Vermont Progressives opted Saturday not to endorse any of the Democratic candidates for governor.
Progressives are still regretting their support of Democrat Peter Shumlin in the gubernatorial race in 2010, when he first won the office.
The Progressive Party State Committee did agree to endorse Sen. David Zuckerman (P/D-Chittenden) in his bid for lieutenant governor and to back the reelection of State Auditor Doug Hoffer, also a Progressive/Democrat. Those endorsements come as no surprise.
But most of the committee voted not to support any of the three Democrats running for governor, Progressive Party chair Emma Mulvaney-Stanak said.
All three — former state senators Matt Dunne and Peter Galbraith and former state transportation secretary Sue Minter — sought the left-leaning party’s endorsement at the meeting Saturday in Randolph.
Mulvaney-Stanak said all three gubernatorial candidates spoke and supported Progressive issues such as raising the minimum wage and divesting from fossil fuels. “They were pretty interchangeable,” she said. “There wasn’t a lot of stark differences.”
That was a factor, Mulvaney-Stanak said. But so was the sense that Shumlin was not aggressive enough in his support of Progressive causes such as tax reform, livable wages and universal health care after the party chose not to challenge him in 2010. “Clearly, that did not work out for us and people are still bitter,” she said.
Progressives are unlikely to field their own candidate for governor this year, she said. They will reconsider whether to endorse a candidate after the August 9 primary, Mulvaney-Stanak said.
Their focus meanwhile will be on legislative races and on supporting Zuckerman, a Progressive who is running against Rep. Kesha Ram (D-Burlington) in the Democratic primary. Those candidates could soon be joined by Democratic House Speaker Shap Smith (D-Morristown), who is expected to announce his plans this week.
The Progressive Party State Committee also opted against endorsing candidates for secretary of state, treasurer or attorney general, Mulvaney-Stanak said. Richard Dunne, a Democratic candidate challenging incumbent Democratic Treasurer Beth Pearce, sought the Progressive endorsement, but the committee declined, Mulvaney-Stanak said.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Why do they call themselves the “Progressive Party”? Why not the “Entitled Party”? The “Illogically Emotional Party”? Or the “Gimmie Party”? Its time for the Vermont Democratic Party to give the heave ho to these self righteous zealots, even if it means losing some elections.
Self-righteous, selfish pigs! We’ll express our contempt for you. We won’t support any of YOUR candidates. But we’ll run in YOUR party, we’ll expect you to support us, and we’ll expect you to vote for us.
No way!
No Democrat should vote for a Prog. For any office. Ever.
What a stunning reminder of reality. Bernie’s Party, the Progressives, have cloistered together their 12 or 24 or some small number of “super-only-delegates” and anointed the Progressives’ endorsement on candidates they deem worthy of carrying the Progressive Party torch. How many of their closeted insider voters have been spending days, weeks and months on end exclaiming in their angry online postings that the Democrats are corrupt as undemocratic and must eliminate their small percentage of superdelegates in their Party’s nominating process? When are the Progressives going to TRUST the public they claim should be empowered in our democracy and let THEM choose who to endorse as the party’s standard bearer? What hypocrites . . Really, no credibility whatsoever.
Remember when Hillary was claiming to be a progressive?
The reporter seems a bit absent-minded. Most of the article is about the Progressive party not endorsing democratic candidates. Then she quotes the Chair of the party saying that they will reconsider after the primaries. My reading is that, among other things, the party was saying they would not endorse a person who only hoped to be the official Democratic candidate. Since the Democratic Party itself has not chosen its candidate it would be strange and confusing if not pointless and fruitless for a different party to endorse one of their hopefuls. The above comments don’t sound like they’re coming from people who are either a part of or well versed on Vermont political party process. Those commenters might try and explain why the Democratic Party would have welcomed an endorsement at this time and then revisit the Progressive Party decision. The commenters might also try and explain why the three Democratic hopefuls were there in the first place. Given what goes in in contemporary politics it’s difficult not to suspect that the commenters are actually Republican plants trying to foment dissension.
Progressive Party????? Why not name it the Socialist/Democrat Party!!! Bunch of liars and give me people..