In his last State of the State address, Gov,. Jim Douglas demonstrated once again that he is tenacious, determined, single-minded, and bold.

And maybe a little clueless?

It was a fairly long (5,917-word, 50-minute) speech to the Legislature, clear if not eloquent in composition, crisply delivered, politely received.

And familiar.

In fact, if some in the audience thought they had heard similar sentiments similarly expressed not all that long ago, they were right. Similar statements had been similarly expressed a year and a day ago in the same place by the same speaker, in his fourth inaugural address.

Leading some to wonder why, early in the speech, Douglas warned his listeners not to “choose to recycle old ideas and hope for a different outcome.”

In this case, the governor recycled some of his old ideas, including several that he’d proposed last year. He didn’t get them then. If he’s hoping for a different outcome this time, he would seem to be ignoring his own advice.

After all, little has changed. It’s the same Legislature that ignored most of his proposals last year and over-rode his veto twice. If anything, the lawmakers are more confident than they were a year ago, especially because one thing that has changed is that Douglas decided not to run for re-election.

In other words, he’s a lame duck. He keeps insisting that he isn’t, though he is, or at least that it has not weakened him politically, which would be a first in the history of the country, if not the world.

So why did he make the same controversial (and probably doomed) proposals again?

Because he really believes in them. Because he’s tenacious and bold. Because he thinks this time he might prevail.

Or because he’s clueless.

As he did last year, Douglas urged the Legislature to set a cap on local school spending. It didn’t. As he did last year (though in slightly less blunt language) he called the school finance system “broken,” implying that the lawmakers should replace it. As was true last year, he didn’t specify what the replacement would look like, leaving that to the lawmakers. Perhaps because most legislators don’t agree that the system (Acts 60 and 68) is “broken,” they came up with no replacement last year. They won’t this year, either.

But Douglas did not stop at recycling his old ideas that were not adopted. No, bulling right ahead with little hope of success, he came up with some new ideas that are almost certainly not to be adopted, as follows:

–Repeal – or at least pledge to repeal in the near future — the capital gains and estate tax increases adopted last year;

–Require teachers to pay 20 percent of their health insurance premiums;

–Trim the “income sensitivity” provision of the statewide education property tax so that middle-income homeowners pay more and the wealthy pay less. (of course, he didn’t word it quite that bluntly, but that’s the gist of his proposal);

–And while this was more a suggestion than a specific proposition, Douglas made clear he thought it would be a good idea if all the teachers emulated state workers and took an immediate three percent pay cut.

(Not an outlandish idea, but unrealistic. The state employees agreed to the cut in their new, statewide, contract. Teachers contracts are district-by-district, and they do not all expire at once).

It was hardly necessary to wait until the speech was over to figure out that Douglas was not convincing the legislators. Six times the audience in the House Chamber interrupted the speech with applause. But except for the early support for his tribute to Vermonters fighting (or soon to be) overseas, almost all the clapping came from the balcony, full of old friends and administration officials.

Down on the floor, where the lawmakers sat, few applauded except for the stalwart but decidedly outnumbered Republican contingent—50 of 150 House members, seven of 30 senators, and not all of them firm Douglas allies.

Perhaps because they know they have the votes and Douglas doesn’t, the Democratic Legislative leaders were relatively restrained in their post-speech comments. Snate President (and Democratic governor hopeful) Peter Shumlin and House Speaker Shap Smith both said they were willing to discuss the governor’s ideas. Sen. Susan Bartlett of Morrisville, another candidate for governor, called the speech a “pragmatic first step” in this year’s legislative process. Sen. Doug Racine of Richmond, yet another gubernatorial hopeful, said he agreed with Douglas that the state is in a “tough” fiscal bind.

Then, bit by bit, they began to say what they really thought. Douglas’s proposed tax cuts would “reduce Vermont revenue by roughly $28 million,” Shumlin said. Bartlett said that Douglas “wants to have his cake and eat it, too,” because he didn’t call for repealing the income tax cuts adopted last year, only the capital gains and estate tax increases.

Racine said the speech sounded like “a list of the things he promised to do seven years ago and failed to do,” such as extending broadband Internet service statewide and cleaning up Lake Champlain. And Sen. Mark MacDonald, a Williamstown Democrat, said Douglas’s proposed changes in the income sensitivity mechanism would “raise the property taxes of working Vermonters and cut them for out-of-staters,” some of whom own large tracts of land. Income sensitivity used to hold down the tax bills of 80 percent of Vermonters, MacDonald said. It is now down to 70 percent, and Douglas wants to reduce it further.

Despite these dismissals, a few of Douglas’s proposals might actually get adopted, though probably with some alterations. Regardless of party, almost everybody in state government agrees that public education in Vermont is expensive, in large part because there are, as Shap Smith put it, “legitimate questions about the pupil-teacher ratios.”

They are very low, 11-to-1 statewide, Douglas said, and he proposed “a mechanism to fill only one vacancy for every two retirements.”

A politically sophisticated plan, because it doesn’t require firing anyone, and because raising the ratio to 13 to 1, as he suggested, hardly degrades the quality of education. Perhaps not a realistic plan, though. It’s based on statewide numbers, but teachers neither teach their classes nor retire statewide. They do it school by school, where the numbers may not always add up (or subtract down) precisely the right way to allow reducing faculty without letting some classes get too big.

Still, here’s one area – quite possibly one of the few– where the legislators might build on (or off) one of Douglas’s proposals.

Pay attention because today’s post is going to provide exclusive answers to one of the great unresolved questions bedeviling the people of this fair state: Why Is Vermont’s State Government Facing a Budget Shortfall?

Ready for the answer? Brace yourself for shock. Make sure you’re seated and have not just partaken of a large meal (though recent imbibement of a cocktail or two might not hurt).

OK, here it is: Because Vermont is Part of the United States of America.

Almost all of which is in deep recession, even if it has been declared officially over. The unemployed and under-employed don’t pay much in the way of taxes. The newly foreclosed don’t buy much. The businesses who used to sell to them aren’t expanding.

Not here in Vermont. But hardly anywhere else, either. Most state economies are in worse shape, and most of their governments are facing worse budget shortfalls.

This does not mean Vermont has no budget problem. It does seem to mean that though state policy-makers may have made some mistakes in the past that rendered the state more vulnerable to the ravages of recession, they didn’t make any more – and possible not as many – as their counterparts elsewhere.

In a report titled, Beyond California: States in Fiscal Peril, The Pew Center on the States counts nine other states facing deep budget crises in addition that big one on the left coast.

Vermont is not among them. In fact, Vermont was rated among the fiscally less troubled states.

