purpose are engraved so deeply with tradition and a sense of place, the impact of this nuclear diaspora cannot be underestimated. 150,000 people were displaced by the disaster.  

Official efforts at providing emergency housing are now subject to annual review, adding further uncertainty to already disrupted lives.

Some evacuees are tempted with “incentives” offered by TEPCO to return to their former homes.  Even though they doubt the current safety of the area, many will have little choice but to accept the incentives and return to their former homes.

The alternative is to risk losing even temporary shelter,

should the contracts for emergency housing not be renewed.

Even if the political infrastructure can survive all of the environmental challenges that lie ahead, it is difficult to believe that the events that occurred at Fukushima in 2011, due to human mismanagement, have not already permanently altered the social fabric of one of the great civilizations of our era.

Dear Governor Shumlin,

Congratulations on having the Lt. Governor’s race turn out exactly the way you (and Floyd Neese, and Jeb Spaulding, etc.) intended: the Progressives got tagged with the loss, the Democrats didn’t (couldn’t) spend (“waste”) any of “your” money on it because of public financing restrictions, and you got your fair-haired, tame, “nice-guy” Republican for the “we-govern-in-a-bipartisan-manner” photo ops.

Too bad about Corren and the Democratic and Progressive base actually believing in your early “endorsement.” But then again, it's good for politicians and voters to know how much your endorsement is actually worth, since after your early “endorsement,” you went out of your way not to mention the Progressive potential ally on healthcare reform. We also know this tactic as throwing someone under the bus.

While (soon-to-be-former) Free Press political and State House reporters Nancy Remsen and Terri Hallenbeck and Seven Days columnist Paul Heintz have published many pages of election analysis, much of which was likely somewhat reassuring to you, I thought you should hear about the other side of your narrow plurality and the ways in which you, yourself, managed to, as my colleague Caoimhin Laochdha so aptly put it, “suppress [your] own vote.”

There was a split in the Democratic Party between the base that stayed home or symbolically voted ‘none of the above’ for Governor, and the old bulls (and moneyed interests with investments in your campaign fund) who’d rather support a Republican than a Progressive for Lt. Gov. And the pundits (with the notable exception of John Walters at The Vermont Political Observer here and here) are all looking at Dan Feliciano’s five points with “what if” eyes, instead of at the impact of your own faithlessness on voters who would likely have marked their ballots for you, but didn’t.

Just thought you should hear a different message than you have apparently taken away from the too-close election results, and that message is not about pandering further to tax-cuts-for-millionaires Republicans and DINOs. The message I heard in Franklin County — and GMD colleague Caoimhin Laochdha heard in Washington County — was one of disgust with your betrayal of Democratic ideals. Specifically:

==> Most of the folks identified on my call sheets (in a dozen hours of call-time volunteering, about 500 phone calls) as “leaning Democratic” said they would definitely not vote for you, even as they affirmed that they would definitely vote for Congressman Peter Welch.

==> An active Democratic volunteer and member of the County Committee, coming in the door and hearing me ask about Shumlin, demanded, “Shumlin?! Why are you asking about that guy?” with a tone of deep contempt. Answer: because you were essentially funding the operation through the Coordinated Campaign.

==> I talked face-to-face with nearly two dozen Democrats and Progressives over the course of the week leading up to the election, none of whom had voted (if they had voted early) or planned to vote for you. None had/would vote for Milne; most planned not to vote in the gubernatorial contest (with one or two “Let’s throw a few votes Dan’s way”).

This pattern also showed up in Washington County, which is philosophically and economically distant from Franklin County, and it should be concerning to you, Governor Shumlin. After reading the far-fetched post-election analysis from the Burlington Free Press, my Washington County colleague relayed his experience as follows:

It was an undisputed undercurrent in Washington Co. I heard loud and clear from too large a group of people that they either did, or planned to (1) “withhold” their vote for Gov. Shumlin and vote for no one; (2) skip early voting (which I took as uninspired gubernatorial apathy) or (3) vote for Feliciano as a 'safe' protest vote against Shumlin and/or too tweak the Republicans. (Number 3 was the least expressed view, but when you hear it a half dozen times, that's pretty significant). And then let's look at the difference between the Gov. Shumlin and [Progressive Senator Anthony] Pollina and Democratic Senator Ann Cummings, both of whom easily outpolled both Shumlin & Milne in Washington County [Note: the vote totals previously stated here are corrected, below, to reflect a serious transposition error in the number of votes received by Shumlin and Milne in Washington Co. — see vote comparisions in comments below. – cl]. These sentiments, alone, made the difference between Milne barely winning Washington Co. instead of Gov. Shumlin walking away easily with a 2,500 vote advantage

 And as John Walters noted in an email to me:

[Peter Shumlin] got 33,000 votes fewer than Peter Welch, for instance. Between that and the fact that voters returned a very solid D/P majority in the legislature, it's clear that a whole lot of reliably Democratic voters skipped the gubernatorial race or voted for someone else. And that doesn't even count the liberals who stayed home rather than opt for Shumlin.

