Cause he did a good job in the pandemic?

Because the Democrats seemed to entirely give up on campaigning for their candidate in the assumption he would win?

I think we did a good job during the pandemic and he was a good cheerleader. But I'll give him credit for doing the right thing during the pandemic.

Why does it matter if he’s a republican. That’s the kind of bullshit sentiment that splits the country in the first place. The fact that VT is a nice mix of libs and conservatives and can vote for people based on character and not color is exactly how the rest of the country should be run.

As for the “why do we continue to vote for a republican governor” the answer is simple. He does a good job

Dems put up garbage candidates every election against him. The only election where he was vulnerable the Dems ran a transgender person which was a non-starter for many in the state. (Not saying trans people are bad, just that the population wasn’t ready for it) now he got the Covid response bump, and he is seen as a check on the state house. We want liberal policies, but we want some disenting voices to ensure it’s not a circus.

cause he's the best candidate for the job. and he's proven that multiple times.

vote blue no matter who is an utterly moronic slogan

[deleted]

In 6 years, Governor Scott has vetoed 32 bills that were debated and passed by the legislature. Some highlights of the bills, that the people we elected to the legislature would have made law, include: *H505- to create a drug use standards advisory board. Which would include experts from health, mental health, substance use disorder and the drug user community to establish penalties for possession. *H715- which would have reformed the Vermont clean heat standard to align with the climate action plan. When asked about how this was vetoed, when his administration was included in the development of the plan, Scott said "they asked my staff, but they didn't ask me." Leads one to wonder the purpose of having staff included in all of these groups if they don't represent you. *H728- to commission a study on overdose sites. When asked about it in a debate, he noted that since it wouldn't be feasible to have overdose site everywhere, we shouldn't have them at all. *H157- creating a statewide registry of residential building contractors. This would have created a coordinated system for responding to complaints of fraud, and required contractor to carry liability insurance. *H107 - establishing statewide paid family leave that would be paid for out of a payroll tax for workers and employees, instead saying it should be voluntary for people to offer it. Spoiler- it's already voluntary. That's why so many people have no access to paid leave.

There are clearly many more - but the long and short of it is that we have different ideas of what "doing a good job" is. Imagine if these vetos hadn't happened and these bills, passed by the legislature, had become law. Imagine living in that Vermont - where everyone had access to paid family leave, you could shop for a home contractor with less worry about fraud, we were working towards some solution on overdosing, we were actually enacting the largest portion of the climate action plan, and we had experts making decisions on drug penalties based on evidence. Vermont would be a nicer place to live for everyone.

*Edit: issues with tense.

Brenda Siegel is hardly a shit candidate. She lacks name recognition and did not receive the support she deserved from her party.

This is my view as well, thanks for sharing

Reply so nice you had to make it twice...

What in your view has he done a really good job on other than Covid?

He did a good job vetoing a couple of those bills.

H715 - a clean heat standard? Aka get rid of the old wood stoves and switch to more heat pumps running off an already outdated grid?

H107 &H157 - democrats really do want to kill off the last remaining small business owners we have, huh.

If there was a decent democrat candidate they might get somewhere, but as it stands now flip flop Phil is basically running uncontested. He’s a decent, moderate guy and also, the incumbents always win in VT.

I’m pretty sure the last time an incumbent governor lost re-election in Vermont was in 1962 when Phillip Hoth defeated Ray Keyser jr and became the first democratic governor in a century.

So, honestly Phil Scott again because we don’t elect in VT, we coronate new rulers.

She may be, but her resume is that she lost to the person Scott destroyed in 2018, and lost in the primary in 2020 for LT gov. She’s got street cred as an activist but she’s a bit extreme (not her policy, but her actions) which is effective for an activist trying to draw attention, but I don’t want to see the governor of Vermont driving to DC to sleep on the White House lawn until xyz happens.

Also Scott is far too strong now, the chance was 2018 when he had strong opposition inside his own party for the gun control stuff.

