Maine politicos will undoubtedly recognize the three names:  Lance Dutson, Mark Ellis and Scott Fish.

I could describe the three myself, but Abbott’s release does a good job of that, so I’ll just let them speak for themselves:

Dutson:

Lance Dutson served last year as New Media Director for U.S. Senator Susan Collins. He was also Director of Internet Strategy for Collins’ 2008 re-election campaign. Mr. Dutson received the Maine Software Developers’ Association ‘Best of the Web’ Award for the Collins for Senator web site.

Dutson ran the political blog ‘Maine Web Report,’ and was recognized nationally for his investigative reporting on Maine state government. Lance broke ground in 2007 when he became one of the original bloggers credentialed as press to cover the US v. Libby trial in DC Federal Court. He has been published in the Bangor Daily News, Portland Press Herald, and was featured on Fox News, NECN, and local television and radio programs.

Ellis:

Mark J. Ellis, Abbott for Governor Political Director, is the former two-time chairman of the Maine Republican Party. Mr. Ellis most recently served as Director of Information Technology for Douglas Dynamics, L.L.C., where he led a team of computer, network, and software experts. He has worked in information technology for 30 years with companies such as Fisher Engineering, Forster Manufacturing Inc., Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., and Digital Equipment Corp. (now Hewlett-Packard).

Ellis is founding webmaster of MaineGOP.com and designed and maintained the very first website for a statewide race in Maine: Susan Collins’ 1996 winning U.S. Senate campaign. Ellis was also county and eCampaign chairman for Dick Campbell, Ross Connolly, Jane Amero, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Charlie Summers, and Jim Longley. In 2004, Ellis served on the Bush-Cheney ‘04 Maine Steering Committee as the eCampaign Chairman.

Fish:

Scott K Fish is perhaps best known in Maine as owner/editor of the State’s premier political web site, AsMaineGoes.com, online since 1998. From 1989-2000 Scott worked in the Maine State House as a communications staffer for the Senate and House Republicans. In 1992 he served as communications director for then-U.S. Representative Olympia Snowe’s re-election campaign.

Scott has been active for over 20 years writing guest columns for many Maine newspapers. He has been a featured guest expert on internet and political issues on Maine talk radio and television shows, and also produced and co-hosted the “Fish and Plowman” show on WVOM in 1998. Mr. Fish is in his sixth year writing the monthly Soapbox Derby political column for Bangor Metro magazine.

The presence of Dutson and Ellis on Abbott’s team should come as a surprise to absolutely no one – we basically already know about this.  The most interesting bit of this announcement is the presence of Fish.

As Maine Goes has been a staple of the conservative online community for more than a decade, and it has a particular reputation as a bastion of true believer conservatism.  Go into any gubernatorial thread there, and you will find a plethora of supporters of all the candidates.  Fish has not (at least not that I have found) come out publicly for one of the candidates up to this point, so his picking a horse will undoubtedly generate some conversation.

What this means for his forum is an open question.  Will it become a PR arm of the Abbott campaign?  Will he report on the race the same way he has up to this point?  Will his readers embrace his backing of Abbott, or will there be backlash?  These are open questions, but in the grand scheme, minor ones.

But, none the less, this announcement shows that Abbott will be focusing a great deal of his attention online.  The question of if these three men can move the needle for him will be an ongoing story line in the course of the election.  He has certainly chose people with extensive experience in the online space in Maine, which can’t hurt.

Yes, even in the most tame political environment, you will always find some sketchy things going on, but in Maine they were the exception, not the rule.  Rarely – if ever – would you ever see an ad like this, and if you did it would be roundly attacked as bitter partisan garbage.

The reasons for this were plentiful.

First of all,the candidates who run in Maine are less corrupt, and throwing mud at them makes little sense.  Earlier today I was trying to think of the last huge political scandal that erupted in the state of Maine – sleeping with interns, pay to play, trips to Argentina to see your mistress, stealing pennies out of the Shriner’s jar at the convenience store – but I simply could not think of anything.  Go search in Google, you won’t find anything either.