Even more pessimistically, a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that only two states – Montana and North Dakota – are not “facing budget shortfalls.”

From the statistics alone, it was impossible to determine the source of the good fortune of these two states, though it’s reasonable to suspect that it has some connection with the coal, oil, and natural gas underneath them. Under the circumstances, all the rest of us help pay their taxes every time we start our cars or turn on a light. If only maple syrup were a necessity instead of a mere delight, Vermont’s budget might be easily balanced.

(Objection One: Isn’t there a lot of oil under California? Yes, but California is so huge, its economy so diverse, that the petroleum revenue adds up to a paltry percentage).

(Objection Two: Isn’t it sad to deride a delight, which in a sane world would be treasured more than a “mere” necessity? Yes).

Both the Pew and the Kaiser studies show why Vermont is not as hard-pressed as some other states. The root cause of the problem in all states is the Recession, which stemmed from what the Pew study called “the bursting of the housing bubble.” That’s why, the study noted, three of the nine states in almost as much trouble as California are its neighbors – Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon – into which some of the California housing boom (and unsustainable lending practices) spilled.

For several reasons, the bubble in Vermont never expanded as recklessly as it did in some states, so the “burst” was less damaging. Vermont’s foreclosure rate is the lowest in the country.

Why? Well, tighter regulations may be one factor; mortgage prepayment penalties are illegal here, for instance. But the figures indicate that the state’s economy generally sat on a relatively strong foundation. The report by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that since the Recession began, Vermont’s unemployment rate has gone up less than the nation’s as a whole (1.6 percentage points compared to 3.6).

It even seems possible, reluctant though we may all be to find anything good to say about political office-holders, that Vermont’s leaders were more responsible – or at least less irresponsible – than their counterparts elsewhere.

“Virtually every state had to make tough decisions this year about where to cut and how to raise additional revenues,” the Pew report said. “But in some states, lawmakers punted the responsibility,” refusing to cut spending or raise taxes. Vermont did both. It may not have been pretty to watch or pleasing to any political faction, but as a result the state has a smaller budget shortfall than most others.

The Pew report gives Vermont a “score” of 13 (lower is better), tied with Virginia, and better than all but nine other states. The Kaiser Family Foundation report also finds that only ten states have less serious budget problems than Vermont.

(Most, though, not all, ten are the same in the two studies, which were taken at different times and used somewhat different criteria. Their basic conclusions, though, seem consistent).

Still, Vermont has a rather substantial looming budget deficit which is likely to dominate the Legislative session beginning next month. The exact size of the extent to which likely revenues for Fiscal Year 2011 (starting next July 1) will fall short of projected expenses is unclear, but should add up to roughly $100 million.

That’s a lot of money, and the early indications are that the Legislature is going to “find” it by cutting spending. Both legislative leaders, Senate President Peter Shumlin of Putney and House Speaker Shap Smith of Morristown, have come out against any new or higher taxes. Considering that they’re both Democrats, the party less resistant to raising taxes, it’s unlikely that taxes will go up.

Unlikely but not certain. There is at least one dissenter, State Sen. Doug Racine of Richmond (check the December 7 post here), who favors a temporary tax increase to avoid deep cuts in social programs. And wait until the advocates of those social programs get television news footage showing the impoverished, disabled children whose lives would be further impoverished by some of the cuts that would no doubt be proposed.

People don’t want to pay taxes. Neither do they want to abandon needy children. That Vermont may have to abandon fewer of them than most other states is not likely to make the decision much easier.

(Note: This is obviously the first of several examinations of the state’s budget situation; Wednesday’s post will be on a different topic, but we’ll return to this one next Monday

What happened to Friday? As indicated earlier, on the assumption that almost no one will be reading this kind of stuff on Christmas and New Years Days, there will be no new postings the next two Fridays.)

But first, everyone, especially those who read Friday’s post before it was corrected at about 10AM, is urged to scroll down to read the special Sunday post explaining what went awry, and why,

Now let’s deal with the forest-trees problem in re: the Democratic primary for governor and perceptions thereof.

Whether some people are so carefully examining the trees that they can’t see the forest, or vice versa, makes no difference. In general, observers have been so carefully scrutinizing the numbers (with five candidates, one could win with less than 30 percent of the vote, etc.) that no one has noted that the contest has taken form.

Racine

Not over strategy or tactics, either. Over policy. One of these guys wants to raise taxes.

Somehow, because the “narrative” has been created and set in stone that the five Democrats don’t disagree on much, the emergence of a real disagreement has been all but ignored.

Not that State Sen. Doug Racine of Richmond has come out and proclaimed in so many words, “I want to raise your taxes.” Nowhere on the home page of his campaign web site does the word “taxes” appear.

But he isn’t being cute about it, either. What is prominent on his web site is a link to his November 20 appearance on Vermont Public Radio’s Vermont Edition, where Racine clearly said he thinks the answer to the state’s budget shortfall has to include some new revenue.

That means higher taxes.

On that program, and again in an interview last week, Racine said his policy was modeled on what Gov. Richard Snelling, a Republican, did when the state faced a similar revenue shortage in 1991. Working with a Democratic Legislature, Snelling did cut spending. But to ease the impact of spending cuts, especially on the poor and the ill, Snelling and lawmakers agreed on temporary tax increases.

“(Snelling) went to Vermonters and said, look we’re all in this together, we’re all going to feel a little bit of the pain,” Racine said on the radio, calling for the same “balanced approach” to be used next year, when the state faces a revenue-spending gap of at least $90 million.

Racine said he, too, would cut spending, would “try to find efficiencies in state government, and think about using the rainy day funds.” But some new revenue would probably be necessary, he said.

How much and how it would be raised he has not yet figured out, he said, adding that he and some campaign aides were trying to work out the details of a specific proposal.

The other four Democrats running for governor haven’t absolutely ruled out calling for any new or higher taxes. But neither have they come close to suggesting any such thing. In a recent article on “the state budget problem” on her web site, State Sen. Susan Bartlett of Hyde Park spoke only of the need for cutting the General Fund budget and holding down school costs. Senate President Peter Shumlin of Putney announced his candidacy last month saying, “Vermonters cannot  bear more of a tax burden.”

(Although he said much the same thing earlier this year, but then put together a budget package that included higher taxes for upper-income earners; Racine and Bartlett voted for it).

The other two candidates, Secretary of State Deb Markowitz and former State Sen. Matt Dunne of White River Junction have said little about how they would deal with the impending budget problem.

