The Progressive Party web site has a thorough set of profiles of past and present party candidates and officeholders, but executive director Morgan Daybell isn’t among them.
Daybell is the force behind all of its organizing, fundraising and marketing operations, and yet he is a virtually invisible presence on the site and in public. Though his voice can be heard in occasional blog entries, and he is occasionally quoted in the press, his main task is to keep this ground-up, decentralized state party together. And unlike the Democratic and Republican EDs, Daybell does so without backup—not to mention funding—from a national party headquarters.
Daybell came to the ED position in March 2007 with no previous experience in politics. His most relevant qualification is a master’s degree in public administration from the University of Vermont that he pursued on the job. This followed a decade of work in nonprofit administration in Washington, D.C.
He grew up in a left-leaning household in upstate New York and made his mark as a volunteer in the Progressive Party in 2004 when he worked on Progressive Dexter Randall’s race for state representative. This successful campaign led to a slot on the state coordinating committee, and then the role of ED. In his spare time, Daybell sits on the Montgomery Elementary School board of directors and is co-director of Montgomery’s ambulance service.
If you’re expecting the man who represents the party to have a ponytail or at least a shaggy haircut in keeping with Progressive tradition, you’ll be disappointed. It may be de rigueur for old-style Progressives, but Daybell has a tidy beard and his hair may just reach his collar.
The 40-year-old Daybell doesn’t come across as a politician of any stripe; he is a soft-spoken spokesman for the third major party in Vermont, and he has the unenviable task of fielding questions on the touchy issue of whether the Progressives are election spoilers rather than a “keep’em honest” corrective to Democratic candidates who are unwilling to take strong positions on issues that matter to the Progressives.
The Progressive Party has been active statewide for only about 10 years, and Daybell, who moved to Vermont in 1999, got involved with the party right away. The Progressives’ mascot – the signature bull moose on the literature and on campaign buttons — harks back to Teddy Roosevelt 100 years ago, but, in fact, the state level Vermont Progressive Party grew out of the “Party of Bernie Sanders,” the Chittenden County/City of Burlington movement of 30 years ago that gave Sanders, who has severed formal ties to the Progressive Party, his start. (Daybell says Sen. Sanders will stump for Progressive candidates with whom he had connections in the past, but he hasn’t been promoting the political careers of young candidates whom the party must depend on for its long-term survival.)
Questions regarding the role the Progressives will play in this election cycle still hang in the air. Will Pollina run again, making the pre-primary campaign for governor a seven-way race? And now that Rep. David Zuckerman has dropped out of the lieutenant governor’s race, who will the Progressive contenders be for that seat and other statewide offices?
Anthony Pollina is the most prominent Progressive to run for statewide office, and he has been criticized for siphoning votes from the Democratic Party in three recent elections. He ran for governor in 2000 against incumbent Howard Dean, the Democrat, and Ruth Dwyer, the Republican candidate. Pollina won 10 percent of the vote, which wasn’t enough to tip the balance for Dwyer, and Dean won with 50.4 percent of the vote. In 2002, Pollina campaigned for lieutenant governor and garnered 24 percent of the ballots. He ran again in 2008 – this time for governor, again – and tied with Democrat Gaye Symington. Together, they trailed the tally for Jim Douglas by 30,000 ballots, making Douglas the sure winner — even if Pollina had not run.
Last June, in an interview with Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau about the field of Democratic candidates for governor (already up to three at that point), Daybell said, “Obviously, a two-person contest is better.” He went on to say, “In 2007 and 2008, Pollina’s attempts to reach out to Democrats was all part of a strategy to make it a two-way race in the absence of any strong Democratic candidate willing to run. How that plays out in 2010, I don’t know yet.”
Questions regarding the role the Progressives will play in this election cycle still hang in the air. Will Pollina run again, making the pre-primary campaign for governor a seven-way race? And now that Rep. David Zuckerman has dropped out of the lieutenant governor’s race, who will the Progressive contenders be for that seat and other statewide offices?
As of last month, Daybell said no one in the party was ready to make a formal announcement regarding the race for governor or any another statewide seat. Recently, Pollina told vtdigger.org that he is considering a race for the Washington County State Senate, which will be left vacant by Phil Scott, R-Washington, who is running for lieutenant governor.
