The Vermont primaries are over and the general election campaign is underway but the governor’s race remains a mess as no clear winner emerged in the five-way democratic race. A recount is underway. Senator Peter Shumlin leads the crowded field by 197 votes. Issues we are pondering –

1. Who is the frontrunner now? Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, the GOP candidate, gets a free ride for at least two weeks or until the recount is done. So we say Dubie is out front for now. He is taking advantage of the confusion among Democrats, campaigning hard, holding press conferences and pressing the flesh like an incumbent without an opponent. He has a lot of money and appears to be spending it. He has earned favorable press attention for his effort , or at least a lack of critical attention.

2. Does Dubie’s hard launch have a downside? Sure! The media is beginning to focus – a real danger for him and something he successfully avoided all summer. For example, he has promised lower taxes at a time when Vermont, like most states, is broke. He will not say what programs he will eliminate to pay for his tax cut. He won’t even take questions on the subject. His campaign manager cuts them off. We wonder why the press doesn’t simply report: “Campaign manager then cut off further questions.” The press needs to step up and hold candidates accountable. The days of the media being invisible are long gone. If reporters can’t get the inside political nuances in the paper, they should put it in a blog. Political readers are starving for that stuff. (Update – as usual, Ann Galloway at VTdigger.org saves the day) http://vtdigger.org/2010/09/01/more-time-sir-um-probably-not/

3. How did Shumlin do it? Pundits, including us, argued before the election he was in third place at best. They argued he had a weak field organization and a smart but inexperienced campaign manager: Alex McLean. The answer is complex. First, Shumlin was the best candidate and the best campaigner. His early and often television ads worked. His direct mail was very good; his field organization: good enough. The large turnout helped. Phil Scott, the GOP candidate for lieutenant governor, helped; he kept Republicans in their own primary. Democrats made their decisions very late and in the end enough voters liked Shumlin to give him an edge. And finally Alex McLean proved her mettle; she skillfully managed the candidate and the campaign. There is a guy in our office who said: #$@%@% it. I’m voting for Shumlin. Stranegly, that captures something.

5. Why were all the smart people – including uber pundit Eric Davis – so wrong about turnout? We confidently predicted a 40,000 to 50,000 turnout and more than 70,000 showed up. First, there were five really good candidates. Vermonters are informed and care; they turned out because they had real choices. Second, Matt Dunne brought more people, probably first time voters, to the polls. His plan for victory was 15,000 votes. He did that. Third, the pundits, us included, are often clueless and at best making an intelligent guess. We were wrong.

6. Some street chatter has Dubie’s people wanting to run against Shumlin. We doubt it. Shumlin is a brilliant politician who is a “chess player in a town of checkers players.” Ok we stole that line from President Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe, but the shoe fits. Shumlin is usually two steps ahead. His challenge will be to stay ahead tactically but align his message with where Vermonters live their daily lives. By the way, he shopuld accept Dubie’s offer of 12 debates NOW.

7. In a long ago blog post, we said “Dubie Wins!” That is less true now. This is a very Democratic state and the primary showed Democrats are engaged. Dubie has embraced several positions that are anathema to Democrats and independents: he is pro life, supports the death penalty and taxpayer money for religious schools etc. But this recount is very sticky. It could seriously cripple Democratic fundraising and delay the start of a targeted, tactical campaign. Democrats will be wise to use this period to unify their disparate campaigns into a single, effective, efficient winning organization.

8. Who wins? There is no democratic candidate and our office is divided. So we’ll make a prediction in a month!

We assumed for the moment that Kagan was gay. If true, I thought we had the opportunity to move civil rights ahead 25 years with the first gay member of the Supreme Court.

But strangely, no one was talking about it. There were blog rumors. But the New York Times, always trying to be perfect, called her “unmarried.” No one else was writing about it even though the Washington buzz machine was, well, buzzing about her sexual orientation.

Couple of days later, the bomb explodes. The Wall Street Journal runs a page 1 photo of Kagan playing softball. Huffington Post and Politico run stories quoting Kagan friends saying she is NOT gay; that they used to set her up on dates.

Then we learn the White House has been telling reporters on background that Kagan is straight.

And lastly we learn that Kagan herself told the White House she is straight.

What a mess. Even after Vermont approves a same-sex marriage equality law (a proud moment for this firm) and we are just beginning to talk about the absurdity of the gays in the military policy, we still can’t talk about this issue honestly.

