Vermont Megathread

[Figueira]

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.

[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.

[GALeftist]

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?

[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.

[Figueira]

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.

[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.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Why would Scott even bother running as a republican for Senate when he doesn't agree with the national party on anything? He'd be better off running as an indy (who probably caucused with the dems tbh) or a dem at that point.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Pat Leahy needs to go, but with another Dem, he is done with politics

[Figueira]

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.

[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.

[Figueira]

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.

No, he doesn't. But he does need to be very conservative in order to vote for Mitch McConnell as Senate majority leader.

[Senator Incitatus]

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.

[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.

[tpfkaw]

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.

No. The not-like-other-Republicans-Republican is still a popular brand in Vermont, and in New England more generally. Not unlike the not-like-other-Democrats-Democrat in states like MT, WV or KY.

I don't see him running for Senate in 2022 or 2024 and, unless it's an open seat, I don't see him winning.

[Alcibiades]

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.

No, he doesn't. But he does need to be very conservative in order to vote for Mitch McConnell as Senate majority leader.

He wouldn’t need to do that even if he was caucusing with the Republicans in the Senate. Several Democrats elected in swing/Republican-leaning districts in 2018 didn’t vote Pelosi for Speaker (in many cases following campaign pledges), but still sit as Democrats. Scott would probably do the same regarding McConnell.

[tpfkaw]

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.

[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

[tpfkaw]

If I were him I would avoid bringing up the subject of partisan control of the Senate as much as possible.

[Not Me, Us]

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.

[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.

[Figueira]

Another thing about that poll showing Scott beating Leahy: it's probably a Republican-friendly poll overall. It also shows Trump improving on his 2016 numbers, which while possible, is unlikely given trends in rural areas shown in other polls, and given that there will probably be less Bernie-or-busters this year. We'll be able to see definitively whether this is true when the 2020 results come in.

[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.