Vermont Megathread

[KaiserDave]

Takeways

-Governor's race is all but Safe R. Scott is not only running above 50%, but Zuckerman is BELOW 30%. That's atrocious for a Democrat and a sitting Lt. Governor. This race is pretty much over barring school openings being a publicized disaster, even then no less than Likely R.
-Phil Scott is a titan (but we knew)
-As Roll and I suspected, the Lt. Gov race IS a contest! Milne is only 4 behind Gray. However, I give Gray the edge. The number of undecideds is substantial (and they should probably break for her), and her name recognition being low may be her only issue. However, I expect this race to be in single digits. Lean D.
-Scott has a better approval than Leahy (who has a good one), Bernie (an ever better one), Welch (who has an okay one), and Trump (who has an abysmal one).
-Scott BEATING Leahy in a hypothetical senate matchup 41/38. Leahy unlikely to run (age 80)
-Most Vermonters OPTIMISTIC about their futures, believe people should STAY in Vermont
-22% polled want Vermont to consider secession lol

I have a feeling Scott might get Baker numbers in November.

[KaiserDave]

If Phil is beating LEAHY then he definitely has a strong chance against anyone else. Nationalization of the race would hurt him and he would have to constantly bring up that he wouldn't vote with the Republican senators most of the time.

I think a lot would depend on the composition of the Senate. If Dems have a 52 seat majority he’d be better off than a 50-50 one.

Also, I don’t think we should discount what him beating Leahy means. Leahy is a Vermont giant and an icon who’s been in the Senate since the 70s. If Phil can beat him in a poll I think he can beat generic D.

Edit: Let me clarify that Scott would no way beat Leahy, but, if he can beat him in a poll, he could beat Generic D in an election.

[KaiserDave]

If Phil is beating LEAHY then he definitely has a strong chance against anyone else. Nationalization of the race would hurt him and he would have to constantly bring up that he wouldn't vote with the Republican senators most of the time.

I think a lot would depend on the composition of the Senate. If Dems have a 52 seat majority he’d be better off than a 50-50 one.

Also, I don’t think we should discount what him beating Leahy means. Leahy is a Vermont giant and an icon who’s been in the Senate since the 70s. If Phil can beat him in a poll I think he can beat generic D.

Edit: Let me clarify that Scott would no way beat Leahy, but, if he can beat him in a poll, he could beat Generic D in an election.

Chief imma be honest  Im not a fan of Scott at all but he handled covid better than any governor in the country and will likely be reelected by a lot but Zuckerman will definetly get better numbers than Gonzales in 2018 hes running a decent campaign and hes got Bernies endorsement but also Claiming Scott would beat Leahy cause he lead him by 4% with almost a third of the electorate undecided that third would break hard for Leahy when it would become clear what a republican seat in the senate would be Leahy or whatever d replaces him if he retires would win something like 55-45 against Scott theirs no way their voting for Scott in a federal race unless the D is Coakley levels of bad lol Scott wont run for Senate former governors hate being senators anyway and he knows his odds even in a biden midterm are only like 10-20%

Reread what I said, I expressly said he cannot beat Leahy. But could potentially beat Generic D.

As for Zuckerman overperforming Gonzales. Yeah he probably will. But if this poll is accurate...he's doing pretty awful no matter how decent his campaign is. He can't even get 30%. If this poll is accurate and undecideds split evenly it's 62 for Scott and 37% for Zuckerman which is very similar to MA GOV 2018 (67 Baker 33 Gonzales). Even if Zuckerman wins undecideds decisively, which I think is very unlikely it's 59 for Scott and 41 for Zuckerman. This race is over.

And Bernie's endorsement in gubernatorial elections has not been that effective. He endorsed Minter and Hallquist too. Didn't help them. Sanders/Scott voters

Edit: I don't know if Scott will run for Senate, but he's definitely got legislative experience. He was a State Senator for over a decade, he's not a solely executive type.

[KaiserDave]

0% chance Scott wins a senate seat even in a Biden midterm. The McConnell/Trump brand is too toxic.

I think 0% is overstating it. Phil is currently the most popular politician in Vermont, more so than Leahy and Bernie. If he's facing, let's say Timothy Ashe for Leahy's seat in 2022 in a Biden midterm, and Phil runs even to the left of his gubernatorial campaigns, he could win.

And let me clarify than in a 50-50 Senate, I wouldn't vote for Phil unless he was running Independent, and even then maybe. Mitch McConnell can never be allowed to even breathe power ever again. Say Democrats over perform and get a 53/47 majority, then I may support him as a Republican.

