vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

12.12.2006

Too springy

Been away for a few days in and around the Big Apple, so maybe I'm just disoriented. Times Square during the Christmas shopping season can do that to a person. But I have to question some of the comments you see on neighboring blogs about who is or isn't viable material for political office. There seems to be a startling eagerness to throw other people's hats into rings willy-nilly.

Over at Freyneland today, young Peter suggests:

"If the trend in the recount continues, and Tommy CPA wins, he will also
become the newest name added to the list of potential Democratic gubernatorial
candidates in 2008."

Say what? I'd say if the guy wins the auditor race in 1006, he's a strong candidate for the auditor's race in 2008.

I'm not trying to pick on Peter here, fun though that is. I just think bloggers have a disease called over-speculatitis. At Politics VT, a bout of the illness has prompted speculation about Melinda Estes as a gubernatorial candidate. An interesting notion, but is there any indication she'd be interested?

Freyne goes on to speculate that because Matt Dunne "did a respectable job in losing this year’s lite-gov contest" he's a possible 2008 gubernatorial choice. You get a promotion by failing? I mean, it's possible, but what is with this fever for speculating on the next election two minutes after the last one ended?

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 10:27 AM |

Comments:

I couldn't agree more about the "over-speculatitis" in the blog world.

And defending Freyne is not something I am always into but here are a couple of points:

It is about perspective in "failure". While Scudder had a huge amount of time and almost as much money as Douglas. He simply got beat badly.

Dunne had a hard primary, and nobody was paying attention until the very end. Clearly, with a little more time and money Dunne may have won.

Salmon hardly campaigned at all, but he'll probably win by a margin of folks who thought they were voting for his dad. Think about Salmon with a "real" campaign.

Plus, Peter was just saying Salmon is in the mix... not the front-runner.

Almost every candidate has lost a race before winning. Like in the case of Dunne, he now has pretty good statewide name recognition, a good donor base, and proved himself as a candidate to keep primary competition out.

So, while "over-speculatitis" is rampant in on the blogs, sometimes they make a little sense...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:39 AM, December 12, 2006

Good post - couldn't agree more; it is a sorry commentary on the state of government reporting these days that these bloggers constantly write about easy topics - like speculating who wil be running for what office in 2 years, even though the last election was just a month ago - and pass over the harder and more complex issues that might actually require them to do some actual research!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:56 AM, December 12, 2006

... 1006?!: i.e.,

Terri Hallenbeck wrote (3rd to last paragraph): Say what? I'd say if the guy wins the auditor race in 1006, he's a strong candidate for the auditor's race in 2008.

Yeah, I guess you just might be a bit disoriented alright (your choice of words [1st paragraph: ... maybe I'm just disoriented.], not mine), unless it is just an innocent fat finger or whatever (regarding the 1st digit).

Secondly, just because certain bloggers may at times show a tendency towards what you term in a pathological sense as a disease called over-speculatitis, does not mean all bloggers are so inclined (as your sweeping generalization seems to suggest) or, maybe you are mostly referring to the ones you mainly tend to read on a regular basis.

Heck, to my way of thinking and even if you do not truly consider yourself as a blogger per se, you are not so immune to this yourself, since I have thought some of the content of at least a couple of your posts were potentially of this sort of nature; although I would never think to label it in such a manner as you seem to have need of.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:21 PM, December 12, 2006

Point of fact -- Scudder didn't have NEARLY as much $$ as Douglas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:22 PM, December 12, 2006

$90,000 difference is competitive. It is a myth Parker did have enough money. How he spent it, is a different question.

Douglas
November 17, 2006
GRAND TOTAL OF ALL EXPENDITURES
Total campaign to date: $692.628.29

Parker
November 17, 2006
GRAND TOTAL OF ALL EXPENDITURES
Total campaign to date: $602,619.69

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:45 PM, December 12, 2006

First, that's a difference of 15%, which is HUGE -- especially since Parker was challenging a popular incumbent.

Second, that's all the $$ Parker had. He was broke at the end.

Douglas was left with a huge war chest at the end.

Didn't matter how much Parker spent -- Douglas was going to spend more.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:18 PM, December 12, 2006

Yep 1 VT'er.

Indeed and, when TMTs (i.e., traditional media types) do it, they call it journalism and, then when bloggers do it, they call it anything but.

Go figure.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:42 PM, December 12, 2006

I'm not sure why I'll put one more comment on a trivial part of the comment but here it goes.

It doesn't matter how much a candidate HAS, it only matters how much they spend and how they spend it. Money in the bank does not win votes.

15% is really pretty close for a challenger. Challengers, with rare exception, always have less money than the incumbent. Every US Senate incumbent who lost, I believe, spent more many than their challenger, however, every challenger had enough money to be competitive.

My point was, Scudder had enough money to be competitive and wasn't. Money was not the biggest problem they had.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:51 PM, December 12, 2006

Two years is not much time between elections so the speculating begins quickly!

Talk about a difference in spending - take a look at the difference between Randy Brock and Tom Salmon!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:50 PM, December 12, 2006

1 VT'er: Understood.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:55 PM, December 12, 2006

It doesn't matter how much a candidate HAS, it only matters how much they spend

You don't know anything about the art of war, do you?

How much $$ an opponent has on hand is a critical factor in making strategic decsions.

The fact that Douglas had the ability to spend 3 times as much (and raise even more) was a critical factor in the election.

Didn't matter how much Scudder spent -- Douglas would always spend more. (and he did!)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:38 AM, December 13, 2006

I think the point is that the career path that leads you to the Auditor's office is typically quite different than that leading to the Gov's. How anyone could compare this to speculation that Obama might run for Pres is beyond me.

Freyne is clearly frustrated that Douglas and Dubie have had staying power, and that the Dems made pathetic showings in the Gov race the last two times around, despite his best efforts. I guess he figures that two years of campaigning might overcome that hurdle, even if he has to simultaneously campaign for everyone who could conceivably be a candidate.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:12 PM, December 13, 2006

"Didn't matter how much Scudder spent -- Douglas would always spend more."

Scudder could have spent Tarrant money and lost.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:13 PM, December 13, 2006

If it was all about the money then Matt Dunne would have won!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:46 PM, December 14, 2006