It is sad that simply doing the right thing has become not the most basic bar but some kind of gold standard cause simple competence and being a human freaking being has been sacrificed on several altars.

[deleted]

He passes items when they make sense. A number of the items listed were vetoed because a lack of planning and just plain lack of foresight on their effects. They are great for headlines and usually not fundable, cause harm to Vermonters with unconsidered network effects or he's going to let pass once they're fleshed out ( aka the overdose sites).

[deleted]

[deleted]

PFML is hard on small businesses. I watched it come into effect in Massachusetts while working for a small business before moving home to start my own. It’s one of those bills that’s really well intentioned but horribly implemented.

Imagine how much it would cost taxpayers to fund all of these items in an already expensive state to live in.

[deleted]

Because he's done a fantastic job.

Uncle Phil is alright! He's done alright by us.

Never been a small business owner, have you. Absurdly long family leave isn’t possible on many small businesses. You’ve got to replace that position while that employee is out, if that employee is more than a mindless drone that gets damn near impossible.

[deleted]

Because he generally makes fairly good decisions in reaction to problems that come up. If you ignore his party affiliation and ask if he has done well leading us I say yes. If he was a traditional republican who is into the insane conspiracies I wouldn’t vote for him though.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make here, sorry.

[deleted]

Phil? He did a good job with covid as far as I'm concerned. Sure, things could change here but I know what I'm getting with him 🤷🏼‍♂️ just my 2 cents

Your comment makes zero sense to mine. I’m not stuck as a employer. I made the choice to follow my dreams and start my own business. There’s nothing bleak about my tea, and the banks aren’t involved or winning anything here.

Say I diversify and open a vegetable farm alongside my current operation. Say my vegetable managers wife gets pregnant and is due in July. Under Massachusetts new law the manager of my vegetable operation is now eligible for 8 weeks paternity leave. I can’t replace this manager as someone who would be capable of doing this job during the busy period isn’t looking for an 8 week temp job. I can’t take on the management as this is also my busiest time of the year. I can’t legally fire this manager and hire a new one. The only option I have left is to close the vegetable operation down.

I watched this happen at the last job I had before going off on my own and moving home.

Imagine if we weren't watching our education system go completely down the tubes

What are some things he’s passed you think make sense/were good bills?

more important is that we get to fellatiate ourselves with the whole "See? eVeN oUr RePubLicAnS aRe GoOd!" nonsense. people look at scott with rose-tinted glasses because they want to advertise themselves as non-partisan.

Vermonters like healthy debate on the issues and do not trust one party to have complete control. It has been this way historically, thankfully.

We should have family leave in this country but this should be done and supported at the federal level. The problem is that unlike Europe, the US lacks the cultural and political maturity to enact policies like these and for Vermont to support them alone would be exorbitant; and it's too much to ask of small business owners without adequate funding.

What are you doing about it, besides watching?

Honestly, many of these: https://governor.vermont.gov/governor-scotts-blog/action-taken-governor-scott-bills-during-2022-legislative-session

I'm convinced that it's about our history with past figures like George Aiken and Jim Jeffords. We like a Republican who is progressive sometimes.

And frankly I think he deserves a degree of credit for how well the deep pandemic went here; we're a state smack in between Boston and NYC - the first epicenters of COVID-19 in the country, and we have a comparatively old population of folks who could've been really poorly off.

I didn't vote for him this time (did last time), but I'm not surprised at all that he won, and not disappointed either really. I think Brenda would've done better on the housing problems, but whaddya gonna do?

I’ll tentatively agree with you here. But I also don’t trust the federal government to do pretty much anything. These policies can work great in small wealthy nations, but for better or worse, that is not the US.

I've read that no other democrats wanted to run against Scott and that she didn't so much step into candidacy as that it fell in her lap. I doubt she would have run otherwise. She's a good person and probably would have made a good Governor. She doesn't deserve begin called a "garbage candidate".

Because he is a dem in Republican clothing. This way the republicans basically have to vote for him and the state stays pretty blue. He’s pretty centralist if you ask me, which is a good thing. You don’t want far right or far left.