So Racine is taking a gamble. Most people don’t want to pay higher taxes. As Racine himself said, the Democratic field is strong. Most Democratic voters would be reasonably happy with any of the five. So why wouldn’t most primary voters choose one of the four who doesn’t call for higher taxes, even if they’re advertised as temporary?

(The 1991 tax increases were rescinded in 1993 as scheduled, though the sales tax was later raised back to five cents; it is now six cents).

“Running for office is a gamble,” Racine said. “I’ve run for office before. Maybe it’s a function of my age. I’m telling people what I think.”

But just looking at the politics of the situation, maybe it’s not such a foolish gamble. One way to carve out a plurality victory in a five-person Democratic primary is to appeal to the social welfare liberals – call them the “One Vermont” constituency, after the group that formed last year to fight cuts in programs that help the poor.

These voters are likely to make up a heavy share of the Democratic primary electorate, and if they unite behind one contender, that candidate would probably win the primary.

Traditional political strategy calls for the candidate then quickly to trim back to the center for the general election. But as Racine acknowledged, in this case, that would be close to impossible.

“If you’re out there. It’s really hard to trim back because you’re not trimming, you’re contradicting,” he said. “It would hard for me the day after the primary to say I didn’t mean everything I just said.”

So should he win the primary, the Republicans, presumably led by Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, would undoubtedly – and credibly – assail him as a “tax and spend liberal.”

Not as deadly a label in Vermont as in many other states. But still a potential problem.

On the other hand, before the election – even before the primary — the Legislature, including three of the candidates, is going to have to pass a balanced budget for the state. Voting to cut programs for, say, poor, sick, children, might not be any more politically palatable than voting for a temporary tax hike.

But that’s for later. For now, the Democratic race has a structure. It even has an issue. And an obvious question for the other four candidates: Without any new revenue at all, exactly (and that means exactly, with numbers) how would you balance the budget?

Lots of political developments since we last dealt with them here. So let’s deal with them here.

Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie is running for governor, so Republicans will not have a primary, which they hate.

Democrats, on the other hand, must love primaries because they have so many of them. To their great joy, they will have one for governor.

Lite Gov Dubie

Great joy (for them) might not be the consequence.

(Republicans might have a primary for lieutenant governor, but that doesn’t count because, as has been noted here before, nobody cares who is lieutenant governor because nobody knows what the lieutenant governor does because the lieutenant governor doesn’t do anything).

Though assured of nomination, Dubie has to be considered an underdog for election because he is: (a) a Republican; and (b) a social issue conservative in a socially liberal state, and specifically an opponent of abortion rights in a state where most voters favor them.

That last factor might not be as big a problem as some liberals hope. The swing voters here, pro-choice Republican and independent women (and some men) are not likely to vote against Dubie over the abortion issue, being aware that he can do nothing to change the status quo. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a woman’s right to an abortion is Constitutionally protected. The odds of the Court reversing itself in the next few years are roughly zero, making any governor’s views on the subject roughly moot.

Some pro-choice activists, to be sure, disagree, arguing that having an anti-choice gov alters the vibes. These activists are, however: (a) Democrats who won’t vote for Dubie anyway; and (b) wrong.

All the Democratic candidates agree on being pro-choice. In fact, all the Democratic candidates seem agree on just about everything, making it difficult to tell them apart without a scorecard.

At some point, the News Guy will provide that scorecard. For now, a general overview of the field is all that is needed.

This exercise will proceed on the assumption that there will be five Democratic candidates even though: (a) Right now there are three; and (b) it’s a good bet that there will end up only being three (though perhaps not the same three) or four.

The (sort of) declared three are State Senators Doug Racine of Richmond and Susan Bartlett of Hyde Park and Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz. The all-but-declared is Senate President Peter Shumlin of Putney. The fifth possibility is former State Senator Matt Dunne of Hartland.

The reason all five might not stay in the race can be summed up in one word: Money. Even in Vermont, candidates for governor need a goodly amount of it, there are only so many Democratic contributors in and out of state, and what with the recession and all, they have less to give.

Making it somewhere between uncertain and unlikely that all five will raise enough to be viable.

Markowitz and Racine have already raised enough to compete, and considering his leadership position, Shumlin might well be able to match them.

The other two? Bartlett reported no fund-raising when Markowitz and Racine did in July, but she does have a spiffy web site which, among other things, offers supporters a click to contribute. No sign of any Dunne fund-raising, and he seems not to have a campaign web site.

Besides, who is he? Well, he’s reportedly a charming and impressive fellow. But he’s a two-term state senator who has run one statewide campaign, in 2006.

He lost.

To Dubie.

Which might prompt a typical Democratic primary voter to wonder why he could beat him this time.

To be fair to Dunne, Shumlin once lost to Dubie, too. That was when Dubie first got elected, in 2002. But Shumlin had an excuse of sorts. That was a three-way race, with Progressive candidate Anthony Pollina taking enough votes away from Shumlin to elect Dubie.

Could that happen again? It could, but so far Pollina shows no signs of being interested in another statewide race (he has not actually run every two years since the Pleistocene Era; it just seems that way). No other Progressive is likely to get more than a few percent of the vote. To be sure, in a very close race, a few percent could be decisive, but without Pollina, the Progs are less of a threat.

Who’s the Dem front-runner now? Well, Markowitz has raised the most money. But Racine has a better web site and has been more aggressive. His statement after Dubie revealed that he was running, calling him “part of the Administration that has failed for seven years to deliver on the promise of new jobs,” was by far the most vigorous and politically astute coming from the Democratic contenders.

For now, call him the front-runner.

There’s one other problem facing “the other” Democrats, the ones who have not entered the race and/or raised much money, whichever two (or three?) they turn out to be. Since there’s not much disagreement on issues, there’s not much incentive for a Democratic voter to take a flyer on an underdog. It isn’t as though there’s some issue or crisis that a Matt Dunne, say, is uniquely or even unusually qualified to meet.

That’s because there is no crisis. It’s important to remember this because candidates and ideologues always have a vested interest in proclaiming one.

Not that everything is peachy keen. It is not, but the only problems that might reasonably be considered crises—the economy, climate change – are thoroughly national in character. There is nothing peculiar to Vermont about either of them. Sure, the state has a fiscal mess. But so do about 45 others, most of them worse than Vermont’s.

There is one other point to make and one more question to ask. The point is that it’s early, time for a Dunne or Bartlett to figure out how to squeeze up the middle to victory in a multi-candidate race. Time, also, for a couple of those Democrats to get together and create a de facto Gov-Lite Gov ticket.

It stops being early (herewith the pseudo-official proclamation) January 2. It starts being late March 1.

