Four times in the last 17 years, Peter Shumlin’s fellow Democrats in the Senate have elected him as their leader.

Common sense indicates that they must have thought highly of him. They must have found him capable and energetic. It also follows that most of them trusted him. The party leader is the guy who negotiates with other members of his caucus, as well as with the opposition and the administration. No senator would choose a leader he or she found deceitful.

So why does Brian Dubie keep saying that a survey rated Shumlin the “most ethically challenged” member of the legislature, an allegation now included in a pro-Dubie television commercial?

Because it’s true.

Which is not to say that it’s true that Shumlin is more “ethically challenged” than other lawmakers. It’s just true there was such a survey, and that Shumlin got more votes than any of his colleagues to the “most ethically challenged” question.

Twelve votes to be exact. Twelve of the 30 cast, of the 400 questionnaires that Seven Days sent out to legislators, legislative staff, and journalists. On Vermont Public Radio the other day, broadcaster Mitch Wertlieb called the Shumlin designation “a dubious distinction from a small sampling.” Wertlieb was being much too kind. A better description would have been “total garbage.”

This was not a general public sample, sent to 400 randomly selected voters. The distribution was targeted to 400 insiders, by name. The small minority who bothered to answer the questions knew how to manipulate the results. Even with more participation, the conclusions would have been…well, inconclusive. With 28 real responses (two were apparently thrown out for being absurd), the conclusions are meaningless.

From which it does not follow that Dubie and his supporters should be condemned for using the information, or that Seven Days, by and large a positive voice in Vermont’s public discussion, should be condemned for shoddy journalism. In some paradise to come, a political strategist might look at such a survey, conclude that its results are statistically and intellectually indefensible, and ignore it. We do not live in that paradise. No politician of any party – Republican, Democratic, Progressive, Prohibitionist, Free Soil, or Whig – would look at this information as anything but a fat pitch right across the middle of the plate. You don’t let those go by.

As to the editors at Seven Days, they did not commit bad journalism here because these surveys are not journalism at all. They are promotion.

And what, prithee, is wrong with that?

Nothing. All news outlets, including this one, try to promote themselves. (If you don’t notice it about this one, it’s because the proprietor is no good at it, not that he finds it beneath his dignity). Lots of news organizations, especially alternative weeklies such as Seven Days, use contests and surveys as promotion devices. They’re kind of fun. On occasion, they even produce some useful information. This was not one of those occasions.

(Perhaps because we all knew it was promotion, not journalism, all 17 reporters who got the questionnaire ,including this one, did not fill it out and return it.)

In that same paradise mentioned above, editors might look at their meager results and decide not to publish them, or at least not the ones that can be distorted by political operatives. But it’s unreasonable to expect that the folks at Seven Days would have done that. It was their project, and they were probably gung ho about it.

Besides, almost all of them are likely to vote for Shumlin. They might have reasonably feared that holding back the results of that question could have exposed them to the allegation of political bias. All the folks who did fill out the questionnaire, including 18 legislators, knew the question was on the list. Among the 18 were probably several Republicans who’d named Shumlin the “most ethically challenged. So of course, the paper just published it all.

If Seven Days is to be criticized it is less for running the story than for its effort to explain away what it acknowledged was a meager response.  The 7.5 percent of respondents who replied made the rate “ better than direct mail…and not too much worse than the turnout for a Burlington election, which was 23 percent on Town Meeting Day,” the paper wrote.

But the direct mail comparison is not apt (see above for difference between random sample survey and targeted mailing), and according to arithmetic, 23 percent is more than thrice 7.5 percent, which is, indeed, “too much worse.”

None of which deals with the essential question: Is Shumlin “ethically challenged”?

Of course he is. So are we all, almost every day. “Ethically challenged” isn’t even the right term. It’s pop-psych jargon. The English translation would be “unethical.” The real question then becomes whether Shumlin is unethical, or, more precisely, whether he is more unethical (or unethical more often) than the average person, other members of the Legislature, other politicians in general, Brian Dubie in particular.

