VT-Gov 2020: Lt. Governor Zuckerman planning to run

[smoltchanov]

Seems to be a good man, but I'm rooting for Governor Phil Scott and would vote for him. He leads the state with pragmatism, is moderate and scandal-free. No need to replace him.

Found your reason to replace him. I don't care how moderate the Republican is, a progressive Democrat will always be better. Period.

Then we agree to disagree. I prefer moderate Republicans like Phil Scott or Charlie Baker over staunch left-wing Democrats or Justice Democrats. I also prefer them over socially conservative Democrats. If Phil Scott was running against John Bel Edwards, I'd support Scott.

In Vermont - exactly my thoughts too. In Louisiana - i would support JBE. But i absolutely abhor staunch left-wingers and Justice Democrats (just as i abhor staunch right-wingers and tea-party types)

[smoltchanov]

Seems to be a good man, but I'm rooting for Governor Phil Scott and would vote for him. He leads the state with pragmatism, is moderate and scandal-free. No need to replace him.

Found your reason to replace him. I don't care how moderate the Republican is, a progressive Democrat will always be better. Period.

This. Vote blue almost no matter who.

Thanks, but - no. Prefer people and hate parties. ALL parties, including BOTH present day Democratic AND Republican.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Seems to be a good man, but I'm rooting for Governor Phil Scott and would vote for him. He leads the state with pragmatism, is moderate and scandal-free. No need to replace him.

Found your reason to replace him. I don't care how moderate the Republican is, a progressive Democrat will always be better. Period.

This. Vote blue almost no matter who.

Thanks, but - no. Prefer people and hate parties. ALL parties, including BOTH present day Democratic AND Republican.

Agree to disagree

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If Bernie is the nominee, Dems need this seat to go Dem, I do believe Bernie will be the nominee.

[KaiserDave]

Scott has not yet announced his intention to run, though everyone expects that he will.

At least Zuckerman makes it a contest worth watching. Holcombe is an empty suit.

Agreed, Zuckerman will certainly put Phil on his toes. But it's the only guy who really has a shot, well, what's your thoughts on AG Donovan?

More with it than most of the Democrats here. Really unimpressed with the goofball leadership in the state legislature who couldn't pass paid family leave or retail marijuana in the last session despite supermajorities in both houses. And the Burlington City Council is a total freak show.

Is that more due to Democratic majority being incompetent or smart moves by P H I L?

[KaiserDave]

Any way we could get this merged into a bigger Vermont politics megathread, I'd quite enjoy that.

[jbrian]

zUKER

[DaWN]

If Democrats waste a single dollar here they are complete morons. Defeating Scott achieves literally nothing (no redistricting, Dem supermajorities, special election in 90 days if either Senator resigns/dies) and that's money that could be used in endless Senate races or competitive gubernatorial ones (such as the state next door where getting rid of Sununu so he can't run for Senate in 2022 should be imperative).

[Elcaspar]

If Democrats waste a single dollar here they are complete morons. Defeating Scott achieves literally nothing (no redistricting, Dem supermajorities, special election in 90 days if either Senator resigns/dies) and that's money that could be used in endless Senate races or competitive gubernatorial ones (such as the state next door where getting rid of Sununu so he can't run for Senate in 2022 should be imperative).

Because change clearly doesn't achieve anything at all. Oh wait that's exactly what would happen if Zuckerman won. Apparently having a "FF" moderate is more important to some people, than getting progressive change done.

[smoltchanov]

If Democrats waste a single dollar here they are complete morons. Defeating Scott achieves literally nothing (no redistricting, Dem supermajorities, special election in 90 days if either Senator resigns/dies) and that's money that could be used in endless Senate races or competitive gubernatorial ones (such as the state next door where getting rid of Sununu so he can't run for Senate in 2022 should be imperative).

Because change clearly doesn't achieve anything at all. Oh wait that's exactly what would happen if Zuckerman won. Apparently having a "FF" moderate is more important to some people, than getting progressive change done.

Getting reasonable "FF" moderate is really more important for some people, then getting unreasonable (to put it mildly) "bold progressive"....