The question is: Why does anyone want to be governor? By all indications, the next governor will have to spend his/her first term raising taxes and/or cutting programs. That’s no fun. Worse, it’s a prescription for being a one-termer.

Back in 1945, when most of the real ball-players were off at war, the theretofore (and largely here to-aft) hapless Chicago Cubs met the slightly less hapless Detroit Tigers in the World Series.

Walking into the ball park for the first game, Chicago sportswriter Warren Brown was asked who would win.

“Nobody,” he said.

In the wake of Tom Salmon’s switch from the Democrats to the Republicans, it’s time to consider Vermont politics in the light of that story. Not because of what Salmon did, but because of the way he did it: not very well. He seemed pleasant and moderately articulate, but a bit wooden.

Not nearly as wooden as his prose, though. He actually said, “The Democratic Party left me,” which was a cliché 30 years ago.

But this is Vermont, which, with Howard Dean gone and Jim Douglas going, is bestridden by political mediocrities. Right now, most of the likely candidates to replace Douglas as governor have a history of either losing or most unimpressively winning. There’s not a fearsome face in the crowd.

Start with the Republicans. The front-runner to whom all will defer should he want the job is Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie.

Winner of four statewide elections. Strong record, no?

No. Dubie snuck into office in 2002 because Progressive candidate Anthony Pollina took enough votes from Democrat Peter Shumlin to allow Dubie to slip in with a plurality. Then he kept getting re-elected because: (a) He is by all evidence a nice guy; (b) His Democratic opponents were palookas; (c) Nobody cares who the lieutenant governor is.

Outside the Republican inner circle Dubie has only the tiniest personal following. If he runs, he will get the hard-core Republican vote and nothing more, unless, of course, the Democratic candidate is yet another palooka.

Or, considering how much more conservative Dubie is than the average Vermonter, maybe even if the Democratic candidate is yet another palooka. Meaning he’d probably lose.

(Digression: And doesn’t it seem that he’ll not run? The very fact that he’s taking time to think it over (assuming that’s not an act designed to make him appear modest) indicates his heart isn’t in it. After all, the only point to being lieutenant governor is to run for governor. Why hesitate?)

If Dubie doesn’t run, many Republicans will turn to State Sen. Randy Brock of Franklin County, the only Republican aside from Douglas and Dubie (and Jim Jeffords, who soon thereafter became an ex-Republican) to win statewide office since roughly the Pleistocene era. That’s a sign of strength, isn’t it?

Not really. Brock beat an incumbent Auditor of Accounts who had been caught fudging her educational credentials. Even if the evidence did not quite support the judgment “lying about” those credentials, it was close enough. Elmer Fudd could have beaten Elizabeth Ready in 2004.

Politically speaking, the Auditor of Accounts has one thing in common with the lieutenant governor: almost nobody cares who he or she is because almost nobody knows what he or she does. Substantively, there is a difference. The Auditor of Accounts actually does something. Brock apparently did it well enough.

But two years later he got beaten by Salmon, a challenger whose only credentials were having the same name as a popular former governor and being a Democrat.

Besides, Brock, who also seems to be a nice guy (based on one conversation) is even more conservative than Dubie. His conservatism does not make him completely unelectable in Vermont. But close.

Or what about Mark Snelling. Like Salmon, he’s the son of a popular former governor. But he’s a Republican, and people do care who the governor is, meaning the typical voter might examine his credentials beyond checking out his name.

His credentials are that he runs the family business and the Snelling Center, a think tank of sorts which…well, which does something having to do with looking into government and politics. Exactly what it does remains mysterious. Its impact, however, is clear: it has had none. Being the head of a think tank about which nobody thinks isn’t much of a credential.

There are a few other Republicans supposedly contemplating a run for governor, and for all anyone knows, Sens. Phil Scott , Vince Illuzzi, and Kevin Mullin might be good candidates. So might former Sen. John Bloomer. But none has ever run statewide. Only Illuzzi is widely known, and he might be too much of a maverick, and too much the economic populist, to win a Republican primary (though possibly the Republican most likely to beat a Democrat).

Oh, yes, the Democrats. Among whom we have one candidate (Sen. Doug Racine) who lost a statewide election he should have won; a potential candidate (Shumlin) who did the same, in the same year (2002); and another candidate (Sen. Susan Bartlett) who appears to have raised no money for her campaign and who is little known to the general public.

Granted, there is one undefeated champ—Deborah Markowitz, who has been elected six straight times as Secretary of State, a string of victories that would be more impressive had the elections been for, say, Homecoming Queen at Siwash U. or Treasurer of Local 252 of the International Tiremakers and Mechanics Union.

Like Sate Treasurer, Secretary of State should be an appointed position, and isn’t only because it gives politicians an office to run for so they can run for something else. Somehow, her predecessor (the one she knocked off in 1998) managed to do the job poorly, an extraordinary feat suggesting a level of incompetence so extreme as to be almost admirable.

Having knocked off an incompetent, being competent herself, not to mention rather charming, and a Democrat, Markowitz kept getting re-elected. Elmer Fudd would have done the same.

At this point, a certain generosity would be both compassionate and (more important) accurate. Political losers –Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama — have returned as better candidates and won big victories. Shumlin and Racine seem to be sharper, more aggressive, candidates than they were in 2002. Bartlett, an accomplished legislator, could emerge as the sleeper candidate of 2010. And who knows? Even Tom Salmon, if he could hire himself a better writer, might become formidable.

Right now, though, the 2010 campaign here looms as a clash of…well, not quite of midgets. But certainly not of giants.

Still, someone will win. Someone won the 1945 World Series, too. The Tigers in seven. Hank Greenberg, home from serving in the Army, hit two home runs.

But that didn’t mean they were any good.

Third?

Jim Douglas finished third?

Take a look. There it is in black and white, In the latest political contribution reporting period, Douglas’s campaign raised $91,203.

That’s less than the $102,416 raised by State Sen. Doug Racine, who is one of the Democrats who wants Douglas’s job. It’s a lot less than the $190,737 raised by Secretary of State Deb Markowitz, who is another one.

Enough numbers. Numbers are booooring. In and of themselves, campaign finance reports are booooring. But sometimes there are stories behind the numbers. Sometimes there are even mysteries, which of course are not boring. This is one of those times.

We have here two questions and two mysteries. The questions apply to the Democrats, and we will get to them presently. The second mystery is really not so much a mystery as a secret, the secret of why campaign money is so important. It is a secret kept though the answer is in plain sight, but never discussed by the insiders, including political journalists.

We’ll defy the fraternity rules here, but thanks to the other mystery, it looks as though we won’t have time or space to do it today. So this will be a two-part exercise, to be completed Monday.