And the answer of course is that no one has the slightest idea. The Seven Days survey, even had enough respondents answered to make the results statistically respectable, does not constitute evidence.

What would constitute evidence would be something like a credible account that Shumlin had broken his word to another lawmaker, or promised the same committee chairmanship to more than one senator, or voted for legislation he really found abhorrent to please a big contributor. Were there such credible accounts, the Dubie campaign, thus far showing no sign of subtlety or restraint, would be shouting the news to the mountaintops. The lack of such shouting indicates that the evidence is not there.

Come to think of it, though, it would be surprising if there were no grumblings about Shumlin’s ethics, even if the grumbling has remained private. Shumlin has been the Senate leader, which in a way puts him at a disadvantage vis a vis Dubie, whose only real leadership position in public office was as chairman of the Essex Junction School Board years ago. A lieutenant governor is not a leader; he doesn’t have to displease anybody.

Leaders do. They have to make decisions their followers don’t like, and some of those followers then conclude that the leader has acted unethically. The athlete taken off the starting squad, the actor who doesn’t get the part, the applicant who doesn’t get the job is tempted to accuse the coach, the director, the boss of favoritism or some other unethical behavior.

Legislative leaders are constantly negotiating, with their own members, the opposition, the administration. Often, these negotiations conclude with compromise agreements. On both the political left and right – but more these days on the left – some true believers consider compromise unethical. It wouldn’t be surprising if a few of those 12 votes were from Democratic lawmakers who are to Shumlin’s left, and who resent the compromises he made with Gov.  Jim Douglas’s administration earlier this year.

In addition, negotiators sometimes hear what they want to hear rather than what has been said. When the leader says, “I’ll try to get your pet bill to the floor,” the member might hear, “I promise I’ll get your pet bill to the floor.” When it doesn’t get to the floor, the member thinks the leader lied.

Of course, it’s entirely possible that now and then Shumlin did promise to get a bill to the floor, and then not do it, either because he couldn’t or because he didn’t care. But “entirely possible” is not evidence, either, and with no evidence, there is only one word to describe accusing any individual of being unethical, That word is: unethical.

The Democratic governor’s race is no longer without form and void.

The auditor’s race is no longer boring.

OK, that wording used to describe the primary for governor is a tad grandiose, having more famously been applied to the entire cosmos, next to which the Vermont Democratic Party is an infinitesimal speck.

Still, the phrase is descriptive. The endorsements of Sen. Doug Racine by both the state’s AFL-CIO and the teachers union (Vermont NEA) do not make Racine the front-runner. No one can be considered the front-runner until someone releases an independent, credible poll (and, no, the one being taken by the campaign of Sen. Peter Shumlin, one of Racine’s four opponents, does not qualify).

But the endorsements do give the campaign some shape (form) and heft (voidlessness?). If nothing else, they provide a framework for thinking about the contest. Racine is at the very least having a good week and the other four are scrambling. It isn’t that the boost he got can’t be overcome. But the other candidates have to take steps to overcome it.

By no means do the endorsements mean that all 10,000 or so Vermont members of AFL-CIO affiliated unions or the 11,500 teachers who belong to the NEA are going to vote for Racine. If there was ever a time when rank and file union members automatically voted as their leaders recommended, that time is long gone.

On the other hand, there’s no reason why a union member – whether a teacher or a construction worker – shouldn’t pay some attention to the suggestion of an organization that helps improve his or her life. Especially when there’s not much difference among the candidates, five Democrats swimming straight in their party’s main stream.

Shumlin, who says he’s a “fiscal conservative,” and Sen. Susan Bartlett, who in her formal campaign kick-off Monday called herself a “centrist Democrat,” are trying to paint themselves as slightly less liberal on taxes and spending than the other three. They may be right, but “slightly” is the key word here. For many Democratic voters, any of the five contenders would be acceptable. So why not go with your union’s choice?