[KaiserDave]

Apparently nobody knows anything about actual issues and important people in Vermont

Stop trying to nationalize this, this applies to everybody left, right, or centre

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems should invest heavily in this race, since Bernie maybe the nominee and we might need it to appoint a D Senator. Dems already said they are going after Justice and Sununu and forgoing MT, MO and IN

Dems dont have to defeat Scott on election day, if Scott gets under 50, the state legislators can appoint a D Gov, thus a D Senator, Welch for Senate

[smoltchanov]

Apparently nobody knows anything about actual issues and important people in Vermont

Stop trying to nationalize this, this applies to everybody left, right, or centre

Well, mostly agree. Though not 100%))))

[It's not just that you are a crook senator]

Tossup. Don't care either way because i really respect Scott. Tbh it is smarter to elect moderate people from other party when the party ruling the state has supermajorities in chambers. The governor is probably going to be on their toes and do what is best for the state to stay elected and whenever they screw up you can easily unseat him.

[free my dawg]

*yawn*

Likely R -> Likely R

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

*yawn*

Likely R -> Likely R

Zuckerman dont have to beat Scott, he only have to hold Scott to under 50, thus D legislture decides the runoff like MS; therefore, Dems should invest in this race due, to if Sanders is the nominee, Zuckerman can appoint Welch without a Special. Vt and NH got close in 2018

[Intell]

*yawn*

Likely R -> Likely R

Zuckerman dont have to beat Scott, he only have to hold Scott to under 50, thus D legislture decides the runoff like MS; therefore, Dems should invest in this race due, to if Sanders is the nominee, Zuckerman can appoint Welch without a Special. Vt and NH got close in 2018

Umm, the candidate that wins the popular vote will be selected.

[Nutmeg]

*yawn*

Likely R -> Likely R

Zuckerman dont have to beat Scott, he only have to hold Scott to under 50, thus D legislture decides the runoff like MS; therefore, Dems should invest in this race due, to if Sanders is the nominee, Zuckerman can appoint Welch without a Special. Vt and NH got close in 2018

Stop spouting nonsense. Vermont has a special election within 3 months of the vacancy occurring (unless the general election is less than 6 months away).

Also an election for Sanders' seat is not going to be competitive anyway. Not even an issue.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

VT and NH were close last time

[Elcaspar]

If Democrats waste a single dollar here they are complete morons. Defeating Scott achieves literally nothing (no redistricting, Dem supermajorities, special election in 90 days if either Senator resigns/dies) and that's money that could be used in endless Senate races or competitive gubernatorial ones (such as the state next door where getting rid of Sununu so he can't run for Senate in 2022 should be imperative).

Because change clearly doesn't achieve anything at all. Oh wait that's exactly what would happen if Zuckerman won. Apparently having a "FF" moderate is more important to some people, than getting progressive change done.

Getting reasonable "FF" moderate is really more important for some people, then getting unreasonable (to put it mildly) "bold progressive"....

What is and what is not reasonable is a subjective thing, so calling progressives "unreasonable" as a whole is a mischaracterisation(to put it mildly. Tell me what is unreasonable about wanting the US, or in this case Vermont to be more like the rest of the developed world? But no clearly it's more important to have reasonable moderate "heroes" like Phil Scott, who only want to incrementally improve the lives of the citizens they govern, rather than someone who will drastically improve the lives of the citizens they govern through the popular policies they advocate. Apparently wanting the US to be more like the rest of the developed world is somehow bad?

[KaiserDave]

If Democrats waste a single dollar here they are complete morons. Defeating Scott achieves literally nothing (no redistricting, Dem supermajorities, special election in 90 days if either Senator resigns/dies) and that's money that could be used in endless Senate races or competitive gubernatorial ones (such as the state next door where getting rid of Sununu so he can't run for Senate in 2022 should be imperative).

Because change clearly doesn't achieve anything at all. Oh wait that's exactly what would happen if Zuckerman won. Apparently having a "FF" moderate is more important to some people, than getting progressive change done.

Getting reasonable "FF" moderate is really more important for some people, then getting unreasonable (to put it mildly) "bold progressive"....

What is and what is not reasonable is a subjective thing, so calling progressives "unreasonable" as a whole is a mischaracterisation(to put it mildly. Tell me what is unreasonable about wanting the US, or in this case Vermont to be more like the rest of the developed world? But no clearly it's more important to have reasonable moderate "heroes" like Phil Scott, who only want to incrementally improve the lives of the citizens they govern, rather than someone who will drastically improve the lives of the citizens they govern through the popular policies they advocate. Apparently wanting the US to be more like the rest of the developed world is somehow bad?