Maine has consistently ranked as one of the least corrupt states, politically.  We just don’t have “green balloons” type scandals happen here.  Maine pols are certainly not perfect, and there are always rumors about a particular ethical problem or seedy affair, but they never amount to anything.

Some of them probably should – but the larger point is that most people who seek office in Maine are down to earth folks who aren’t particularly evil.

Second, the media in the state is simply a different culture than you find in states like Massachusetts, California, New York or Illinois. For you baseball fans, the difference is like moving from the New York Yankees to say the Colorado Rockies.

The microscope you are under in New York is so intense that it borders on the absurd, while you could potentially get caught snorting cocaine off a hooker’s back in Denver, and none of the sports writers would even bother writing about it.  In short, the specter of the media spotlight is much harsher in some places than others.

In Maine, political reporting is light.  Much has been made about the decline in both bodies and raw coverage, with now only five reporters covering the Maine House of Representatives and Maine Senate – in the entire state.

But more than that, Maine political reporting has tended to subscribe to the pre-Nixon style of political reporting – that is, covering campaigns, horse races, ideas and debates, but staying away from personal scandals and issues that are viewed as outside of the scope of a politicians job.

I have little doubt they would cover something if it reached a certain threshold of public consciousness, but they simply do not chase down those stories.  Maine political reporting is much less tabloid and rumor mongering than most other states.

Third, there are simply no partisan generals that really whip up the hyperbolic, slanderous, mud-slinging activity of the populous like in other states.  Sure, there are talk radio hosts, but let’s be honest, there are no state wide icons, and most people who listen are tuning into national shows rather than local ones.

Maine simply does not have any state level Sean Hannity or Ed Schultz to stoke the fires and drive grossly one sided messaging.  The local talk show hosts that people do listen to are nice guys who people respect and engage in reasonable debate – they simply don’t throw elbows in the same way.

Fourth, the electorate is simply different.  Mainers are independent minded, respect reasonable, well measured candidates, and react very poorly to what they view as spite-filled partisan demagoguery.  Thus, much of the type of politics which traditionally thrives in other states will actually turn off voters here.

But, from where I am sitting, that is beginning to change, and the growth of the internet may be to blame.

Take, for example, the tone of conversation here on Pine Tree Politics.  Go to really any article about one of the candidates, and watch unfold the bloodbath.  What you will see is any number of the supporters of one candidate or another, unleashing a myriad of complaints about whatever candidate they choose to target at the time, often time descending into what can only be described as slander.  We hear personal attacks, rumors, unsubstantiated claims, character assassination, and broad assumptions made about everything from a candidates motivation to their beliefs.

It is hardly a phenomenon seen just here.  It can be regularly seen in politically oriented message boards, other blogs, email exchanges, and now on social networks like Facebook and Twitter.

Indeed, some of the most vile, disrespectful and hate filled things I have seen said about Maine politicos has happened on these new mediums, particularly Twitter.  The level of discussion and “debate” during the fight over gay marriage, for example, was quite literally embarrassing.

Why?

Anonymity, the physical disconnect of digital communication, a focus on speed and reaction over substance and thought, just to name a few.

In Maine, politicians and political conversations used to happen person to person.  Candidates who did not meet voters and shake their hands got nowhere, and those politicians who succeeded were good at the retail politics of face to face hand interactions.  Saturating media markets with commercials didn’t get you any where near the response that marching in Fourth of July parades or going door to door personally would.

But this is now being replaced by the low attention span, stimulus response nature of online communications.  I can’t spend too much time bemoaning this as it is the backbone of my chosen profession, but none the less, it is shifting the focus of all political conversation in Maine to one that is more reactionary, more hyperbolic, less civil, and in virtually every respect, less nice.

Now the debate is being driven by anonymous web videos attacking a candidate, and the pit of doom that is internet comment sections.