I really hope Kagan and the White House are telling the truth about her sexual orientation. If they are lying and she is gay, it means they were afraid of telling the truth, that they were ashamed of her sexual orientation; that they placed a successful nomination over the truth. That sets back civil rights in this area for along time.

Worse, is the way the media let the story come to them. Instead of confronting the issue and leading the conversation, they followed internet rumors and White House leaks on a really important issue.

What will REALLY be fun to watch is Republicans struggling to attack Kagan if she is gay. Will they really say she can’t be on the court because of who she likes to date? How will Democrats and the president handle that one?

Vote for Woody Tasch’s modest proposal at Change.org – one day left!

Click the here to vote:

I have lots of liberal friends who say this is the death of Democracy and the Democratic party. Why? Because the Republicans and their corporate friends have all the money! Put aside the usual (and also boring) Republican retort that the liberal labor unions do the same thing. Are we really going to make judicial decisions based on what we think might happen?

There is either a First Amendment prohibition against the abridgement of free speech or there isn’t. Even if my friends are right, isn’t that an outcome-based reason? Are we going to chip away at the first amendment protections because we think it will create an outcome we want? I’m not so sure.

And is this court decision going to make things worse than they already are? There seems to be some notion that our system today works. Take it from someone who sees it every day. Politicians at every level spend a majority of their time raising money. They figure out how to get around the spending laws by creating PACS and other groups. They hate the system and would rather spend their time governing.

One of the reasons Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut is in political trouble and is retiring is because the public perceived him as in the pocket of the banks and bankers, many of whom are headquartered in his state. True or not, I guarantee you Chris Dodd spends A LOT of time with the financial services industry as the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. And I guarantee you he calls them A LOT, asking for money – under the current system.

And the people in my business of communications and politics don’t like going to fundraisers or getting the solicitation calls. We’d rather work. Vermont actually has a really good law than bans its politicians from asking a registered lobbyist for money during the states legislative session. That cleans things up fairly well. But don’t be fooled. It doesn’t stop them from forming a PAC and soliciting money anyway.

Take a look at Glenn Greenwald’s piece in Slate about this. And Eliot Spitzer’s comments are good too. Can this ruling really make the system worse than it is? I don’t see how it can get worse.

I am really skeptical about adjusting the first amendment because of the outcome we want. The society surprises you. Corporations are already voicing their displeasure – under the first amendment of course – with the ruling, saying they want out of the game. IBM has always said it doesn’t contribute to candidates.

You might see a wholesale rejection of the system as a result of this ruling. You might see a vigorous debate about it. TV commercials, radio talk shows, web ads, Facebook chat.

Will some Democratic lawmaker lose their seat because of negative ads paid for by some corporate raider? Sure. (That happens in every election already). Will some corporate lobbyist threaten a member of Congress with a bag of campaign money if he doesn’t vote the way that lobbyist’s corporate client wants? Yes. And that happens today. But remember that former Congressmen William Jefferson (cash in the freezer) and Randall Duke Cunningham, were caught and convicted.

Predicting the outcome of Supreme Court cases under the First Amendment is risky business, especially when you are trying to control people’s speech. It may be the outcome you want today. But tomorrow, it might be something you hate.

More than 100 people have died in U.S. custody in the jails since 2003. And the Times reports that U.S. immigration officials covered up information about the mistreatment and deaths. In one shocking instance, former Vermont reporter and gubernatorial aide Michael Gilhooly, now a spokesman for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, rebuffed a reporter asking about a detainee with a fractured skull. Gilhooly told the reporter he could not answer her questions. But the Times reports that he had already told superiors about the inquiry and shared information of the detainee, a Guinean tailor named Boubacar Bah. The Times reports that Bah had been left in an isolation cell for 13 hours before an ambulance was called.

The Times reports that agency officials in Washington and Newark, N.J. conferred by telephone and email about avoiding the cost of Bah’s care and also the bad publicity.

Bah died.

What a mess from top to bottom. You can bet there are lots of meetings happening right now in the Obama administration about how this was handled from a communications standpoint.

What should they do? Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano should immediately order an investigation and an overhaul of the immigration detainment policy and bring in an independent, respected authority to oversee the changes. Then once she has discovered what happened and why, she should repeat over and over again the changes and progress made.

Not the scholastic kind, where it comes through the front door and hits you over the head via a teacher, but via a Springsteen concert – in Brooks’s experience.

I can substitute dozens of other second education experiences, mostly stolen from my wife, who specializes in this kind of thing with young people. She calls it social-emotional learning and writes about it at http://adolescentwork.wordpress.com/.