What matters is getting the best candidate for one thing

Governing Vermont

This is about Vermont issues and the people of Vermont. These issues may not necessarily be the same as national ones, and there’s several layers of nuance in state and local politics.

This goes to everyone
Stop nationalizing this

[smoltchanov]

If Democrats waste a single dollar here they are complete morons. Defeating Scott achieves literally nothing (no redistricting, Dem supermajorities, special election in 90 days if either Senator resigns/dies) and that's money that could be used in endless Senate races or competitive gubernatorial ones (such as the state next door where getting rid of Sununu so he can't run for Senate in 2022 should be imperative).

Because change clearly doesn't achieve anything at all. Oh wait that's exactly what would happen if Zuckerman won. Apparently having a "FF" moderate is more important to some people, than getting progressive change done.

Getting reasonable "FF" moderate is really more important for some people, then getting unreasonable (to put it mildly) "bold progressive"....

What is and what is not reasonable is a subjective thing, so calling progressives "unreasonable" as a whole is a mischaracterisation(to put it mildly. Tell me what is unreasonable about wanting the US, or in this case Vermont to be more like the rest of the developed world? But no clearly it's more important to have reasonable moderate "heroes" like Phil Scott, who only want to incrementally improve the lives of the citizens they govern, rather than someone who will drastically improve the lives of the citizens they govern through the popular policies they advocate. Apparently wanting the US to be more like the rest of the developed world is somehow bad?

Every country is unique, so US must NOT imitate "rest of the developed world" - first. In addition - "the developed world" is not homogenuos either - that's second. And - i never met (in my 62 years) a "bold progressive" leader, who was able  to "drastically improve the lives of the citizens they govern through the popular policies they advocate" - third. And don't believe, that Zuckerman is an exception from that rule.... On the other hand - i know a lot of "bold progressive leaders" who were able to bring havoc and almost destuction to their countries, but - it's another matter. You probably know, where the "road of good intentions" usually leads. People of Vermont chose Scott twice despite voting overwhelmingly Democratic in almost all races - is it not the sign of their general satisfaction with his leadership?

[KaiserDave]

"Reasonable and moderate" is an awfully appealing message in a state where elected officials attempt things like taking guns away from all cops or building a new $200 million high school with an indoor track because they need to accommodate a few dozen additional students.

Or when "reasonable and moderate" has made the state easier to move to and live in.

[Badger]

If Democrats waste a single dollar here they are complete morons. Defeating Scott achieves literally nothing (no redistricting, Dem supermajorities, special election in 90 days if either Senator resigns/dies) and that's money that could be used in endless Senate races or competitive gubernatorial ones (such as the state next door where getting rid of Sununu so he can't run for Senate in 2022 should be imperative).

Because change clearly doesn't achieve anything at all. Oh wait that's exactly what would happen if Zuckerman won. Apparently having a "FF" moderate is more important to some people, than getting progressive change done.

Getting reasonable "FF" moderate is really more important for some people, then getting unreasonable (to put it mildly) "bold progressive"....

What is and what is not reasonable is a subjective thing, so calling progressives "unreasonable" as a whole is a mischaracterisation(to put it mildly. Tell me what is unreasonable about wanting the US, or in this case Vermont to be more like the rest of the developed world? But no clearly it's more important to have reasonable moderate "heroes" like Phil Scott, who only want to incrementally improve the lives of the citizens they govern, rather than someone who will drastically improve the lives of the citizens they govern through the popular policies they advocate. Apparently wanting the US to be more like the rest of the developed world is somehow bad?

What matters is getting the best candidate for one thing

Governing Vermont

This is about Vermont issues and the people of Vermont. These issues may not necessarily be the same as national ones, and there’s several layers of nuance in state and local politics.

This goes to everyone
Stop nationalizing this

Just curious, didn't Scott seek to stop marijuana legalization there by vetoing such a bill just two years ago? I mean yes, he signed a bill a year later when it was clear the legislature had a veto-proof majority, but not encouraging.

What is his view on paid parental leave anyway?

[RINO Tom]

Go Phil!