In this year’s election cycle, there are five candidates vying for the Democratic gubernatorial ticket. The Progressives are listening to what the Democratic contenders are saying and watching how the three candidates who are in the Senate vote on key legislation – health care, the budget deficit and Vermont Yankee. They are also watching how rank-and-file House and Senate Democrats vote on these issues, Daybell says.
But in statewide races and the Legislature this year, Progressives are likely to settle for influencing policy not setting it. The party’s positions include shutting down Vermont Yankee, the state’s only nuclear power plant; support for action on a universal, single-payer health care system; and “putting people first” as the state addresses the $151 million budget shortfall.
The Progressives’ influence shouldn’t be underrated. As Daybell sees it, the fact that Democratic candidates for governor are reaching out to Progressives is an indication that the party has substantial pull.
“Now that we’ve had the vote to close Vermont Yankee (Feb. 24), on which Democrats voted with us —all three gubernatorial candidates in the Senate voted against relicensing—we’re happy about that issue. But we’re waiting to see what’s going to happen with health care,” Daybell said. “The level of pain people are feeling is clearly going up and now it’s looking increasingly likely that nothing substantial will happen at the federal level.”
The Progressives’ influence shouldn’t be underrated. As Daybell sees it, the fact that Democratic candidates for governor are reaching out to Progressives is an indication that the party has substantial pull. Doug Racine spoke to the Progressive state committee meeting last May and Susan Bartlett gave a talk to members in August. Matt Dunne came to the recent February caucus. Shumlin is expected to put in an appearance at a Progressive event this spring or summer, Daybell says, but makes no mention of a Markowitz appearance, though last August, she went on record saying that “if invited” she would appear at a Progressive event. (The Democratic state committee refused to meet with Pollina in 2008 and sent him a three-page letter explaining why. Pollina said the Progressives, on the other hand have welcomed the Democrats who have asked to speak with his Party.)
To keep their major party status, the Progressives must receive at least 5 percent of the vote in a statewide, non-federal race and have organizations in at least 15 towns by Jan. 1 of each election year. All this means plenty of grassroots work. Daybell travels around the state to keep town and county committees active in Progressive Party politics – and doing so isn’t optional – under state statute, parties have to make sure local organizations have in place at least the minimum number of town and county organizations required by law.
Right now, the Progressives have five representatives in the House and one senator, Tim Ashe, the “fusion candidate” of 2008—who sometimes self-designates Progressive-Democrat and sometimes as the reverse, having won with the formal support of both parties, a first in Vermont.
But any real and lasting clout for the Progressives will come from hitting the magic number of 14 in the House and at least a couple in the Senate. For now, all Daybell can say is that all the current crop of Progressives will run again, except for Zuckerman, whom he believes will run for the Senate.
Daybell seems focused on nurturing more Progressive candidates for House and Senate. He still dangles the idea that the Progressives will “probably field an additional six to 10 House candidates.” But they can’t, he says, depend on the party to raise the $3,000 to $4,000 per race they need to run. That’s up to them.
So what does Daybell’s job boil down to? “Recruiting volunteers and candidates, fundraising and strategizing with legislators.”
Unlike the GOP and Democratic Party EDs, Daybell must circulate in the Statehouse, collecting information because there are too few party members in the Legislature to keep tabs on all the initiatives that directly relate to Progressive positions as they move through House and Senate committees. He then reports back to party lawmakers and members.
Daybell’s other responsibilities include meeting Vermont statute requirements for organizing meetings and caucuses in odd-numbered years, holding the annual November convention, updating the web site, fundraising and campaign-finance reporting.
When asked how many Progressive party members are in Vermont, Daybell strikes a cautious note, as he doesn’t think the hard numbers reflect the party’s real statewide support. The party has an e-mail list of up to 2,000 and there are about 120 people on the state committee, he says. In addition, the party has local committees in 13 out of 14 counties and about 80 towns as of December. Daybell anticipates organizing about 30 more municipalities this year.
Recruiting party members is an uphill battle. The reality is that Vermonters aren’t inclined to join political parties, he says, because they don’t have to register as a party member when they vote. And to be active politically is another demand on top of community activism. Daybell describes Progressive voters as a high-minded lot who are perhaps particularly dedicated to contributing to Vermont society, asserting that Progressive voters are “usually already doing a lot in their communities and are already committed to an issue or issues.”