[KaiserDave]

If Phil Scott is beating Leahy in a poll, then he can beat another Democrat in a poll. It does not mean he can beat a Democrat in an election. Vermont is not electing a Republican to the US Senate.

Vermont has only elected one Democrat to the US Senate.

Just some food for thought. This is no sure thing in any direction. Is Phil Scott an underdog? Of course. Could he win with some conditions. Yes he could.

Edit: Vermont's got a lot of really elastic areas. Stowe township in Lamoille county for instance will give Phil Scott and Bernie Sanders 60% of the vote at the same time.

[KaiserDave]

I know it's been done to death on this forum, but there's relatively recent precedent for this sort of race between a popular R governor and Generic D in the form of HI-Sen 2012. Linda Lingle was probably the most popular governor in the state's history, had tons of money, and was polling within striking distance of the Democrats in summer 2012 (i.e. not two full years out) and in the end she still lost by 25 points to Mazie Hirono, even though she had beaten Hirono in 2002 to become governor in the first place. I realize that Hawaii and Vermont are different in many ways, but they are similarly partisan and intractable on the national stage.

I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of times R governors can get away with great approvals in hyper D states (or vice versa) because Ds in those states have a lot less to lose. After all, Hawaii or Massachusetts or Vermont residents will never ever have to worry about losses on the state level on important issues like abortion, so R governors in those states have the built in crossover appeal of being forced into moderation along with near unanimous approval from Rs, who are just happy they're finally being represented. As soon as those governors head to D.C., though, they have to answer tough questions about those same hot button issues, which are suddenly relevant, and assuaging those concerns is a tall order when at the end of the day being elected as a Republican means you're beholden to Republican leadership. I could be wrong, I suppose, but my instinct is that Scott knows this and won't run, and if he does run I have a hard time seeing how he doesn't go the way of Lingle. After all, Scott would probably have to outperform Milne by at least 15 points in order to *maybe* eke out a victory.

So there's a lot here I agree with and a good deal I don't.

As for the Hawaii comparison its a fair point. But Vermont has been faithfully reelecting Republicans until 2006. Before Bernie is was Jeffords (R), before him Stafford (R), and before him Prouty (R) and before him many more Republicans.

Hawaii to my knowledge has never elected a Republican to the Senate, nor was it ever as reliably, or at all Republican as Vermont. Vermont has along running traditions of New England Republicans, in a way Hawaii hasn't.

As for the issue of hot button issues and national GOP leadership, I'll answer in two parts.

Firstly that Scott hasn't hesitated to comment on national topics. He said he supported the impeachment inquiry, then he said Trump should have been convicted and evoked Romney's reasoning, then he endorsed Bill Weld over Trump. He declared after Justice Ginsberg's tragic death that the winner of the election should appoint her successor, and he publicly opposed the GOP attempts to repeal Obamacare and signed a law restoring the individual mandate. On national issues he's no stranger to taking the right side.

As for reconciling the need to work under crooks and lackeys like McConnell, Cornyn, and Graham you make a good point. That I believe is a valid point, and the biggest argument against his success. But still, he could be elected. I'd be interested to see how far he would go in distancing himself from those fellows.

[KaiserDave]

Scott 2028 for president? Time for a moderate republican hero?

Unless the GOP does a complete 180 from its ideological movement since 2008 (or arguably since 1980). No. Scott is strongly pro choice and has taken many moderate to liberal positions.

[KaiserDave]

If Phil Scott is beating Leahy in a poll, then he can beat another Democrat in a poll. It does not mean he can beat a Democrat in an election. Vermont is not electing a Republican to the US Senate.

Vermont has only elected one Democrat to the US Senate.

Oh come on. The last Republican to win a congressional election in Vermont was Jim Jeffords in 2000. This factoid is fun but it speaks more to the length of Patrick Leahy's career and the weirdness of Bernie Sanders than to anything profound.

Well, you coulda quoted the rest of my statement. There is very little evidence to say that a Scott-Not Leahy Candidate would be a Safe D matchup. Really? Where is this evidence? Leahy would beat Scott yes, I can believe that. But where is the evidence that Scott has no hope against anyone? It doesn't exist.

[KaiserDave]

If Phil Scott is beating Leahy in a poll, then he can beat another Democrat in a poll. It does not mean he can beat a Democrat in an election. Vermont is not electing a Republican to the US Senate.

Vermont has only elected one Democrat to the US Senate.

Oh come on. The last Republican to win a congressional election in Vermont was Jim Jeffords in 2000. This factoid is fun but it speaks more to the length of Patrick Leahy's career and the weirdness of Bernie Sanders than to anything profound.