OK, let’s get to that first mystery: Does the (relatively) paltry Douglas report indicate that the governor might not seek a fifth term next year?

Probably not. It’s early. So early that there is still time for State Sen. Susan Bartlett, who says she is running but has raised no money, to become competitive. So early there is time for State Sen. Peter Shumlin, who has not yet said he is running, to announce his candidacy and get into the game.

So certainly there is plenty of time for Douglas to raise enough money by next year at this time to give him a huge financial advantage over whichever Democrat wins the primary (which won’t even have happened a year from now; it’s scheduled for September 14, 2010).

Douglas himself noted that the Democrats need more money earlier than he does, because Racine and Markowitz (at least) will be running against each other in that primary, while Douglas will be unopposed for the Republican nomination.

“They now have more money to beat each other up with,” he told the Barre/Montpelier Times-Argus.

So let’s beware the danger of over-interpretation. The danger in reading the tea leaves is that they may contain no message at all.

And yet….and yet…something seems out of kilter here. There is no doubt that had he really wanted to, Douglas could have raised much more. He has two overwhelming advantages: He’s the incumbent and he’s a Republican. Incumbents can always raise more money, and so can Republicans because, even in overwhelmingly Democratic Vermont, most of the overwhelmingly rich people are Republicans.

Conventional political wisdom holds that you take every advantage you can. Coming in with the biggest financial report gives you a few days of news coverage as being the top dog. Douglas could have raised $250,000 or even more, effectively sending a message to the Democrats saying ‘all right, children, you’ve had your fun. Here’s how we play in the big time.’

Not only is this conventional political wisdom; it is Jim Douglas’s method of operation. As a candidate, Douglas has been relentless. Even when he’s been 20 points ahead, his campaigns have attacked his opponents. Just think of the attack (deserved but unnecessary) on Gaye Symington last year after she refused to disclose her family’s financial information. For Douglas, passing up a chance to make himself look stronger than his opponents seems almost out of character.

But pass it up he did. It isn’t just that he didn’t raise that much money; it’s that he reported only 101 contributors. It’s as if he wasn’t trying.

So far, Douglas has not had a good year. Until this past spring, he had suffered but one political defeat in his life, failing to unseat U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy in 1992. Since then he’s won every election he’s contested. As governor, he never got everything he wanted, but for six years he could block everything he didn’t want.

Now, after two of his vetoes were over-ridden, he faces a Legislature which not only has more Democrats, but shrewder and more aggressive Democratic leadership. He is also facing at least two more years of being governor when the state has no money. Generally speaking, being governor is fun when the governor can cut taxes and increase spending. Doing the opposite is clearly less fun.

It would hardly be surprising, then, if at least every now and then the words, “Why do I need this?” ran through this governor’s head. He’s just starting his year as head of the National Governor’s Association. Not a bad stage from which to take a final bow.

On the other hand, he’s only 58. And of the three candidates, only Douglas has spent money on actual politics (as opposed to logistics and organization) all year. Last month, according to his financial filing, he paid Public Opinion Strategies, the prominent Republican polling firm in Alexandria, Va., (creator of the famed “Harry and Louise “ads against the Clinton health care plan) $8,000 for “survey research.”

He’s also raising money. The same day he paid New Hampshire fundraising firm SCM Associations $4,000 for “fund-raising expenses.”

So he’s in the game. For now.

As to those questions about the Democrats. The first question is whether both Markowitz and Racine raised enough. They answer is yes. Obviously, raising more is better, but she didn’t raise that much more. Not enough to establish herself as a clear front-runner.

She has more cash on hand right now — $128,635 to roughly $82,000. But Racine, who didn’t start serious fund-raising until after the Legislative session ended, has enough in the bank, and has been raising money at a fast enough clip to be competitive.

But Markowitz had many more donors, almost all of whom can make more contributions to her campaign.

Another question is whether Markowitz was smart in trumpeting her fund-raising success on the liberal blog Daily Kos.

“I wanted to post a diary here to introduce myself and to announce the spectacular results of our first filing,” she wrote, before giving the web site’s millions of readers her campaign email address.

Smart, because it could help her raise more money and make her appear the established liberal favorite?

Or not-so-smart because it gives opponents, especially the Republicans, ammunition to attack her as being too far to the left, even for Vermont?

Actually, Daily Kos proprietor Marcos Moulitsas is less an ideologue than a pragmatic Democrat. But the web site’s strong stance against the Iraq war has linked it in the public mind with farther-left groups such as Moveon.org. Not that being strongly anti-war is a political liability in this state. But the blogosphere’s vibes have their negative connotations.

The biggest question of all, needless to say, is whether bringing in the most money assures ending up with the nomination, and then with winning the office. So far, Racine has done better than Markowitz at getting endorsements from legislators and other top Democrats. He has had the energy. She has the money.

Which is more important? Why? Why won’t anybody talk about it? Why is the importance of campaign money increasing in Vermont?

Tune in Monday.

The others are not, at least not yet.

Will they? Will Susan call Anthony? Will Deb break bread with David? Will Peter get involved?

Waitaminit! Is this politics or a soap opera?

Anthony Pollina

A little bit of both, now that you’ve asked. The above-named folks are politicians, leaders of the Democratic or Progressive Parties. Some of them are either running for governor, or are thinking about it. That’s the politics part.

The soap opera part is a little more complicated. Start with this premise, though both Democrats and Progressives will consider it  an insult: The two parties are divided less by policy than by petulance, the very pith of soap operas

In Dem v Prog disputes, what matters is less about where one stands on taxes, school spending, or wind power, than it is about who is (or, especially, is not) taking whom seriously, who insulted whom some time back, and which party is the real “spoiler,” a word some Democrats love to hurl at Progressives but all Progressives find offensive. Especially when it’s true, which is only sometimes.

That’s why the term “making nice” was used above to describe the overtures by Racine, a state senator from Richmond and one of three semi-official Democratic candidates for governor, to the  Progressive Party, and especially to Anthony Pollina, the Progressives real if unofficial leader .

It isn’t that Racine and Pollina didn’t talk about strategy and policy. No doubt they did, as did Racine when he spoke to a meeting of the Progressive State Committee last month, and when he shared a cup of coffee recently with Burlington Progressive Rep. David Zuckerman (the “David” in the example above). But considering the relationship between the two parties, the personal contact itself may have been more important than anything else. It sent the signal that Racine was taking the Progressives seriously. Not that being taken seriously is all that the Progs want. But it’s one of the things they want.