You can find this education on the athletic field, in the art gallery, on stage, Hell – after hours under the stadium bleachers – anywhere but having it jammed down your throat in standardized testing prep sessions.

This kind of learning affects everything in politics and communications. The social emotional types – you know them when you see or hear them – have a leg up on the rest of the field. Think Obama, not Al Gore. Think George Bush (yes, go ahead) not Mitt Romney or John McCain. The ultimates – of course – were Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.

For Vermont political readers, the Democratic primary field for governor is pretty socially-emotionally strong, with Sen. Peter Shumlin a standout. Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie – with perceived weaknesses on policy and public speaking – is actually very strong in this department.

These are people who know who they are. They are people comfortable in social situations. They don’t need scripting by staff. They put a room at ease and can make a meeting sing, or inspire a kid in trouble.

There are five credible, articulate, energetic candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for governor. The party has produced a plethora of talented candidates who believe 2010 is their year: the Senate President Pro Tem, the Secretary of State, the chairs of the Senate Appropriations and Health and Welfare Committees and a former House Majority Whip.

Wow!

Each has an impressive political and personal track record. Each could be elected governor. Too bad they can’t win this election. There is no way a Democrat can survive a bruising, bare-knuckled, five-way primary in September and win a general election seven weeks later.

No way! It can not be done!

Peter Shumlin, Deb Markowitz, Doug Racine, Susan Bartlett and Matt Dunne know this is the truth. Democratic donors who spend millions to elect not just run candidates for office know this is the truth. The Vermont media recognizes this is the truth. And perhaps most importantly the lieutenant governor can see the truth. In fact, he is praying that God is a Republican and that Anthony Pollina signs on as a Democrat and makes it a six-way race.

Peter Shumlin

Deb Markowitz

Doug Racine

Susan Bartlett

Matt Dunne

Last weekend the Democrats got a snapshot of what the next nine months will look like. Four of the candidates and one surrogate squared off before a coalition of environmental groups at Vermont Technical College. They networked; they browsed; they presented. They scraped and scrapped, bowed and genuflected before a roomful of Democrats to demonstrate why they are better; why they should be anointed.

Dubie meanwhile was at a parade in Barre City, arguably a Democratic town. Dubie was talking to voters, most of whom have not yet made up their mind. He’ll be doing this every week for the next year while the Democrats speak to the converted and each other.

The numbers tell the story. In the last decade, no more than 40,000 Vermonters have ever voted in a primary election for governor. Let’s assume this next election draws an unprecedented 60,000 voters. In a five way race, 35 percent of the vote or 21,000 will win. So on primary day the Democratic candidate will have made 21,000 voters happy and disappointed 39,000 others.

Let’s also assume it will take as many votes to win in 2010 as it did in 2008 when Jim Douglas got about 170,000 votes for about 53 percent. The Democrat and Independent candidates got 139,000 votes together; if you recall the Democrat ran third. So the primary winner will need to find about 149,000 votes in seven weeks. It can not be done.

The arguments are endless. Perhaps, most importantly there isn’t enough money. Something has to give. Something has to change. Perhaps the Democrats should draw straws; the odds that anyone of them could be elected governor would go up.

I didn’t fully understand that comment until I read the new book by Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe – “The Audacity to Win.”

Ignore the reviews in newspapers! If you are a political junkie of ANY PARTY, you’ll stay up all night with this one.

Plouffe drops all sorts of bombs on the reader about the historic campaign. But he is subtle and you have to pay attention. I read it with pen in hand, making notes.

The biggest “Ah Ha” moment comes when Plouffe explains the strategy behind caring more about winning delegates than about winning states. Translation: It was just as important – if not more – to win the Idaho Caucus (18 delegates) than to win the New Jersey primary. (107 delegates). Clinton won New Jersey by 10 points, won 59 delegates to 48 for Obama, a net gain of 11 delegates. Obama won Idaho with 80 percent of the vote, winning 15 of the 18 delegates, a net of 12 delegates.

That means Obama had a net gain of one delegate over Clinton, even though she won a delegate-rich state like New Jersey. This scenario repeated itself over and over. It’s boring inside baseball. But it won Obama the nomination. It must have been a terrible sinking feeling inside the Clinton campaign that they could not win, even as they were “winning big states like California and New York.

Because Plouffe and his staff could count i.e. win delegates in small states like Idaho and Maine, Obama is president.

One last “Ah Ha” moment from the book. The mainstream media did not catch on to this strategy until very late. For months, Plouffe says the media completely missed what was actually going on behind the scenes – the real strategy. Not a great vote of confidence.