Question 1: Is this fun? Or what?

Answer: Yes, and historic, too. If not the closest major-party, major-office primary anywhere, ever, it’s close. If nothing else, the Democratic primary is more fun to talk about than the economy, the sundry wars, or, for you Red Sox fans (one of which the News Guy confesses he is not, save when they play the Yankees), baseball. This election has it all: drama, suspense, even a little humor. So enjoy.

Question 2: Is having no winner (yet) bad for the Democrats, meaning good for Republican Brian Dubie?

Answer: Yes. But, then again, no.

Sure, the Democrats would be happier to have an undisputed winner, rather than one guy (Peter Shumlin) leading another (Doug Racine) by 192 votes, and only some 500 votes ahead of the third-place finisher (Deb Markowitz).

The Dems had hoped to hit the ground sprinting Wednesday, raising money and debating Dubie. The first debate had been scheduled for tomorrow evening (the News Guy was to have ‘liveblogged’ it from on site in South Burlington) but it has been postponed. Democrats think and Republicans fear that either Shumlin or Racine (and perhaps Markowitz, too) is a better debater than Dubie, who has a history of trying to meet his opponents one-on-one as rarely as possible. Now the Democrats will have to wait.

Question 3: For how long?

Answer: At least until Friday, maybe until Tuesday, or maybe even for another week after that. Racine issued a statement Wednesday saying he would not concede until the “official results” are released, which he said could come as early as Friday or as late as next Tuesday

Those official results could differ from the unofficial count showing Shumlin ahead. Early counts are often bedeviled by transcription errors, typographical errors, failures to communicate. Over the next few days, town clerks and other election officials will edit themselves and do some recapitulating. Who knows what their final count will be?

Whatever it is, both the second and third place finishers will be close enough to the leader to demand a recount, which could take another week or so.

Question 4: Wait a minute. Didn’t the last statewide recount take closer to two weeks?

Answer: Yes, but that was a general election, for Auditor in 2006, in which the top two candidates got 223,438 between them. Tuesday, slightly more than 72,000 people voted in the Democratic primary, a good turnout, but fewer ballots to count.

Question 5: But won’t another week’s delay be really bad for the Democrats?

Answer: Yes. Or, then again, maybe no. It would cost the eventual winner more valuable time, and it would be a real impediment to fund-raising. On the other hand, the delay would also keep Dubie out of the news and off-stage, or at least away from the center of the stage.

That’s where the top Democrats would be, right in the spotlight, where they are still looking good, acting like grown-ups and treating one another with civility. Shumlin did release a victory statement of sorts yesterday, but it was restrained. So far, the Democrats are neither strutting nor whining.

Question 6: How does anyone know that a recount would be more accurate?

Answer: Because it’s overseen by the courts and operates under much more rigorous standards. Each candidate can have a representative on site (the Washington County courthouse in Montpelier) to challenge any ballot that seems unusual and to monitor the tally. A recount would remove all reasonable doubt that the winner really got more votes than any of his or her opponents.

Question 7: So why not just agree on a recount right now?

Answer: Not a bad question. In fact, unless the leader has a margin of at least 400 or 500 votes,  it might be good politics for whoever wins the official tally to be the one calling for a recount. There will be one anyway if either opponent demands it, the chances are that the leader will still be ahead when the recount is over, and both the candidate and the party will appear public-spirited and generous.

Question 8: Aren’t Democrats worried that all those (mostly) young volunteers who worked so hard for one of the top three will be even more disheartened if one of the others ends up with the nomination, and therefore might not work for the nominee in the fall campaign?

Answer: Yes, and that’s a reasonable worry. But first of all there’s nothing they can do about it, and second it doesn’t loom as a major problem. These candidates, bland if enlightened, did not arouse much emotion. Even most of those who learned to love Candidate A didn’t seem to work up much animosity for Candidates B and C. Most of those campaign volunteers are first and foremost Democrats who want the Democratic nominee to win. They may have to work through a week or so of petulance and grumbling. But most of them will be knocking on doors for (fill in the nominee’s name) by mid-September.

Question 9: How did the Democrats get themselves into this pickle to begin with? Couldn’t they have locked all five candidates in a room and read them the riot act until at least two of them dropped out to seek another office or wait for another day?