Well, you coulda quoted the rest of my statement. There is very little evidence to say that a Scott-Not Leahy Candidate would be a Safe D matchup. Really? Where is this evidence? Leahy would beat Scott yes, I can believe that. But where is the evidence that Scott has no hope against anyone? It doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure there's no rule on this forum saying that you have to quote someone's entire post. That one sentence was such a non sequitur that I didn't feel the need to quote the rest of it. A lot of states voted for both parties before 2006. 2006 was also, like, a million years ago. Even Scott Brown was more than 10 years ago.

The problem with Scott running for Senate is he would have to give his opinions on national issues. It's possible that Scott is a generic liberal on national issues, but I think if he was, he'd have switched parties by now. Once voters find out that he actually agrees with Mitch McConnell on things, his favorability will drop. Scott might be able to defeat a Democrat in a Senate race, but it would have to be quite a bad opponent, and certainly not a Generic D.

I didn't say it was a rule, just that it was additional context.

Again, Scott has already been giving his opinion on national issues for years! He...

• Opposed Trump's Zero Tolerance Border Policy
• Brought Vermont into the Paris Agreement after Trump left it
• Criticized the AHCA and signed a law bringing the individual mandate to Vermont after it was repealed
• Signed a law limiting Vermont police cooperation with Federal immigration officials
• Supported the Impeachment Inquiry
• Supported Convicting Trump and declared the Senate trial biased for Trump
• Endorsed Bill Weld for President
• Opposed RBG Replacement
• Stood up against National GOP austerity
• Denounced Jan. 6 Insurrection and called for the removal of Trump

He's been taking positions on national issues for years! Scott vs Generic D is a tossup, no way around it.

[KaiserDave]

Something that genuinely confuses me is how Scott is even still a Republican if these assessments are accurate. It seems like his values are pretty much in line with Democrats, if the Scottites are to be believed. Is it even certain that he would caucus with Republicans on the national stage? Would he win a Senate GOP primary if he wouldn't commit to doing so?

I would say he's a Republican for a few reasons
1) Cultural identity. A small businessman in Vermont who made his career in the 80s and 90s. Sounds like a Republican too me
2) Differences with VT Democrats. When Shumlin was in power he to bring statewide single payer that even liberal Democrats backed off when it fell to pieces. Scott focuses much more reducing the tax burden and keeping budgets in line with growth rate than stuff like that. Though he's even said he's got an open mind to single payer, if it would work. The problem is is that the Shumlin plan was a disaster. He's also just more conservative than the left wing of the VT Democrats.

That's a good question. Although if he did run, the party would line up behind him as the only hope to win the seat.

[KaiserDave]

If Phil Scott is beating Leahy in a poll, then he can beat another Democrat in a poll. It does not mean he can beat a Democrat in an election. Vermont is not electing a Republican to the US Senate.

Vermont has only elected one Democrat to the US Senate.

Oh come on. The last Republican to win a congressional election in Vermont was Jim Jeffords in 2000. This factoid is fun but it speaks more to the length of Patrick Leahy's career and the weirdness of Bernie Sanders than to anything profound.

Well, you coulda quoted the rest of my statement. There is very little evidence to say that a Scott-Not Leahy Candidate would be a Safe D matchup. Really? Where is this evidence? Leahy would beat Scott yes, I can believe that. But where is the evidence that Scott has no hope against anyone? It doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure there's no rule on this forum saying that you have to quote someone's entire post. That one sentence was such a non sequitur that I didn't feel the need to quote the rest of it. A lot of states voted for both parties before 2006. 2006 was also, like, a million years ago. Even Scott Brown was more than 10 years ago.

The problem with Scott running for Senate is he would have to give his opinions on national issues. It's possible that Scott is a generic liberal on national issues, but I think if he was, he'd have switched parties by now. Once voters find out that he actually agrees with Mitch McConnell on things, his favorability will drop. Scott might be able to defeat a Democrat in a Senate race, but it would have to be quite a bad opponent, and certainly not a Generic D.

I didn't say it was a rule, just that it was additional context.

Again, Scott has already been giving his opinion on national issues for years! He...

• Opposed Trump's Zero Tolerance Border Policy
• Brought Vermont into the Paris Agreement after Trump left it
• Criticized the AHCA and signed a law bringing the individual mandate to Vermont after it was repealed
• Signed a law limiting Vermont police cooperation with Federal immigration officials
• Supported the Impeachment Inquiry
• Supported Convicting Trump and declared the Senate trial biased for Trump
• Endorsed Bill Weld for President

He's been taking positions on national issues for years! Scott vs Generic D is a tossup, no way around it.