I understand your point but don’t think that’s a bullshit sentiment considering the reality is there is only one party who has consistently sided with religious extremists, conspiracy theories, and an attempted insurrection. It’s fairly rational to disregard anyone associated with that party.

Because unchecked, one-party control is not healthy.

[deleted]

We are not a state in between nyc and boston lol. That would be connecticut.

Generally speaking, private industry does a much worse job running "pretty much anything" than government. For example, infrastructure and public transportation. The US Military is government run and nobody fucks with our military. If you want to live in a country and under a government managed by unregulated private interests and industry—the environment, the military and infrastructure—there's always Russia. There's a reason so many US Conservatives idolize the likes of Putin and Orban.

I guess you're saying people didn't use rational thinking to arrive at their decision?

Thanks you, I agree with most of your points, but I think Vermonters deserve more credit for our COVID outcomes than Mr. Scott. He didn't get in the way though.

Right? Though the red wave didn't really happen, I'm still incredibly despondent about our future.

[deleted]

I’m actually really happy to be able to vote for a Republican I respect. I don’t agree with all of his positions, but I believe in his basic decency, his desire to help the state, and also appreciate that he has amply demonstrated over the last few years that he is not simply a partisan creature. Also, I don’t want one party, even my own, to have full control. So voting for him is a plus on several levels.

Vote the man, not the party.

I’m a Democrat;what I like about Phil Scott is that I feel like he makes choices based on what he really feels is best,not what his party line is. I think he’s a real person,not a puppet. Do I agree with every choice,no, but that’s okay. I’ll keep voting for him for that reason.

Think of how much the problems currently cost the state. It's not a zero sum game.

Thanks for sharing this, i didn't have the wherewithal to record all the crappy things he had done as governor to answer another comment. Sure, did fine in the pandemic, but also still sucks.

I’m honestly not conservative or liberal, I vote by issue and which candidate I think best reflects my views on the issues I believe are important at the time. And I’ll agree that private business is not the answer for many of our problems as well. To be honest, I don’t think there is an answer to many of our problems that involves anything but ourselves at a personal level.

For what it’s worth, I agree with your sentiment. I just don’t see how it’s possible to apply in the United States.

Maybe that’s why you do it, but don’t speak for me or anyone else. Your assumptions and opinions, no matter how cynical, are not the same as the truth.

Absolutely, and I'll lay the blame on him for vetoing so many bills that would help Vermonters.

If you're company can't afford to pay people and treat them fairly, you don't deserve to have a business. Why does your right to own a business trample others rights to work for a livable wage and adequate time off?

>we get to fellatiate ourselves

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Why are your rights as a business owner more important than your workers right to have paid family leave?

I mean, that is exactly what happened in the example I gave. My previous employer shut down the vegetable side of the operation, which caused 4 people to lose their job.

If you want to pass legislation to shut down small business that’s fine, but you should have to own that. Don’t pass it off as saying it’s legislation for “workers rights”

What are you doing?

Why are you against small business in a state that the majority of employees work at one? Do you only want soul sucking mega corporations in the state?

I don't really know what to make of that point. It's a thinker for sure, "what responsibility do elected leaders share for collective action?"

It's a good question to think about, regardless of governor Scott

[removed]

I see you lack the empathy to realize the company owner made the choice to lay off those folks, not the government.

The owner failed to plan. No one has the right to own a business if they can't respect their workers rights.

I'm also perplexed how such a small company of 5 people would fall under this law, but I have not read it.

Not surprised you work in Agriculture with these opinions though. Seems workers rights are not respected much in that industry from my experience.

What a logical leap you just took. Never said anything about being against small business.

I own a small business.

What I said was, if you can't afford to respect your workers rights, you don't deserve to be in business.

Seems like we're never going to agree on that point, good luck in your hiring.

Because hes a moderate. Vermont loves incumbents. And the opposition is a bad candidate that even most dems hate. Honestly anyone who supprised he won is living under a rock.

I came close to voting for Scott because Siegals reputation in the nonprofits circle is not great at all. She has weird vendettas against certain services.