Answer: It doesn’t work that way any more, if it ever did. Not just in Vermont, either., It hardly works that way anywhere.

Chicago Democrats or Dallas Republicans? Maybe. But that’s about it. No state party committee, and certainly not Vermont’s, has anywhere near the kind of power over ambitious candidates, who increasingly select themselves. The threat, ‘drop out or else,’ to any candidate would be met by the question, ‘or else what?’

At which point the threatener would have nothing to say. So nobody threatens.

OK, that’s enough questions for now. But remember, this is a good show our pols are putting on for the next few days. Enjoy it.

Scroll down for the earlier version of today’s post.

And don’t forget: The News Guy will be on Vermont Public Television’s ‘Vermont This Week’ Friday.

So what kind of governor – based on the (sort of) detailed economic policy statements all have now unveiled – would any of these five Democratic candidates for governor be?

A Democratic governor, that’s what kind.

Whatever their differences – and there are some – all the Democrats propose to govern the state as one would expect a Democrat would govern. Unlike Brian Dubie, the unopposed Republican one of them will run against after Tuesday’s primary, not one of them promises to cut taxes.

Which does not mean any would raise taxes. Only one even dares to mention the possibility, and the possibilities he mentions are either temporary or selective or both.

So to say that the Democrats would govern like Democrats is not to say that they would govern as Republican caricatures of Democrats, the kind who would make the rich pay higher taxes to finance more generous services for the poor.

These are five center-left Democrats. One or two are a tad lefter and one or two a tad centerer than the others. But as is often the case, Candidate A might be slightly to the left of Candidate B on one issue, but slightly to the right of him/her on another. So where one puts them along the ideological spectrum (assuming that the ideological spectrum is important) depends on which issues any voter finds most important.

From one perspective, for instance, Doug Racine might be considered the most liberal of the contenders. He’s the one who’s open to tapping into the “Rainy Day Fund” or even imposing a temporary tax hike (though he doesn’t think it’s needed now) to avoid budget cuts harmful to the poor. He’s even suggested making sure Internet sales are subject to the state sales tax, and perhaps a special tax on sugar-heavy processed snacks and sodas.

But Racine’s overall policy outlook is relatively restrained. He proposes no big spending programs. Instead he wants to “get back to basics” by being a governor who is “directly involved in every phase of our economic development strategy,” starting with the selection of “the right Secretary of Commerce and Community Development.”

Racine, then, seems to be pledging to improve the state’s economy less by a specific economic program than by his own forceful leadership, with which he hopes to energize state government.

By contrast, Matt Dunne’s rhetoric is unabashedly pro-business. His economic policy paper is titled, “The Innovation State: a Business Plan for Vermont,” and he even accepts the Republican complaint that the state’s economy is held back by “complicated regulations and taxes (and) burdensome costs.”

But Dunne’s specific policy proposals are possibly the most audacious of the bunch (if not always the most comprehensible, at least to those to whom power point presentations remain exotic). He’s calling on the state to issue two separate revenue bonds, each for roughly $400 million, one to finance renewable energy production, the other to bring high-speed Internet service “to the last mile” of every road in the state.

Similarly, Susan Bartlett, the self-described “moderate” in the race, has one of the more novel ideas. Arguing that “innovation and entrepreneurs have always been a part of Vermont,” and could be “true job creators,” Bartlett would establish an ”Office of Innovation and Intellectual Property” to “coordinate the various pieces of our business support organizations (and) educate regional economic development groups about the potential of intellectual property.”

The other two candidates, arguably the most establishment as well as (by the conventional political wisdom) the front-runners, exhibit a comparable mix of caution and daring. Deb Markowitz’s “Jump Start VT” (she does not use spaces between the words; there are depths of degradation to which this web site will not descend) isn’t just an economic policy document. It’s an all-purpose laundry list of positions on issues ranging from ethnic diversity to education.

No sweeping, big-spending programs, but a few bold moves. Markowitz would emulate New Hampshire and require young Vermonters to stay in school until they are 18 unless they have graduated and she would take state money out of big banks that don’t grant adequate credit to Vermont businesses.