So the message you need to take away, Governor Shumlin, is not how many Republicans voted for Milne, despite your stubborn protection of the tax-privileged one percent. It’s how many of the Democratic base a) stayed home rather than hold their noses and vote for you or b) voted, but not in the governor’s race (a weird kind of bullet voting that made Milne’s votes count more). It’s how many good Democrats and Progressive allies could not bring themselves to hold their noses and vote for a Democratic incumbent who would rather keep the top-bracket tax payers safe from any tax increase than keep our neighbors and their children from going hungry, shivering under jackets through a cold night, and not getting healthcare or buying needed medicines because they’re in the crack between eligibility for Health Connect drug subsidies and Medicaid or Medicare, and because of the total balls-up mess you’ve made of Vermont Health Connect.

And the message you should get, dear Governor Shumlin, is don’t bother pandering even more to Republicans, who campaigned on some vague concept of “affordability,” knowing in their hearts they were talking about making Vermont more “affordable” for the one percent, not for the rest of us (a version of “trickle-down” economics, which, as we all know, didn’t work for Reagan, Bush One, or Baby Bush, and helped crash the economy). They’re talking about slashing taxes, and thereby requiring cuts in services beyond those you’ve already demanded, resulting in, among other outcomes already mentioned, our neighbors trying to find the money for the property taxes when the Republicans have cut the income sensitivity funds.

The message, Mr. Shumlin, is this: raise the marginal income tax rates two percent for the one percent to fund needed services; stop playing guessing games with universal access, single-payer healthcare funding; and get Vermont Health Connect up and running.

Sincerely,

NanuqFC

 Scott Milne seems to have latched onto a crazy idea. VPR reports:

[Milne] said it’s even possible the votes were counted wrong, and his 2,000-vote deficit could turn into a win in a recount.

"It's plausible, clearly. What we're saying is we're leaving all the options on the table, we're listening to folks, and we'll come up with a plan." – GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott Milne, on the possibility of a recount.

Does he think, “That's so crazy, it just might work!"?  That’s the stock TV/movie trope that occurs in ‘B’ sci-fi and adventure stories. In this trope a character or group that finds themselves in a fast moving, difficult situation with no solution easily at hand will desperately seize on a nonsensical plan and declare “That's so crazy, it just might work!"  And only in the movies and TV shows does it ever work.  

So Scott Milne thinks it is plausible that he can make up a two-thousand vote shortfall in a recount, or barring that, he and a few Republican legislative supporters can persuade the Democratic-majority legislature to install him as Governor. I suppose in a move  akin to Mitch McConnell’s pledge to see to it that Obama fails, he could be planning an aggressive VTGOP strategy, one designed to cast a shadow over Shumlin’s next term and set the stage to win the governorship in 2016.

But there are no Karl Rove style strategists in evidence at his campaign. Milne for Vermont’s staff was made up of the candidate’s immediate family and perhaps five paid staffers. So that strategy seems unlikely given Milne’s past performance.  

Milne is a political novice after all. He awkwardly began his campaign by telling a story about rabbit breeding to an uneasy crowd and continued on a stumbling learning curve. In September his newly hired campaign manager the VTGOP’s man Brent Burns left under a cloud with no explanation about why, saying only, "All the rest is between Scott and I.”. Following that there were reports that the former newspaper editor he hired to write press releases and do research had been fired from a previous job for making up stories.  

Following the claim it is plausible to win a recount, Milne says, “we’ll come up with a plan.” Maybe, after doing better than expected or just angry at losing, he has convinced himself that there is a plan out there just crazy enough to work.

But I’d bet that only on TV or in a ‘B’ movie would it make him Governor.  

Progressives Make Gains

Respectable Showing For Liberty Union Socialists

Radical-Capitalist Libertarians Fall Flat

    Thus far, one of the more interesting aspects of the 2014 Vermont election was the relative strength of the Progressive Party & and the respectable showings of the Vermont Liberty Union Party.  The Democratic Party, in a year that saw record low turnout (43.7%), had a net loss of eleven in the VT House, and two in the VT Senate (and a surprisingly close contest for Governor).  Even so, and even with voting patterns seemingly favoring the right, the Democrats retained a commanding lead in both the VT House and VT Senate. And while the Republicans made some gains (small in the big political scheme of things) the further left also did better than traditional election logic would seem to allow for.