Fair point on being a moderate.

Not really surprised he won, just trying to understand where people are coming from. Thanks for your time.

I mean you support legislature that disproportionately effects small business. It’s not much of a leap from A to B. PFML is much easier on a large corporations with many employees than it is on a small business. I’m curious what your business is with your attitude.

Aint broke dont fix it?

First, I don't find her extreme at all. I'd rather have a feisty governor than a conservative play it safe governor. How are we ever going make and realize change if we just cling to the status quo? We need Brenda Siegels to shake things up and make us think. Also, don't you think that she might take a different approach from a sit-in on an issue of concern if she were governor? The position of governor would afford her a strong voice that might not need to resort to activism. On the other hand if, even with that stronger voice, she was still not being heard and she took an activist approach, I would applaud that. We need change in this country and we need our representatives to be willing to stand up, speak out, and take action.

I'm involved and engaged in our local school system, though my schedule doesn't allow me to run for a position on the school board. I am, however, referring to the fact that the Scott administration doesn't particularly value a strong public education system, and I am very much opposed to Dan French. I would hope a different governor would see the value in supporting better pay for teachers and working to reestablish a strong force of quality teachers throughout the state. 10+ years ago, Vermont had a very good public school system. Beginning before Governor Scott came to office, the quality and reputation has been steadily declining, and I know, first hand, of several long time Vermont educators who have gone to NH or changed fields entirely because of frustration with the direction of things.

I agree with this. We need paid family leave.

The minute anybody says “libs” I automatically stop listening.

It's a constant struggle... Just keep voting, just keep voting... (sung to the tune of Just keep swimming....)

Honestly. The few times I've reached out to him for some of the advocacy work I do, he's responded directly and even if he agrees with every point I make, he explains why the others in the government are unlikely to support it and what needs to be done to enact the change that is needed. I'm fine choosing another party if that party shares common ground and is willing to listen.

The people I will not vote for are the politicians like one who once told me that she knew what was better for advanced learners than their parents or guardians did. Another local politician once told me that marijuana, medical or not, was against his religion and therefore he'd never vote yes on anything related to marijuana. Those are the politicians who do not deserve support IMO.

This was really helpful, thanks for sharing

I agree but it’s not all sunshine and rainbows if these bills were signed or allowed to become law either. There are costs to everything, costs to not taking action and costs to taking action.

FWIW, I never said that I don’t support any of these ideas in theory either.

Charlie Baker, former Republican governor of Mass, was widely liked by democrats because he's a good person and did a good job.

She's an activist that's never held office before. She has a bad reputation in the nonprofits industry for pulling random information out of her ass, taking credit for things she didn't do and weirdly attacking certain services. Shes burned bridges with a lot of the dems in VT.

I wouldn't really call her a good candidate. She was never going to win even with support.

If Vermont wants a dem to win we need a strong somewhat moderate dem that also vibes with the rural people in this state. Probably someone with experience in office. Vermonters like level-headed people that change things slowly.

As long as it’s not a Trumpism obsessed Republican I am fine with that. I think of him as one of the good guys, level headed and willing to compromise.

I am left of Bernie on most issues. But our party is out of touch with the middle of the road. The result is that when we talk about safe injection sites (good science and would save lives generally a good idea) we lose people. The same goes for trans rights (the science says that people have better outcomes when they are treated early and given options) but again society isn’t there yet, so it can’t be a major campaign issue, it has to be an evolve in office issue like gay marriage for Obama. Gun control is another one that we lose on with the middle in Vermont. So while her policies are not terribly radical, people want to see checks and balances on Montpelier and we send the most liberal people to legislate, we elect a governor who is slightly less liberal to hold them accountable. It’s worked for us for years. So I just don’t think anyone beats Scott but Scott…

Vermont is never going to elect a fiesty governor

Honestly what do you prefer? Dems, libs and progs are all people on the same side but have different political meaning.

I honestly wouldn't call all democrats liberals, some are conservative. Not all liberals are democrats either. Thats a specific political party.