Peter Shumlin does have one big-spending plan, $33 million to provide “universal pre-kindergarten education” statewide. But he would pay for it, according to his economic policy (“Vision for Vermont,” spaces in the original) by releasing the state’s imprisoned “non-violent offenders back into society,” which he claims would save $40 million.

Shumlin’s numbers seem to be accurate. His confidence that the Legislature will agree to such a large-scale release of convicted criminals may be misplaced.

As any Vermonter who has been watching television in recent weeks knows, Shumlin also wants to bring a single-payer health care financing system to the state. So does Dunne. Racine favors a similar approach, though he doesn’t say so on his campaign web site, calling only for “universal” coverage. That’s what Bartlett and Markowitz want, too.

Does this mean that if one of these candidates gets elected, Vermonters can expect a universal health insurance system?

No, at least not for a while. The single-payer option is especially iffy, being, for the moment, illegal until 2017 under the new national health law. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the U.S. Senate champion of a “Medicare for all” plan, has said he will try next year to get Congress to move that date up to 2014. Congress seems unlikely to comply, and at any rate, 2014 is two years beyond the term of the governor to be elected this November.

Health care is not the only area of near-unanimity among the Democrats. They all want to bring high-speed Internet to everyone.  They all want to provide small businesses with more credit options. They all want Vermonters to produce and consume more “sustainable” energy, created neither from fossil fuels nor from the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, which they all think should shut down when its license expires in 2012. They all want to use the state’s higher education institutions to help spark a knowledge-based “green” economy.

All five also clutter their position papers with stale bromides. “I want every family to know that if they encourage their children to do well in school and to work hard, they will be better off,” proclaims Racine. “To move together as a state we will need to work together,” intones Markowitz. “Build a Vermont future that is a global leader in the innovation economy, based on a foundation of authentic communities, strategic location, and our premium Vermont brand,” says Dunne.

If pressed, all five would probably endorse motherhood and apple pie, too.

Another commonality is that, like most candidates these days, the Democrats (Shumlin’s pre-kindergarten plan being the exception) make little effort to provide the nitty-gritty details of how much their proposals will cost and how they would pay for them.

In fairness, most of their plans wouldn’t cost much, and they all suggest trimming some state programs. But, just to take one example, Dunne does not seem to have asked an economist to run the numbers on how (or whether) the revenues from Internet and energy users would pay off those $400 million bonds. The other contenders are comparably vague about how they would pay for everything they suggest.

It may be too early to condemn the candidates for this fuzziness. At this point, only Democratic primary voters care what the candidates say, and they are saying enough to give those voters an idea of how each of them would try to govern the state. Each is presenting a vision. Whether the numbers add up isn’t all that important yet.

After all, they are running for governor, not emperor. Governors do not promulgate programs. They suggest them to the Legislature, which will create nothing it can’t pay for. Almost certainly, that means pay for without raising taxes, which the candidates (Racine’s limited exceptions noted above) don’t want to do, either. Like presidents, governors not only don’t get everything they want, they end up not even asking for everything they really want.

It’s still helpful for the voters to know what the governor-to-be really wants.

This generosity of spirit will not last long. Whoever wins the Democratic primary and Brian Dubie will both be pressed harder to tell the voters how they will pay for new programs or for tax cuts. But that’s for next week.

Steel yourselves for heartbreak, you teeming hordes who clicked in today expecting to read the post advertised last Friday – an in-depth analysis of the economic plans of the five Democratic candidates for governor.

Only four of those plans are ready. The fifth, from Doug Racine, was scheduled to be released Wednesday, but scheduling problems, said his campaign, forced a postponement until Monday. Out of fairness, then, the analysis will be put off until next week’s only scheduled post, again on Friday.

But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to say today. In fast-paced, ever-changing Vermont, the news never stops, so neither does the News Guy.

As noted in another recent post (Guilt By Association, July 27) finding politicians “guilty by association” is acceptable. We’re not sending them to jail, just holding them responsible for their choice of friends.

Earlier this week, Sen. Bernie Sanders chose as his friends an organization called the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), which inspired him and two other senators to introduce legislation to phase out taxpayer-supported scientific experiments on chimpanzees.

The senator might want to reconsider.