    The Progressive Party (who are essentially social-democrats and who firmly support single payer healthcare) saw a net gain in the Legislature (from eight to ten -seven in the House, three in the Senate). This marks the Party’s highest numbers in the General Assembly since its inception. The Progs, the most successful third party in the nation, also had respectable showings in a number of statewide races (LT Gov: Corren 36.05%, Treasurer: Schramm 17.30%, Secretary of State: Eastwood 14.5%). The Progressive backed candidate for Auditor (Doug Hoffer who, like Dean Corren, also had the Democratic nomination) saw returns that rival those witnessed in Banana Republics; 99.06% (Doug also ran unopposed).  

    The Liberty Union Party (which is aligned with the Socialist Party USA, and who represent a far left, squarely anti-capitalist political perspective) also did surprisingly well in their defeat. In fact this may be their best election (not including the few instances where they won an isolated municipal race) for the Party in their 40+ year history. The Liberty Union, although not winning any contest, received 8.3% for Treasurer (Murray Ngoima), 10.32% for Secretary of State (Mary Alice Herbert), and 3.94% for Attorney General (Rosemary Jackowski).  In the Secretary of State contest, it is not surprising that they were uncompetitive with the Democratic nominee (and landslide winner) Jim Condos (74.75%), but it is almost shocking that they reached double digits and were competitive with the second place Progressive Party candidate (Ben Eastwood).  Beyond the statewide contests, the Liberty Union also captured 13.91% of the vote for Grand Island State Senate (Ben Bosley). Their two candidates for Windham County State Senate, Jerry Levy & Aaron Diamondstone received a respectable 5% & 4.64%.  Not as impressive (but still better than past lows) was their 0.87% or 1,673 votes for Governor (Peter Diamondstone), their 1.74% or 3,347 votes for Lt Gov (Brown), & their 1.08% or 2,071 votes for US Representative (Andrews).  What was impressive was that some LU candidates, such as Andrews, more actively campaigned on their ideas [something that the LU has not done much of in many years]. Perhaps the Liberty Union’s relatively meaningful performance will inspire the Progressive Party to suggest an accommodation with the Party?  The fact that the Liberty Union did not run a candidate for Auditor (against Hoffer) may have been an act of good faith offered from one aspect of the electoral left to another. Or perhaps they simply could not recruit a candidate. Regardless, in a tight race, a few percentage points can be the difference between winning and losing. Splitting the third party left vote seems something less than desirable if a goal is to win.  But then again, the Liberty Union cannot be accused of ever making a fetish of winning.  

    On the opposite side of the ‘third party’ equation, the Vermont Libertarian Party, despite relatively good media attention, articulate performances by Feliciano in the Governor’s debates, and a political buzz, failed to win major party status (which, among other things requires that one or more candidate receive 5% or better in a statewide race).  The Party’s standard bearer (and only statewide candidate), Feliciano, gave voice to a free market capitalist alternative for Vermont, and ended up with 4.36% of the vote. While 4.36% marks the best statewide showing for a Libertarian candidate to date, it failed to be a breakthrough year.  In the fourteen other races it took part in, like the Liberty Union Party, it failed to win any, and it finished last in each.  Given the low turnout, given that the participating electorate in this given year should have leaned more Republican and more conservative (ie older voters who tend to participate in off years, those motivated by distrust of pending government healthcare, etc.), it does not appear likely that the Libertarians will emerge as a meaningful political force in Vermont for the foreseeable future.  Clearly Vermont is not ready to catapult from the most progressive state in the nation, to the most free market based in the nation.  

    Low turnout elections statistically favor the right.  This was a very low turnout year (the lowest ever).  The right (specifically the Republican Party) made some small gains.  The further right (the Libertarians) failed to capitalize. On the left, the Democrats, perception aside, largely held the line. The Progressives made gains.  The Liberty Union did better than expected. If this is the low water mark for voter participation, despite the discussions to the contrary, this would seem to signal looming trouble for the Republicans (and Libertarians) in 2016. Come 2016 voter turnout will likely be 60-70% due to a Presidential contest. If this is the best that the right wing can muster in Vermont, it is a storm easily weathered. The trick for the left is not to let a few noises in the woods spook them away from the path of real reform.  Kill single payer, and kill new attempts at expanding workers’ rights, and come the next midterm election, perhaps more than half the people will once again choose to stay home. And if the Democrats do not want to see their numbers erode further, perhaps they should implement such reforms now, instead of passing bills that achieve them at some point in the future (90% Renewable Energy: 2050, $10.50 Minimum Wage: 2018, Single Payer: 2017). In brief, people need to see improvements now. If not, maybe those who do vote in the next midterm election will continue to move in new directions.    