Don't think that was said. The example has already been brought up if someone leaves for 8 weeks at a small business.

The work doesn't stop and finding someone to do a job for only 8 weeks is a difficult task. Let alone if the job is technical. How many jobs can someone just show up, do the same work for 8 weeks, and just leave?

It's an example based in the reality of the situation. Would businesses like to give employees time off? Absolutely. Why wouldn't they? I want to be a part of that world where it's possible. Is it feasible? No, so it doesn't happen.

It works at a large business with 1000 employees who can take that work and spread it out over that 8-12 weeks. But a small business with anywhere from 3-20 employees, not an easy task.

Don't get me wrong, I want to be able to take that leave and have my coworkers take it too, but for a small business, it's not a realistic option.

He was great until everyone got vaccinated, then he just stopped doing anything

"I heard Vermont had slavery removed so it could suck its own dick."

“Libs” is not something someone who is liberal would ever say. “Libs” is a derogatory term used by Trump and his followers which is why I stop listening.

Fair. I kinda got complacent after getting my booster tbh. We'll see what winter brings :D

I sadly can’t get too complacent because covid gives me autoimmune problems, but fortunately my kids are done with school now, because that seems like the worst covid situation

Phil Scott is a down-to-earth, intelligent, and reasonable politician. He's not a right-wing nut-job trying to "put women in their place", lying about voting fraud, who courts extremists, and is racist. Scott did and is doing a very good job re: COVID and was very up-front and accessible to answer tough questions. I don't agree with everything Scott has done as Governor, but I think he takes a measured and reasonable approach to achieve incremental progress while addressing major issues. I prefer this approach to that proposed by many Progressives, where they demand major, sweeping, expensive changes all at once. Seems like a ready, fire, aim mindset to achieve change for change's sake. On balance I appreciate what Phil Scott has done and how he's done it.

Here's a story I have about Phil Scott:

About 10 years ago, when Scott was still Lt. Governor, I personally built a large deck at my home. My father-in-law joked with me about how the deck was so solid that it could have sunk the Titanic. With that on my mind, later on, I wrote to the Lt. Governor's office and invited Phil Scott to attend a BBQ at my house we were having to celebrate the new deck. I relayed what my father-in-law had said about the deck, and asked if the Lt. Governor would come to perform a ceremonial christening, as part of his official duties, like what happens with new sea-going vessels.

Phil Scott's chief of staff at the time, wrote back to me to say that the Lt. Governor had a previous engagement that afternoon, but that he was truly disappointed he could not attend. About a week later, driving through my town, my wife saw Phil Scott's car parked outside one of our local shops. We knew it was his car because of the VT Government license plate with number "2". She went into the store and walked right up to Phil Scott, introduced herself, and said we really missed him at our deck christening party. He knew who we were, was very gracious, and honestly did wish he could have come to have a burger and a beer with us on the new deck.

I think Phil Scott is an honest and classy politician when those two traits seem to be more the exception than the norm these days.

I'm sorry to hear that! I have a feeling masks are gonna come back in the winter

Exactly. In a perfect world, all or most of those laws would be great to have. But how do we pay for it without adding strain to the already struggling? Most of the responses I've heard have been soft versions of "suck it up, poor folks".

Because he works for all of us. Republicans used to be like this.

Totally agree with this.

Great little story.

Against his religion? What like "strange incense" or something?

Does he also want to ban pork?

Personally, Every time I read his vetos, I think, he may not be representing me, but these are real concerns of my neighbors, and he usually sets out key policy sticking points, while being open to compromise.

Also anecdotally, there are a large portion of conservatives that formerly would have supported the GOP but won't now. They still feel its important to have their voice heard locally.

No to mention that by working together the progressives and the democrats in the state house can easily bypass the governor.

In your opinion. Stranger things have happened...

Well, all of us, except for people who make minimum wage or for people who need family leave, or who rely on their state pension in retirement.