It’s also a bit of a risk for Racine. Some active Democrats don’t want to take the Progressives seriously. They want to grind them into the dirt. At a recent county Democratic meeting, some active Democrats wondered how the party could prevent Pollina from running as an independent or Progressive, as he has done three times in statewide races. They reportedly seemed incredulous when told that he had every right to run if he chose.

That could explain why the other Democratic contenders, Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz and Sen. Susan Bartlett of Hyde Park (the “Deb” and “Susan” above) have so far not reached out to the Progressives. It risks enraging some Democrats.

But then, ignoring the Progs enhances the likelihood that they will put up their own candidate for governor, splitting the left-of-center (or at least the left-of-right) vote, rendering it harder for anyone to beat Republican Gov. Jin Douglas. Indeed, it is a common catchphrase, almost a mantra, in both parties, that their major obstacle to success in beating Douglas has been their inability to unite behind one candidate.

Like so many mantras, this one is wrong, or at best minimally right. Just look at the history. In 2000, Pollina ran as a Progressive against Democratic incumbent Howard Dean and Republican Ruth Dwyer, splitting the liberal vote. Dean won anyway. In 2004 and 2006, the Democratic contenders were effectively fusion candidates who ran one-on-one against Douglas. They lost anyway. Last year, Pollina ran as an independent with Progressive backing, again splitting the liberal vote , this time with Democrat Gaye Symington. But it made no difference. Douglas got a majority.

Only in the 2002 contest for lieutenant governor, where Pollina siphoned enough votes from Peter Shumlin (the “Peter” above, who may yet get into this race) did the Progressive candidate “spoil” the race for the Democrats, as Republican Brian Dubie won a plurality victory.

One can go back and quibble with the political significance of some of those examples. Had Ruth Dwyer been a good candidate, for instance, Pollina might have cost Dean the governorship. Still, the basic message is clear. A really good Democratic candidate, who can get votes from the center of the ideological spectrum (even liberal Vermont has lots of middle-of-the-road voters) can get elected even if a Progressive runs. A bad candidate will get beat one-on-one.

Still, the Democratic candidate would clearly have a better chance if there were no Progressive contender in the race. Schmoozing with Progressives allows Racine to say to Democratic primary voters-‘pick me, because if I win there’s less likely to be a third candidate in the race.’

The down side is that it provides ammunition for a Republican attack on Racine as a captive of the left.

Not surprisingly, both Racine and Pollina use a more sober term than “making nice” to describe their conversations.

“I’m reaching out to the Progressives,” said Racine, who said Pollina is “engaged in conversations with me.,” and is “showing an interest” in Racine’s candidacy

“The conversation continues,” Racine said. “Where they go, I don’t know. I would appreciate his support. I think I’m someone who could heal that (Democratic-Progressive) division.”

Pollina said he would continue to meet with Racine and would be willing to meet with the other Democrats, too. But he hasn’t ruled our running again himself.

“I’m still thinking about it. Definitely,” he said.

It isn’t that Pollina can be dissuaded from running just by taking him to lunch, or that the Progressives can be persuaded not to run their own candidate simply by paying attention to them. Both Pollina and his party are committed to a set of policy positions, and there are some policy differences between the parties. During the recent state budget battles, for instance, the Progressives favored fewer budget cuts and slightly higher taxes than the Democratic leadership ended up accepting.

In reality, though the Democratic leaders didn’t disagree with the Progressives as much as they had to give some ground to their own more moderate members. The Progressives have the luxury of having no moderate members. That’s why they formed their own party to begin with, so they wouldn’t have to compromise with moderates.

Even Pollina acknowledged, though, that there weren’t many differences among the Democratic contenders.

“There are a lot of similarities among the candidates,” he said. “We have a handful of what might be considered left-of-center Democrats. The question is, what level of commitment do they really have to issues? It’s easy to say ,’I support universal health care.’ What does that mean?  Who’s going to be willing to follow through, to build a coalition strong enough to do more than defeat Jim Douglas, but also stand up against the other special interests that permeate our politics?”

And the way to answer that question, Pollina said, “is not a precise science. Part of it does come down to a gut feeling.”

Gut feelings, of course, even when they are about politics, are personal. They make for great soap operas.

Deb Markowitz

Ok, the Legislative session is over so it’s time to talk a little politics.

The news, in case you missed it in the Burlington Free Press Monday, is that former Gov. Phil Hoff endorsed State Sen. Doug Racine of Richmond  for governor next year.

Generally, an endorsement guarantees a candidate the vote of the endorser and (maybe) that of his or her spouse. Considering that Hoff hasn’t run statewide for more than 30 years and that  perhaps as much as half the likely Democratic electorate in next year’s primary has only the foggiest notion of who he is, a first reaction would hold that this case fits the general pattern.

But maybe not. Hoff, who became the first Democratic governor in more than a century in 1962, remains a hero to Vermont Democrats who can remember the 1960s. If nothing else, his endorsement gives the Racine campaign an early shot of gravitas.

Furthermore, in his column, Hoff said he wasn’t just issuing a statement, but would be “campaigning hard.” He said he and his wife, Joan, ” will visit different counties, meet with old friends and new, and have good conversations about the importance of this election and the importance of electing Racine.”

Doug Racine

If Hoff, who is about to turn 85, is half the campaigner he was a few decades ago, he could help Racine.

Does this make Racine the early front-runner?

Not really

In the first place, it’s almost too early even to have an early front-runner. And then, getting a key endorsement or two is only one way for a candidate to be taken seriously. The other way is raise a lot of money, and here Secretary of State Deb Markowitz may be outstripping Racine.

“We have over 500 donors, some from every county in the state,” Markowitz said. “I’m expecting we’re going to have a (financial) report we’re really going to be proud of.”

Those campaign finance reports are due July 15, just about when the other semi-officially announced candidate, Sen. Susan Bartlett of Hyde Park, said she “will have a web site and all that stuff .” Bartlett, who only last week announced that she would run, said (on a voice mail message as she and the News Guy played telephone tag) she was still “talking with folks and getting the kitchen cabinet organized.”

Starting later is something of a disadvantage for Bartlett, especially because she’s the only candidate who hasn’t run statewide. Markowitz has held state office for almost 12 years, Racine ran for governor in 2002, and State Senate President Peter Shumlin, who has not ruled out running, lost to Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie that year.

But – again – there’s plenty of time, time enough for Bartlett, Shumlin, or even someone else to get into the race, get known, and get nominated.

One reason Markowitz is expected to raise a lot of money is that she has a long-term relationship with EMILY’s List, a Washington-based nationwide organization that raises money early in the campaign process (the name is an acronym for “Early Money is Like Yeast’” there is no Emily) for women candidates who are pro-choice on abortion.