Most of that is Vermont-specific even if it relates to national issues. But if he's really a liberal on national issues, then he should run for Senate as a Democrat.

Sure, but it shows he's not hesitant to buck GOP orthodoxy. And supporting impeachment had hardly anything to do with Vermont specific issues.

He's still a Republican though. Maybe he'd run independent, but Vermont has a long running tradition of (as PQG would say) "almost-left" Republicans that he may want to continue.

[KaiserDave]

If Phil Scott is beating Leahy in a poll, then he can beat another Democrat in a poll. It does not mean he can beat a Democrat in an election. Vermont is not electing a Republican to the US Senate.

Vermont has only elected one Democrat to the US Senate.

Oh come on. The last Republican to win a congressional election in Vermont was Jim Jeffords in 2000. This factoid is fun but it speaks more to the length of Patrick Leahy's career and the weirdness of Bernie Sanders than to anything profound.

Well, you coulda quoted the rest of my statement. There is very little evidence to say that a Scott-Not Leahy Candidate would be a Safe D matchup. Really? Where is this evidence? Leahy would beat Scott yes, I can believe that. But where is the evidence that Scott has no hope against anyone? It doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure there's no rule on this forum saying that you have to quote someone's entire post. That one sentence was such a non sequitur that I didn't feel the need to quote the rest of it. A lot of states voted for both parties before 2006. 2006 was also, like, a million years ago. Even Scott Brown was more than 10 years ago.

The problem with Scott running for Senate is he would have to give his opinions on national issues. It's possible that Scott is a generic liberal on national issues, but I think if he was, he'd have switched parties by now. Once voters find out that he actually agrees with Mitch McConnell on things, his favorability will drop. Scott might be able to defeat a Democrat in a Senate race, but it would have to be quite a bad opponent, and certainly not a Generic D.

I didn't say it was a rule, just that it was additional context.

Again, Scott has already been giving his opinion on national issues for years! He...

• Opposed Trump's Zero Tolerance Border Policy
• Brought Vermont into the Paris Agreement after Trump left it
• Criticized the AHCA and signed a law bringing the individual mandate to Vermont after it was repealed
• Signed a law limiting Vermont police cooperation with Federal immigration officials
• Supported the Impeachment Inquiry
• Supported Convicting Trump and declared the Senate trial biased for Trump
• Endorsed Bill Weld for President

He's been taking positions on national issues for years! Scott vs Generic D is a tossup, no way around it.

Most of that is Vermont-specific even if it relates to national issues. But if he's really a liberal on national issues, then he should run for Senate as a Democrat.

Sure, but it shows he's not hesitant to buck GOP orthodoxy. And supporting impeachment had hardly anything to do with Vermont specific issues.

He's still a Republican though. Maybe he'd run independent, but Vermont has a long running tradition of (as PQG would say) "almost-left" Republicans that he may want to continue.

I never said he was "hesitant to buck GOP orthodoxy". I just said that either (a) he's very conservative on at least some national issues, or (b) he would be better off in the Democratic Party if he ran for national office.

He doesn’t need to be very conservative on anything to be a Republican in Vermont.

[KaiserDave]

Debate 1 is in!


https://www.vpr.org/post/2020-general-election-debates-candidates-governor#stream/0

https://www.vpr.org/post/scott-and-zuckerman-face-first-gubernatorial-debate#stream/0


Scott also condemned Trump's transfer of power remarks, and said he was still considering on whether or not to vote for Joe. He said he was waiting on the debates, however he has definitely ruled out voting for Trump, and has never supported him in his entire political career. Phil wrote in Jim Douglas in the 2020 election.

Whether or not Scott says it, I am 1000% certain he is voting for Biden.

[KaiserDave]

I don't feel like slogging through this entire thread to find if it's been asked, but would Scott's chances improve dramatically if he ran as an independent with Republican support? See Harry Byrd for a historical example.

Potentially. I don't think it would hurt him.

[KaiserDave]

The only "official" leadership position elected by the full Senate is the President Pro Tempore. The floor leaders are elected by their respective caucuses in a secret ballot, so if asked Scott could say he voted for himself/Romney/King Angus/Howard Baker's ghost/whoever, and nobody would be able to prove otherwise.

Well presumably he would also announce his opposition

[KaiserDave]

The only "official" leadership position elected by the full Senate is the President Pro Tempore. The floor leaders are elected by their respective caucuses in a secret ballot, so if asked Scott could say he voted for himself/Romney/King Angus/Howard Baker's ghost/whoever, and nobody would be able to prove otherwise.