After incumbent Gov. Peter Shumlin nearly lost in 2014, not getting 50% of the votes, the winner was determined by the legislature, as VT Law dictates. If he had tried to run again in 2016, rather than stepping aside, Shumlin would have surely been the first VT incumbent governor that lost since 1962.

Is it "fellate" or "fellatiate"? Or does either term work equally well?

Self blows by any other name would feel as sweet.

I agree with you. Just because you have experience being poor, raising a family in VT, and just because you purport to care SOOO MUCH, doesn't mean you're qualified to be Governor.

Additionally, during the VPR Governor candidate debate, when talking about climate change, greenhouse gases, and electric vehicles, they were talking about the price of buying electric vehicles. Yes, electric vehicles are expensive. Scott said something about expanding programs that refurbish and sell used electric vehicles for prices like $10-15K as more affordable options. Siegel responded by saying that for many families across VT, including hers, buying a used car for $10K is just not an option.

I don't think I want someone as my Governor who can't afford to buy a $10K used car.

And yet we wonder why young people never stay

Awesome, thanks for linking that!

He is QUITE far from your average Republican. I'd say he's an independent running fiscally conservative He supports LGBTQ and gay marriage He's pro abortion He separates state and church Maybe not extensively, but he has passed gun control and reform He admitted that he did not vote for Trump and instead voted for Biden; called for Trump to concede; did not support the insurrection.

He now has a lot of experience that sets him apart from others. He has done a lot for the state over the years, it's just not flashy or glamorized or instant so folks often look over it all. I truly believe he has the public in mind / does what he can without others getting in the way / beaucracy of govt.

He is very level headed and good at public speaking. He really has that down to earth Vermont vibe, while at the same time can keep professional. This is what gets the country red voters in Vermont as well as the blue voters as well. He's not out there on a pedestal playing fancy politician, and likewise he's not in a commercial with a fucking AK-47 looking like an assshat like other state republicans portray their campaign. One thing I love about him if he IS receptive to the public and ideas, and while he doesn't always agree he doesn't shut things down instantly. When he talks It's not all fluffed up, it's straightforward and clear. That's what Vermonters like. IMO he did a tremendous job navigating covid and in educating public /public safety measures. On top of that, knowing he HAS been in office for so long reassures the public that he knows how to do this job, he's not a newbie.

Our democratic candidates over the terms either don't have the experience to match a governor's experience, or they're too extreme to capture the many red county votes of Vermont, or they're just too political / annoying.

[deleted]

Because I didn't run. I would've kicked his ass if I had run.

Just kidding im a degenerate

Totally agree

Well under your plan the business closes so no one has family leave

Hard to campaign for someone who hasn't ever actually run anything before. Siegel seems like a great advocate for the poor. But what qualifies her to be in charge of state government?

Quit being a whiny triggered lib about it

I have a hard time agreeing with you purely because Massachusetts and Vermont have consistently had very moderate, independent minded, and generally good moderate Republican governors.

It takes a minute or two to look at the policy individual candidates support. Elections happen every few years. It's not hard to apply critical thinking and not just act blindly party loyal.

I didn't agree with everything he did, but it was clear he had the best interests of the people of Massachusetts in mind. He felt authentic and not just some party puppet. I'm honestly bummed he didn't run again.

He’s like a diet republican though

Lib is short for liberal you doughnut. Do you also get upset when people say VT instead of Vermont?

I'm amazed you got the impression that I support Scott from that comment.

Duh. We're better than misplaced sense of smug superiority.

"Opposing Scott is the same thing as supporting slavery"

galaxy brain take right there.

I was gonna write something along these lines until i saw this. Kudos to you

I didn’t. I was using your clumsy formulation.

He’s bipartisan is the short answer

It’s pretty disappointing. He is Mr Veto, our Daddy Governor; he knows what’s best, not our representatives.

When I was a VT journo, I interviewed Scott a handful of times. He's a smart, thoughtful guy. And he always had a sane answer lined up for whatever questions I threw at him. I'm as progressive as they come, but I really came to respect him.

And yeah, by most states' standards, he's not a Republican.