As is Bartlett, but Markowitz noted that “EMILY’s list and I go way back ” and the organization is well-connected in Democratic fund-raising circles around the country.

Right now, at least until Bartlett really begins to raise money and campaign, the Democratic race is a one-on-one contest between Racine and Markowitz, with each trying to accentuate his or her strengths, while subtly (or perhaps not so subtly) pointing to the other one’s vulnerability.

The conventional wisdom is that Markowitz will “win” the first test, reporting more financial contributions than Racine on July 15. Getting and spending more money doesn’t necessarily win the race. But not raising enough usually means losing the race, and at any rate the political reporters will make much of the first financial reports because…well, because they are some indication of strength.

And they are numbers, meaning they are objective measurements.

But no one should be surprised if Racine ends up with enough money, even if not as much as Markowitz.

“I’m  focused on fundraising because I know that Deb has been working all winter on it,” Racine said. “It’s going well.”

Notice that neither candidate provided even a rough estimate of how much had been raised. Politics, as Jerry Bock and Sheldon Harnick once noted, is rather like poker, and the wise player does not reveal his or her hand.

(Who were those guys who once noted? A theatrical reference. A gold star for the first reader who sends a comment indentifying it correctly).

Needless to say, both candidates insist they are running less against each other than against Republican Gov. Jim Douglas.

“I believe Jim Douglas is politically weaker now than he was before (the Legislature overrode his budget veto),” said Racine. “Vermonters are looking at him differently, seeing someone who did not fulfill his responsibility, which is to find consensus.”

Markowitz agrees, saying that in her travels as Secretary of State, “what I hear is that more and more people are ready for a change. They want leadership in Montpelier.”

But what kind of leadership, what kind of consensus? Here the two candidates note the differences between them. Racine is painting himself as the strong, outspoken, Democrat whose views are well known.

Which, he not so subtly notes, can not be said of all the candidates.

“I know where I am and I know where Susan and Peter are, because we all have voting records. Deb has been in a position where she has not had to be involved in the policy issues the Legislature faces.”

Markowitz doesn’t really argue the point.

“I don’t have a voting record,” she said. “People don’t know where I stand. All they have to do is ask me.. They’ll find out.”

But she, too, gets in her digs, in her case without mentioning anyone by name.

“Vermonters …want the Governor and legislative leaders to have an honest dialogue and work out their differences,” she said in a recent campaign email.”The budget is not a political football to pass back and forth.”

A sideswipe at both Douglas and the Legislative Democrats, sending the message that those guys are all part of the system and implying that she, though a statewide official for more than a decade, is not. Markowitz is trying to paint herself as something of an outsider.

And while she doesn’t dwell on it, a younger outsider. Racine is 57, Markowitz ten years younger. Not that much younger, actually, but as it happens, exactly the age of another candidate who ran as something of an outsider (though he was a U.S. Senator), as well as the voice of a new generation. That candidate is now President of the United States, and not a bad example after which a Vermont contender could model herself.

One other difference has emerged between the two Democrats – their approach to that seemingly eternal (and some  would say infernal) conundrum facing Vermont Democrats – how to deal with the Progressive Party, and especially its leader ,Anthony Pollina, a once and perhaps future candidate for governor himself.

The differences are subtle, more nuance than polar opposition. But describing them will not only take a little time, but will also provide the opportunity to indulge in a short essay about the myths and realities of the Democratic-Progressive alliance/rivalry.

Tune in tomorrow.

Though a poll taken now would surely find him trailing Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, from what might be called the political energy perspective, Racine could even be considered the front-runner in the general election, thanks to his de facto campaign associate: Jim Douglas.

It was Douglas who declared that most Vermonters would find it “perverse” that Racine had already announced his candidacy. A plausible contention, but in making it, Douglas was reacting to Racine.

Front-runners do not react. Especially incumbent front-runners.

By reacting, and by focusing his reaction on Racine, Douglas did Racine the favor of seeming to be – if only for the moment – the “other guy” in the mix. Right now, it’s Douglas versus Racine.

Secretary of State Deb Markowitz, who has created an official campaign “exploratory committee” but not officially declared her candidacy, could not have been pleased. Neither, probably, were Sens. Peter Shumlin and Susan Bartlett, who are also among those “mentioned” as possible Democratic candidates.

While it is a plausible contention that most Vermonters would find a two-year campaign for governor “perverse,” the suggestion is implausibly inconsistent coming from Douglas, who in the past has supported four-year terms for governor precisely because the current two-year system essentially means that governors can never stop campaigning.

Certainly Douglas never stops. He can’t. Statewide campaigns take two years these days. That’s not a matter of any candidate’s choice. It is the imperative of campaigns that (yes, even in Vermont) revolve around television, and therefore depend on the money needed to pay for TV ads. To raise enough money, campaigns have to get organized early. Twenty-two months before the election is not too early.

So, “perverse” or not, it was smart of Racine just to jump into the race last month.  If you’re going to do it, do it. Whether his assertiveness is what convinced Treasurer Jeb Spaulding to decide not to run is unknowable and irrelevant. What is known and relevant is that one of the more formidable contenders took himself out of the contest.

Also known and relevant is that the Democrats in general are being aggressive. After their fourth straight defeat by Douglas in November, Democrats seemed stunned and cowed. The Republican governor bestrode the state like the last Republican colossus in New England, easily surviving Barack Obama’s Vermont sweep.

But in the last six weeks or so, Douglas has stumbled a bit. Nothing calamitous to be sure, and nothing that can’t be reversed. But at the very least he has for the moment lost control of the political/policy conversation. His insistence on deep budget reductions, no tax increases, and sharp cuts in school spending has inspired more opposition than support, and has gotten no traction in the Legislature.

A visitor to the Senate Finance Committee’s meeting room yesterday would have seen on the wall a white poster on which three circles had been drawn, representing three means of solving the state’s fiscal mess. One was labeled “cuts,’ but the other two were “stimulus” (as in the Federal law signed yesterday), and the third “revenue.”In each circle were the words, “How much? Where?” The senators are obviously planning to use all three circles.

The governor also seemed a bit discombobulated by the latest Lake Champlain brouhaha. After travel writer Peter Greenberg included the lake in a “must-miss” list in his new book, Don’t Go There!: The Travel Detective’s Essential Guide to the Must-Miss Places of the World, Douglas’s office put out a statement calling it “outrageous  that Mr. Greenberg chose to rely on misleading information from an anti-growth organization trying to score cheap political points.”

The apparent reference was to the Conservation Law Foundation, which did seem to have been one source for Greenberg’s conclusion, which arguably over-stated the case; only parts of the lake are badly polluted.

