Vermont Megathread

[Figueira]

Let's hope the anti-vaxxer loses.

Let's hope the climate denier (as recently as 2016) also loses: https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/a-climate-change-phil-scott-evolves-on-global-warming/Content?oid=3616844

[Figueira]

Upon reading further, Scott's position on climate change is roughly equivalent to Zuckerman's position on vaccines: they both acknowledge the science after questioning it within the past five years (vaccines work, and humans are causing climate change) but oppose efforts to do anything about it (getting rid of philosophical and religious exemptions in Zuckerman's case, and doing literally anything about climate change in Scott's case).

Fortunately, there is a better option: https://www.rebeccaholcombe.com/

[Figueira]

Let's hope the anti-vaxxer loses.

Let's hope the climate denier (as recently as 2016) also loses: https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/a-climate-change-phil-scott-evolves-on-global-warming/Content?oid=3616844

-Believes in Climate Change Science
-Kept Vermont in Paris Climate Accord


Climate change denier!

Scott is a moderate Republican, sensible and honest leader. Phil is socially liberal, a climate activist, fiscally moderate and an amazing governor. He will win by 10 points or more.

GO PHIL!

"climate activist"

Where the hell are you getting this from?

[Figueira]

https://vtdigger.org/2020/05/28/milne-joins-race-for-lieutenant-governor/

Scott Milne (GOP nominee for governor in 2014 and Senate in 2016) is running for the open Lieutenant Governor's seat. He did get a lot closer in the 2014 race than anyone expected.

Oooooooo!!!!!

Now this is news! This is gonna be interesting. Thank you for telling us.

I think I support Timothy Ashe still, but Phil's coattails could help Milne, although in the past Phil hasn't had much in the way of coattails.

Milne came close because he was running against a terrible opponent, so if he has a terrible opponent again this time, he could come close again, or win.

[Figueira]

Let's hope the anti-vaxxer loses.

Let's hope the climate denier (as recently as 2016) also loses: https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/a-climate-change-phil-scott-evolves-on-global-warming/Content?oid=3616844

-Believes in Climate Change Science
-Kept Vermont in Paris Climate Accord


Climate change denier!

Scott is a moderate Republican, sensible and honest leader. Phil is socially liberal, a climate activist, fiscally moderate and an amazing governor. He will win by 10 points or more.

GO PHIL!

"climate activist"

Where the hell are you getting this from?

He kept Vermont in the Paris Accord and I believe he supports Obama's clean power plan.


But sure.....doing nothing on climate.

Ehhh...you have a point now that I'm looking further into it. He still partially denied climate change in July 2016 though. And he could be doing more now.

Anyway, I hope Holcombe wins.

[Figueira]

I love the discussion!


But as for Vermont

In the GE for Governor, I'd say Zuckerman is stronger than Holcombe. At least that's what the polls say.

That may be true. But as you know, Scott isn't bad enough that Democrats need to nominate an anti-vaxxer just to have a slightly higher chance of beating him. Also the only way Scott loses is if he personally has some major misstep, in which case it probably doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate. If I were voting in the Democratic primary in Vermont, "who would be the stronger GE candidate" wouldn't really enter into my thinking.

[Figueira]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1296861238908125184?ref_src=twsrc%5...


Not at all surprised, and I'm certain he will privately vote for Biden he may even announce that he will

He was smart to wait until after the primary

He should definitely bring Kasich up to campaign for him.

Would be a neat idea, but I'm not confident Kasich would care enough. But it might be a nice way for Phil to get some publicity.

Why would that help Scott? I'd imagine the vast majority of Vermonters don't care about Kasich. The few who meaningfully like him are already voting for Scott, and the few who meaningfully don't like him will become even less likely to vote for Scott.

[Figueira]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1296861238908125184?ref_src=twsrc%5...

Not at all surprised, and I'm certain he will privately vote for Biden he may even announce that he will

He was smart to wait until after the primary

He should definitely bring Kasich up to campaign for him.

Would be a neat idea, but I'm not confident Kasich would care enough. But it might be a nice way for Phil to get some publicity.

Why would that help Scott? I'd imagine the vast majority of Vermonters don't care about Kasich. The few who meaningfully like him are already voting for Scott, and the few who meaningfully don't like him will become even less likely to vote for Scott.

I would say something like that usually, but looking at the 2016 primary results Kasich ran a very close second to Trump (32.5% Trump v. 30.2% Kasich) and actually tied him in actual delegates earned ( in a field with at least 10 candidates on the VT GOP primary ballot that year.

30.2% of the Republican primary electorate in Vermont is still not that many people, and all of those people are already supporting Scott.

[Figueira]

I don’t think a Kasich visit would necessarily help Scott in the race, but it would up his National profile

Does Scott actually want to up his national profile? It's not like he's going to become President.

[Figueira]

https://vtdigger.org/2020/08/18/scott-proposes-plan-to-close-180-million-deficit-without-major-cuts/

Despite attacks on Scott over the idea that he would embrace crippling austerity......nope!

Can't stop the Scott

Shouldn't this be "Good on Scott for doing a good job with the budget" and not "Suck it, liberal critics!"?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Figueira]

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

Phil Scott I have more respect for, though.

[Figueira]

Bernie is probably not getting a cabinet post with the current senate even if Dems win both runoffs so the point over who Phil selects isn’t going to be an issue.

Although if Phil did appoint a Republican that would kind of ruin some of the goodwill he has in Vermont. Not worth it for the sake of Sanders getting a cabinet position.

[Figueira]

Very lazy analysis from Politico.

Why did you say the same thing twice?

[Figueira]

No reason a state as great as Vermont should have a right-wing Republican as their governor. Go Zuckerman!

You know literally nothing about VT politics if you believe Scott is 'right-wing Republican.' He's exactly as right wing as I am.

You're certainly correct about that, but my "right-wing republican" comment is like a year and a half old. But I'm not afraid to admit when I was wrong. Really, Scott is a Democrat in all but name and has actually done a very good job as governor. If I lived in Vermont, I'd have to vote against him on principle, but he's a good guy and the only good Republican in the country.

I'm thrilled to see you've come around. Mwahahahhaa.

I admit I was far too hackish back in 2019, some of it was tongue and cheek, some of it was very stupid. I have become more critical of Scott since then, but remain a big supporter.

Out of curiosity, what are you now critical of Scott on?

[Figueira]

There were hippies moving to New Hampshire too, just not as many.