Not that he or PCRM are necessarily wrong on the chimpanzee issue. According to Sanders, the animals are “no longer needed for research,” and the fact that only the U.S. and Gabon continue to hold chimpanzees for testing indicates that he has a point.

But chimps are not PCRM’s only issue. The organization and its senior medical and research advisor John Pippin, who was quoted supporting Sanders’ bill, also  advocate malariotherapy, or giving patients malaria to treat AIDS and other diseases.

In correspondence that the Cincinnati Beacon said was written by Dr. Eric L Matteson, chair of the Division of rheumatology at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minnesota, Matteson said the World Health Organization has condemned such treatment as “charlatanism.”

(Dr. Matteson’s assistant, Beth Hielscher, said Dr. Matteson was on vacation until next week, and could not be reached to confirm that the correspondence was in fact his. But the Beacon a feisty independent weekly, printed what appeared to be copies of correspondence on the letterheads of both Matteson and Pippin).

There have been other allegations that PCRM is more interested in promoting vegetarianism than in sound scientific research, and that it is allied with PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) whose scientific reliability is also open to question.

When asked about PCRM, Sanders press secretary Michael Briggs emailed that the Senator and his aides “worked primarily with the Humane Society,” and were not aware of the controversy surrounding PCRM.

Another Vermont politician who might want to reconsider an association is Brian Dubie. In the financial disclosure of his campaign for governor, the Republican lieutenant governor candidly reported that the $3,050 his campaign spent with Stormo & Associates of Caledonia, Michigan, was for “opposition research.”

Nothing wrong with oppo research. All candidates do it. Nothing wrong with Stormo & Associates, either, unless one is running for statewide office in Vermont, where one would probably seek to play down any connections with the farthest right fringe of the Republican Party.

Which seems to be where Jeff Stormo is. He did not return a phone call yesterday, but there is ample evidence (see for instance here) that he is closely allied with Dick and Betsy DeVos, the very active, very wealthy (he’s the heir to the Amway fortune who ran for governor in 2006, largely financing his own campaign to circumvent Michigan campaign finance reporting laws), and very conservative couple who squabble almost as frequently with Michigan’s moderate Republicans as they do with liberals and Democrats.

Two of the DeVos’s major issues are opposition to abortion and support for an organization called All Children Matter (Betsy DeVos is or at least was on its board) which supports school voucher systems which would largely replace the existing public school systems.

Perfectly defensible positions, but not ones to run on and win in Vermont. The Democratic candidate, whoever he or she may turn out to be, is likely to try to make Dubie look as right-wing as possible. Here Dubie has provided him or her with some ammo.

And speaking of the Democrats, they all appeared on a televised debate on Channel 3 last night. Channel 3 lost.

Not because there was anything wrong with the questions. There was something wrong with the setting, outdoors at an Addison County fair in New Haven, with fairgoers making noise and several obnoxious children (some of whom were at least 30 years old) jumping up and waving their hands behind the candidates as they spoke.

The candidates were all fine, though Peter Shumlin and Doug Racine were clearly the most impressive on this occasion.

With only 11 days to go until the primary, Democrats are steeling themselves for a paltry turnout. If in fact that comes to pass, one reason will be both the weakness and the strength of the field of candidates.

The weakness is that none of the five has really caught on. Not one of them stands out as especially inspiring. If there is a surge for any one of them, it is well hidden.

The strength is that they all come across as reasonable, enlightened, reassuring. Any one of them seems as though he or she could be a good candidate and a competent governor, maybe even a very good governor.

Perhaps strangely, this may hold down the turnout. Picture the typical Democratic voter, who would gladly support any of the five in November. This voter will have to do some work and some thinking to decide which one to support. Worse, to vote for one person the voter likes requires him or her to vote against another one, two, or more the voter also likes. What a quandary. It all creates a psychological disincentive to vote. Let the other folks decide.

Still, if the turnout is low, and the pundits, chatterers and grouchy letter-to-the-editor writers want to blame someone (assuming for the moment that ‘blame’ is the right reaction), don’t blame the mid-summer date or the candidates. Just blame the non-voter. Everyone should know when Primary Day is. Furthermore, early voting has been open since July 12. No one is disenfranchised.