Editor’s note: Jon Margolis is VTDigger’s political columnist.
[C]ontrary to popular (or populist) opinion, mainstream political analysis is not always wrong.
You know the kind. It’s that stuff that appears in establishment news journals or on their broadcast/cable electronic counterparts, based on polls from equally establishment firms, plus a summary of the views of certified (don’t ask by whom) “experts,” plus precise measurement of which side is raising more money and a less precise assessment of which candidate better appeals to the mood of the electorate.
Usually conveyed in the blandest prose known to humanity.
Yes, it’s conventional wisdom, easy to ridicule, but often right. Just think back to 2012, when the polls and the certified (don’t ask by whom) experts concluded that Mitt Romney would emerge as the Republican presidential nominee but lose to Barack Obama.
By gum, that’s what happened.
So Vermont Republicans need not be alarmed when they learn that all of the data, all of the indicators, and all of the certified experts agree that Gov. Phil Scott will be re-elected this November. Yes, it’s conventional wisdom, but it might be right anyway.
In fact, a glance at the usual criteria for making these predictions leaves little doubt that Scott will win. To begin with, first-term governors of Vermont are almost always re-elected. It’s as though the voters understand that Vermont’s not-quite-unique two-year term for governor (New Hampshire is the other one) is too short, so at least when a governor is first elected, voters transform it into a de facto four-year term.
Then consider that the most recent polling gave Scott a 60 percent approval rating, that his first year in office has been free of scandal or even serious embarrassment, that most voters seem fine with his resolve to prevent any tax or fee increases, that his campaign will be able to raise plenty of money.
Besides, one of the clichés of the conventional political wisdom is indisputably true, hackneyed though it may be: You can’t beat somebody with nobody.
And so far, nobody with any political clout seems likely to run against him. Not Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman. Not the Democratic leaders of the Legislature. Not the other statewide elected officials, Democrats all. Secretary of State Jim Condos, who got almost 80 percent of the vote (albeit against only token opposition) in 2016, said he has not totally ruled out challenging Scott, but is not “leaning that way.”
Then there’s a 13-year-old boy and some guy nobody ever heard of who used to be a Republican. Effectively nobody.
Oh, and there’s James Ehlers. Outside of the Statehouse junkie set and the environmental activist community, the response to the news of his candidacy is likely to be, “Who?”
He may be executive director of Lake Champlain International, but his name is not a household word. Could he end up being just another nobody?
Yes, and from the perspective of Vermont Democrats maybe even worse. Ehlers is blunt, articulate, and on the edge of the political mainstream. Like many a true believer, he’s prone to the occasional intemperate remark. Like any little-known candidate, he is in danger of being defined unfavorably by his (better-financed) opposition before he can define himself. If he is the Democratic nominee, he could lose badly, perhaps by a big enough margin to endanger Democratic candidates for the Legislature.
Or not, and here we come to the potential weaknesses of the conventional wisdom.
Ehlers is interesting. He is politically more interesting than Phil Scott, in the way that Bernie Sanders (as a candidate, not necessarily as a person) was more interesting than Hillary Clinton. That’s one reason his challenge to her in 2016 came closer than had been assumed by mainstream political analysis.
Furthermore, right now Ehlers seems acceptable to the Democratic establishment.
“We welcome James into the race,” said Democratic State Party Chair Terje Anderson. He said he’d welcome others in, too and thinks other Democrats may challenge Ehlers. But he also said he thought Ehlers could be a strong contender.
“This state sends Bernie Sanders to the U.S. Senate,” Anderson said. “There’s something people find appealing about the freshness of someone who isn’t so conventional.”
Right now, this seems to be the dominant Democratic approach to Ehlers. No doubt some leading Democrats are urging others to run. But they’re not doing it openly, perhaps because they fear Ehlers could win the primary over whoever challenges him, and partly because they think he has a chance to run a credible race.
Anderson has a point about Vermont being open to off-beat candidates. The safest political prediction of all this year is that the state will send Bernie Sanders back to the Senate by a big margin, even though he persistently (if not 100 percent accurately) continues to call himself a socialist. Vermont has its own political mainstream.
Besides, if nothing else, an Ehlers candidacy promises to be interesting, perhaps even lively. Democrats might be thinking that if they’re going to lose anyway, they might as well have a little fun.
And Ehlers is not without his strengths, especially with Donald Trump in the White House.
“The traditional rules of politics don’t apply this year,” said State Democratic Committee Executive Director Conor Casey. “Is James a traditional candidate? Not by any means. But that can be an asset.”
The expected boilerplate self-delusion of a partisan? Maybe. But Casey may have a point. For instance, Ehlers said he will raise money only from individuals in small-to-modest donations, and will accept nothing from pharmaceutical companies. He’ll say so, and he’ll remind voters that in 2016 Scott took more than $23,000 from drug and health product firms, and more from other special interests.
That’s good politics anytime, anywhere, and especially this year in Vermont. So is much of the rest of Ehlers’ slightly (or not-so-slightly) off-beat, irreverent approach to the political establishment, including his own party. Assuming he can raise enough money (he probably can) and can refrain from intemperate comments, he might run as strongly as any other Democrat. Maybe stronger.
Meaning he could possibly win?
Oh, not according to mainstream political analysis, which, as noted, is usually sound.
Usually.