Well presumably he would also announce his opposition

What's even the point of him running as a Republican in that case? That just makes his path to victory in a federal race extremely difficult. If he isn't going to support a Republican for majority leader and won't vote with Republicans on major issues to avoid pissing off liberal Vermonters, then why even bother. He should run as an independent if he has any brains.

Well I don't know if he would run at all. But it wouldn't surprise me if Scott clings to the idea of the George Aiken-Jim Jeffords liberal Republican, and thinks he can continue that tradition.

[KaiserDave]

Another debate!

https://youtu.be/ZJGIfqjg70A

Proud of Phil! It’s as if he’s reading my Atlas talking points!

[KaiserDave]

Phil isn't getting the right answers in on climate change, given the question he received. Get me in there!

Scott is doing well on COVID though. He is very strong here.

[KaiserDave]

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2020/09/30/zuckermans-spouse-slams-gray-on-social-media

Facebook rage or a legitimate conflict?

David Zuckerman's wife lashed out against Democratic candidate for governor Molly Gray last week.

She called her "slimy" and "manipulative." Full quote:

“It is phenomenally sad to think that all of his hard work and dedication to the people of Vermont over the last 20+ years could be ‘replaced’ by a lying, manipulative, self-serving power-hungry individual who has only ever bothered to vote in ONE election"


This comes after in the Lt. Gov debate, Gray dodged a few questions on whether she was supporting Zuckerman or not. She finally said yes but her lack of candor may be an issue for Zuckerman. If he can't get enthusiastic support for the candidate for Lt. Governor, who can he get?

The Lt. Governor race should be interesting.

[KaiserDave]

By the way, Scott Milne's central argument for him being Lt. Gov:

""We're in a pile of sh*t. You want some help getting through it? I'm the guy."

Great article here

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/soap-box-derby-molly-gray-and-scott-milne-compete-for-the-lieutenant-governors-perch/Content?oid=31324885

Molly Gray has some serious problems. Many committed, liberal Democrats are frustrated by how she waltzed in out of nowhere to win the nomination without spending any time working for the Vermont Democratic Party. Milne has been running a vaguely moderate campaign, basically as "Phil Scott 2.0" and his history in Vermont politics is long, much longer than Gray's anyways. I believe this race will be close, no more than Lean D, closer to Tilt than Likely.


As for my view? Milne is probably a bit too moderate-right for me, and while writing in Jim Douglas for President (as he did in 2016 and is doing in 2020) is respectable, voting for Biden is clearly so much better.

But Gray's residency issue is something. I suppose my ballot would probably look something like this

Governor: Phil Scott

Lt. Governor: Not sure....

State Senate: Dem (as long as they're not crazy)

State House: Dem (as long as they're not crazy)

[KaiserDave]

I sure hope Molly Gray wins. Republicans need to learn that they can't just pretend to be liberal and win elections that way.

Scott I have more respect for, though.

I get this position.

But the Lt. Governor position is really quite powerless. That being said it is often a stepping off point to the governorship.

[KaiserDave]

This is a good article on Molly Gray's background. Personally, I think between her community service with the red cross, legal experience, and working for Peter Welch, she has a great resume for LG and would have a lot of experiences to draw from to advocate for Vermonters.

This true, but politically speaking her global experience isn't really helping her.

The problem is, she's barely spent all that time in Vermont itself. There's a reason many in the state party kinda hate her guts. One of her opponents endorsed Milne. And Zuckerman's wife hates her.

[KaiserDave]

Gray is absolutely awful. Pushing papers in Switzerland and having the right last name does not qualify her to hold statewide office, and she's already a proven liar. It's too bad that the Kunin Krew and national donors have taken such a liking to her, as I can imagine her blowing a Senate race for Democrats if misfortunes align.

So I take it you're voting for Scott and Milne?

[KaiserDave]

In episode number 43848 of "Phil takes a based position but nobody cares"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nikkifrias/2020/10/11/more-work-is-needed-says-gov-phil-scott-after-vermont-legalizes-recreational-cannabis/

Scott, who just let a bill pass establishing a legal market for marijuana, declares that more work is needed on the subject, especially for racial equity given the continuing legacy of the national war on drugs.

But of course nobody will care and "muh Phil Scott is a right wing Republican" will continue to persist

[KaiserDave]

It would be silly to read into this, but Phil Scott liked a comment I made on a website where I said he was great and should run for Senate.

Also, he has a forum on his website tomorrow with Hogan and Baker.