But politically speaking, some assertions are better ignored than attacked. And whatever the merits of the case, Matt Crawford’s column in Sunday’s Free Press put the finishing touches on the political argument, not in Douglas’s favor.

Greenberg’s comments may have been “over the top,” Crawford said, “but you have to admit, Lake Champlain seems more like a cesspool than a pristine place these days, and the chance for improvements coming on any front seem slim to none.”

Ouch. In the Vermont sports fishing community, Crawford has clout. Though “only” an outdoor writer, he was one of the best reporters on the Free Press until he decided to work full time for a more civilized outfit while still contributing two columns a month to the newspaper.  On the record of his past work, no one could reasonably call him partial to the ultra-Green faction. His column, then, put a fitting if unwelcome end to a politically uncomfortable  couple of weeks for the governor.

Now, all this is transitory to the nth degree. Right now, few Vermonters care about next year’s governor’s race. Only weird people like the writer (and quite likely the readers) of this web site are paying attention. And beware of the attention-payers. Just a little more than a year ago the experts were assuring all of us that there was no way Hillary Clinton could fail to win her party’s presidential nomination and no way John McCain could succeed in winning his.

So there’s plenty of time for Racine, who ran an uninspired campaign for governor in 2002, to squander his advantage, plenty of time for Markowitz or one of the other Democrats to become the front-runner, more than enough time for Douglas to regain his political footing.

Right now, though, Doug Racine must be feeling pretty good.

Jeb Spaulding

Already? Oh, it’s not so already. In the words of one possible Democratic candidate, State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding, “if we were one of 48 states that had four-year terms, this would not be early. The next election date here is same as in all those other states.

True, enough, and in most of those 48, potential candidates are doing just what the ones in Vermont are doing-talking to potential supporters and contributors, thinking about (if not actually talking about) setting up an organization, keeping a wary eye on possible opponents.

(The only other state with a two-year term for governor is neighboring New Hampshire. It’s possible that little is going on there, but only because incumbent Democrat John Lynch is so popular that it seems he might be governor for life).

We know that the 2010 election campaign is on because State Sen. Doug Racine has already said he is running. Not thinking about it. Not setting up an exploratory committee. Not weighing his options. Running.

“People were calling me,” said Racine, who lost a close race to Gov. Jim Douglas in 2002. “(former Gov. Phil) Hoff invited friends to his house and people urged me to do it, so I said I will do it.”

Having told a living-room full of political types, Racine knew the story would leak to reporters within days. So he leaked it himself. The race is on.

By announcing his decision early, Racine both outflanked his potential Democratic primary opponents and did them a favor. He got his name in the news and becomes-however fleetingly-the front-runner. On the other hand, by going first, he got the game started; now the others don’t have to worry about seeming excessively ambitious if they put together campaigns.

At least the other two possible candidates contacted for today’s exercise didn’t bother to be coy.

“It’s hard not to think about it when two or three people a day come up and ask you to do it,” said Spaulding. “So I’m thinking about it.”

So is Secretary of State Deb Markowitz, who said that while it was “too early to begin all-out campaigning,” she would decide by this summer. Many Democrats expect Senate President Peter Shumlin to run, and perhaps Auditor Tom Salmon. Now and then one also hears the names of former State Senator Matt Dunn and Democratic operative Chuck Ross, who was an early supporter backer of Barack Obama.

There could be more. Lots of candidates attract…lots of candidates. After all, if there are five or six people running in the primary, the winner might need no more than 20 percent or so of the vote. All sorts of politicians think they can do that. So do all sorts of non-politicians.

The Democrats, then, are starting out a lot earlier and with many more possible candidates than they did two years ago, when at first nobody would run, and then finally nobody did run, though in this case nobody was also known as Gaye Symington. No reflection on her character or intelligence; she was just one of the worst statewide candidates ever. Not just in Vermont ever, either. In the whole country ever.

This crop looks better, though it’s hard to say which one would be strongest or how the field would shape up. Spaulding seems to be, in his own words “slightly more centrist” than the others, perhaps meaning he’d be most likely to win the general election if he could win the primary, in which liberal voters dominate.

But Racine indicated that he, too would try to appeal to centrist voters.

“I lost my race in the middle,” he said. “There are a lot of folks out there sort of in the middle.”

Markowitz is feisty, popular, and is likely to be the only woman, also a probable advantage in the primary. Racine and Shumlin are well-known, but in part because they’ve lost races for, respectively, governor and lieutenant governor.

Of course, with lots of candidates starting early, Democrats could have the opposite problem from the one they faced last year-a fiercely contested race for the nomination that would weaken the eventual winner in the general election.

But that’s politics; you escape one problem only to jump into another. On balance, the Democrats are better off this way. If nothing else, while they all try to pre-empt each other, they might just pre-empt Anthony Pollina, the Progressive and/or independent who edged Symington out for second place last year and has indicated he might run again.

Democrats can’t keep Pollina from running. But one of his advantages last time was that while they dithered, he ran, perhaps hoping that the Democrats would not field a candidate at all. Lacking a similar advantage for 2010, he might think twice about getting into a three-way race he couldn’t possibly win.

Not that the Democrats are likely to win a three-way race, either. In fact, as long as Douglas continues to get majorities, nobody can beat him in a two-way race. With a 55 percent victory in the face of a general Democratic blow-out last year, Douglas is the Heavyweight Champeen of Vermont politics.

But with one exception, he only a beat a few palookas. Symington, the hapless Scudder Parker in 2006, and the befuddled Peter Clavelle in 2004. Only Racine gave him a tough fight. Indeed, Racine might have won had an independent candidate, Cornelius Hogan, not (probably) drained more votes away from him than from Douglas

Racine led in the polls right up through the final weekend, and when he lost the polling firm was scorned and ridiculed. Perhaps unfairly. Racine had a plurality, never a majority, and he was badly outspent at the end, with Douglas ads on the air right through Election Day afternoon. Besides, undecideds were moving Republican all over the country, and Vermont was no exception. Douglas probably got almost all the late deciders.

Markowitz, Racine and Spaulding all said any Democrat had to assume that Douglas would run again. They think he might be vulnerable. “A certain amount of fatigue” sets in with any politicians after several years, Spaulding said. Racine said there was dissatisfaction even with what he called Douglas’s “base” in the business community, because “he hasn’t delivered on economic development plans.”

Confidence? Or bravado?

There remains, to be sure, the possibility that Douglas won’t run for a fifth term. In that case, Vermonters would get a glimpse of a political organization in worse shape than the Vermont Democratic Party: the Vermont Republican Party.