But the bigger boost for Racine might be that both the AFL-CIO and the NEA provide built-in GOTV operations. That stands for “Get Out the Vote,” and in what promises to be a low-turnout primary, the only more valuable asset than an existing organization that knows how to operate phone banks, identify supporters, and arrange car-pools to take voters to the polls is two of them. That’s what Racine now has.

The others can build their own, and no doubt are planning to do so. But it will cost a little time and money that he can spend elsewhere.

The candidate most hurt by the Racine endorsements was former Sen. Matt Dunne. He knew it, issuing a statement Monday congratulating Racine and pointing out that he it was his “understand(ing)  that the endorsement decision came down to Doug and me.”

It did. The endorsement would have been even a bigger boost for Dunne, who is less well-known, so losing it is a big blow. Dunne also hastily scheduled a press conference yesterday to announce the support of  seven House members and two Senators, including the fiscally centrist Hinda Miller of Burlington.

The AFL-CIO did not limit its endorsements to the governor’s race. It made choices in some of the other contests, too, and one of them could prove very interesting indeed. The labor organization’s preferred candidate for State Auditor is Burlington policy analyst Doug Hoffer who plans to run in the Democratic primary, and who also has Progressive Party support.

The reason this is interesting is that Hoffer could actually get elected. And if he does, the Auditor’s office might become a very lively spot.

Full disclosure: Hoffer, who knows how to find economic data and who analyses it astutely (if from his own point of view) has been an occasional source for this web site, which he obviously reads because he now and then comments on the posts. On the other hand, he and the News Guy have never met, and what follows is analysis, not an endorsement.

It’s not really a prediction, either. But here’s why he could win. So far, the only other Democrat running is former Auditor (and present state senator) Ed Flanagan. In the interests of both brevity and kindness, this account will skip the details abut Flanagan’s political problems (available on line for the curious). Suffice to say that thanks to some recent bizarre personal behavior Flanagan is all but unelectable.

Meaning Hoffer could win the Democratic Primary and also be on the Progressive line for the November election against incumbent Republican Tom Salmon.

Not quite unelectable, but decided beatable, also thanks to some of his own bizarre behavior, including a drunk driving episode and writing obscene emails to a reporter. Plus, he’s a party-switcher, elected and re-elected as a Democrat before becoming a Republican late last year. Party-switchers have a tough time getting re-elected.

Aside from one unsuccessful bid for town council in Massachusetts years ago, Hoffer said, he has never run for office. He could be a terrible candidate. Furthermore, another Democrat might jump into the race before next week’s filing deadline. Democratic Party Chair Judy Bevans said “a number of candidates have expressed interest” in running.

If Hoffer does win, he is likely to be, based on his work as an economics numbers-cruncher, both aggressive and independent. He’s an unabashed economic liberal who approves of raising taxes on the wealthy rather than cutting social services. But he’s also a dedicated data freak who does not go where the statistics do not lead. Should he get elected, the Sate Auditor’s office might become not just interesting, but also a word rarely associated with auditors of any stripe: fun.

MEDIA NOTE: The News Guy is by and large a fan of (and has written for) Seven Days, Burlington’s sprightly alternative newspaper. So it was discouraging to see, in its on-line version, a sophomoric swipe at the Roman Catholic Church and Bishop Salvatore Matano. Apparently some ex-Catholics who write for a blog called The Plaid Crew and who seem to harbor ill will toward the Church, saw a perfectly ordinary (actually, a rather touching) picture of the Bishop ordaining a new priest on the cover of the Vermont Diocese’s magazine, Vermont Catholic, and gave it the smuttiest possible interpretation.

For whatever reason, Seven Days writer Lauren Ober found it “sort of the most amazing photo I’ve ever seen…this week” (sort of the most?) and for whatever reason, the editors agreed to post the item on the paper’s Blurt blog.

The temptation to describe this as locker-room humor offends those of us who have spent some time in locker rooms and remember that the jokes there usually contained a modicum of wit.