###

As all in the environmental community awaken to the new political realities that we are facing, Vermont Conservation Voters (on whose board I proudly serve) is wasting no time dwelling on a cup half-empty.

Focusing on the positive in state election results, VCV points out that twenty of the thirty newly elected Senate members, and at least 87 of the 150 House members, received VCV endorsements for their strong environmental voting records and for the opinions they expressed in a pre-election questionnaire.

As analysts and commentators continue to sort out what this election means for health care and property taxes, a deeper look reveals that Vermonters clearly continue to support candidates who value a clean, healthy environment,” said Lauren Hierl, political director of the Vermont Conservation Voters (VCV).

The VCV press release draws particular attention to new senators,  Becca Balint (Windham), Brian Campion (Bennington); as well as to new house representatives,  Amy Sheldon (Addison-1), Robin Chesnut-Tangerman (Rutland-Bennington), Steve Berry (Bennington-4), Chip Troiano (Caledonia-2), Mary Sullivan (Chittenden-6-5), Martin LaLonde (Chittenden-7-1), and Avram Patt (Lamoille-Washington).

All of the above happen to be Democrats, Progressives or Independents, but the non-partisan VCV does not focus on affiliations in its salutory announcement.  

It does, however, single out one new Republican senator for special mention, my next-door neighbor in St. Albans, Dustin Degree:

Dustin Degree, a newly-elected Franklin County GOP senator, said he would support increased funding to clean up waterways in his district. “I pledge…that if elected I will not support a budget that does not set aside funding to clean up St. Albans Bay, Missisqoui Bay and Lake Carmi…We have the money to pay for things that matter – we just need leaders willing to fight to make the priorities of the people the priorities of state government. A healthy Lake Champlain and Lake Carmi are priorities for me, and if given the honor of serving you in the State Senate, I’ll get our waters their day in the State House, and look forward to the day we all swim in the Bay again.”

It is a shame that we have lost three valued voices for environmental responsibility in defeated Franklin County Democrats, Sara Kittell and Mike McCarthy, and Progressive Cindy Weed, but if we gain a new Republican voice for clean water, that will be genuine cause for celebration.

All eyes are on you, Dustin.  Don’t let us down.

It has been tradition in Vermont that the candidate for Governor who receives the most amount of votes is overwhelmingly supported by the General Assembly (who decides on the Governor race if and when any one candidate fails to win 50% +1). But is that the best way for such a decision to be made?  I would argue that no, one instead should look at the total combined votes from all the candidates who make up the broad notion of the center-left (and far left), in relation to those that make up the center-right.  If the political will of the people is to be better represented, whichever camp ends up with a higher percentage (combined) should have one of their own (their top vote getter) put in office.  After all, an election should not be about a specific personality, but it should be about political ideals and values. Perhaps this should be the thinking of Legislators when they are compelled to cast a ballot for our next Governor.  So in this tight race, if we were to apply this logic, who should be our next Governor?  

If one were to consider the center-right candidates:

*Milne-Republican (44.94%);

*Feliciano-Libertarian (4.33%);

And if one were to consider the center-left (and far left) candidates:

*Shumlin-Democrat (46.51%);

*Diamondstone-VT Liberty Union (0.93%);

*Payton-Independent (1.64%);

*Peters (a former rank and file union member)-Independent (0.75%);

And if one were to attribute the last place Cris Ericson vote (0.56%–1,045 votes) simply to the ‘Crazy’ category (neither right nor left)… Who (left or right) won this election?

With the Vermont Secretary of State having 249 of 275 precincts reporting, the center-left won a plurality of 49.83% of the vote, compared to the center-right’s 49.27%; the vote difference being 1,020 (with the left on top).  With such numbers, one also needs to consider that there were only 667 write-in votes, representing 0.36%. Therefore the write-ins, regardless of if they leaned overwhelmingly left or right, do not have the mathematical ability to change the ideological outcome.  So yes, in the low turnout midterm election, it was very close indeed. But at the end of the day, it appears to be a slim plurality for the left. Thus, if the General Assembly agreed with the logic stated above, it would be reasonable for it to elect Peter Shumlin as the top finisher from amoung a left leaning plurality.

This election may be over, and applying this logic or not will, in all probability, not change who our Governor is for the next two years.  But, as we move into a period where the splitting of the left leaning vote between Democrat, Progressive, and Liberty Union becomes increasingly common, and where the right leaning vote, perhaps, becomes further split between the Republicans and Libertarians, it is a logic worth considering.  The important thing is that the will of the people is reflected by the General Assembly when it is called on to seat our Governor. And as a Progressive, I retain confidence that if we, together, work towards real change that betters the lives of working class people, we will continue to win elections.