Absolutely agree that people should do a few minutes of research on policies.

My point is that the sentiment (i.e. “fuck all republicans”) is: a) a direct result of the behavior of a staggering percentage of bad actors who are in positions of power in the GOP, so not really “bullshit” so much as “consequences of their own actions” and b) doesn’t split the country nearly as much as the behavior of those bad actors

Because he’s great. He’s the first Republican I’ve ever voted for in 22 years, and I wish the national Republican Party wasn’t such a crap dump and that there was some sort of choice. I might not always agree with him, but he’s not an ahole, cares about and genuinely wants to make our state better. And I’m pretty hard left.

"I may be being reductive, tribalistic, and counter-productive, but not as much as the other guy!"

I loved this interview. After feeling like I got to know him while listening to many of his pandemic briefings, I like the guy. I didn't vote for him, but I feel like he didn't drink the Qool-aid and he is capable of dialogue across the aisle needed to calm the waters.

https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2022-11-09/phil-scott-on-his-win-in-the-race-for-governor

He seems to take into account what the general consensus on issues is, even if he doesn’t personally agree with it. Idk. Fuck it. I’ll take it. We could do worse.

I saw so little campaigning from Brenda Seigle it was really disappointing. I was interested in her as a candidate for sure but I really had to go looking for any information about her, I did end up voting for her but I didn’t feel that strongly about it because we know very little about her. Personally I’m ready for a change, but Scott does a decent enough job that most people aren’t gonna be seeking out another option if they have to go looking for it.

I think Phil Scott is pretty solid and I vote pretty blue nowadays. I think it's fair and good for the rural soul of this State to have someone that grew up in Barre, VT at the helm.

The one thing I was mildly irritated/amused by was how he seemed to receive a lot of personal credit for how Vermont navigated Covid with our relatively low numbers.

Surely he deserved some credit, but when a sizable portion of your entire State probably read the New York Times daily and listen to NPR and takes informing themselves pretty seriously by serious news outlets - was it really Scott driving the low Covid numbers or was he merely the beneficiary of living amongst a pretty informed citizenry? A left-leaning citizenry, at that.

The irony in this comment is delicious. Kudos to you if it's intentional.

Nothing. She would be great in the Statehouse but that has barriers to entry for working class folks.

Vt has some of the best education in America already thought. Plus we spend wayyyyy more per student than the national average already.

Throwing money at stuff isn't always the answer.

I knew Phil personally 15-20 years ago in Montpelier when he was a state senator and then lt gov. He was a humble guy who would listen and discuss issues with anyone, and would always have explanations for his positions. This was the first time that I didn't vote for him, and it was completely because he attended campaign events and allowed himself to be photographed with the magamoron VT candidates, even though he put out statements denying that he agreed with their extreme/hateful positions. At this point in our history, we need to send a clear message that the destruction of democracy, the desire to eliminate rights for anyone that isn't white, male, traditionally heterosexual, xtian, is not an acceptable position, clear stop.

I beg you, over the next 2 years, to pay attention to the actual actions he takes. He does a great job coming across with a "shucks, I'm just a nice guy" personality, but his policies do not play that out.

He vetoed the residential contractor registry. This registry would have required contractors to register with the state, carry liability insurance, and would have created a coordinated process for the state to take action against companies committing fraud. 84% of other states have a registry like this. Scott vetoed it claiming that it would hurt small businesses, however he simultaneously claimed that to avoid fraud, consumers should rely on trade publications, word of mouth and social media. Who benefits from distrust of businesses that they haven't seen splashed in advertisements? Not small businesses.

It's almost like someone who spent 30 years in the construction industry, who is still being paid his $2.5M for selling his share of a large business, might not have the best interest of the consumer and small businesses in his heart. And that, in fact, he's not the nice guy he plays on TV.

Sounds like the child bearing couple failed to plan. Then failed to notify the very small business for six months. Or, no one wants to ag-temp? Find that hard to believe. Are we talking about more than one business here? Zzzz. Either way, should be a federal law.