I spoke with some friends of mine (in both parties) last week, and picked their brains about the state of the gubernatorial race, and almost to a person I noticed the poison that had infected our discourse.  Their attention was on the rumors, gossip, negative attacks and tabloid style conversations about the race, and virtually nothing else.

I grew up in Maine, and remember vividly the conversation that would take place before the growth of the internet.  Yes, they were partisan, and yes they were sometimes silly, but the level of animosity and the spread of superficial, unsubstantiated garbage was nothing like it is now.

I worry that such a course is making us lose sight of what politics should really be about, and in the process the thing that has made Maine politics special over the years – a respectful, reasonable conversation between candidates and voters that does not descend into a slimy mud-hole – is lost.

That only increases cynicism, distrust, anger and doubt, and in most cases, for no reason other than reactionary garbage that we used to reject.  But, we no longer sit face to face and talk about things in a sensible way, so the personal connection and the ability to reach a detente of sentiment is gone, which is sending our discourse into the sewer.

I know that politics is a dirty business, and even in the best of times in Maine, there have always been attack ads, negative stories, and undesirable political conversations – what I am lamenting is the emerging dominance of that type of attitude in our discourse, so that we can no longer have any sort of constructive conversation.

Indeed, just today the reaction to my very mild piece on Steve Rowe’s chaotic campaign – an article which was really nothing more than an examination of counterproductive campaign tactics from the point of view of a political operative and made no slanderous claim about Rowe (a man I find very intelligent and nice, actually) – set off a string of angry commentary and personal attacks on yours truly.

Is that really where we want to take conversations like this?

One of my favorite things in the world to do is call up one of my best friends from college – a Democrat of unimpeachable progressive bona fides – and talk about politics.  Somehow we are always able to talk about the problems in our own party, the negatives of our own candidates, and vice versa, without being either offended or descend into an argument.  It is old fashioned, reasonable, Maine-style political conversation – fair, deferential and above all, substantive.

I’m afraid we are collectively losing our ability to talk to each other like that.  I hope that as this campaign moves forward, we can all try to keep that in mind, and give Maine an election to be proud of.

On Tuesday, Jacobson posted a copy of his ad, and yesterday sent out a release touting it. The ad in question is currently running across the state, and is intended to introduce Jacobson to voters, and promote the release of his “Plan for a New Maine“.

The ad itself – featuring Jacobson narrating – is upbeat, and highlights his military background, his work at Maine & Company (“I’ve already brought jobs to Maine – thousands of them”), and attempts to position him as the candidate with, “the right experience” to lead Maine.

Overall it is a very good ad. 

My only gripe (something noted by Mike Tipping as well by saying it was “…the longest crescendo in Maine political history”) is that toward the end the music got just a bit distracting as it built up to a bright/loud finish – something that overshadowed Jacobson’s voice a little bit.

But that is minor.  The message is strong, it is delivered well by the candidate, and it makes for a good introduction of Jacobson to voters.

The full ad is below:

As a former Independent gubernatorial candidate in Maine – I certainly identify with the silent independent majority that turned back the tide on healthcare reform last month. Just for the record, I was one of the 164 million eligible voters who President-elect Obama addressed in his victory speech when he promised, “to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices. I need your help, and I will be your president, too.” Did I say that there were 164 million eligible voters in America who did not vote for President Obama? Yes, I did.

Voter turnout in November, 2008, was 57%, which means that only 133 million out of an estimated 231 million eligible voters chose to exercise their right to vote. President Obama received 67 million votes, which represented 53% of the 133 million total votes cast. What about the other 98 million eligible voters who never made it to the polls? Is it fair to say that they did not support President Obama? A good question.

No doubt there are millions of eligible voters who would have voted for President Obama if they had taken the time to get to the polls. However, as I pointed out a few weeks ago (So Much For Mandates), it is not wise for any elected official (especially a President-elect) to simply assume the he or she has a mandate when his or her message has only attracted direct support from less than 30% of the voting age population. President Obama received 67 million votes out of a total voting-age population of 231 million. Although his margin of victory over Senator McCain was 7%, he still only received 29% (less than one out of three Americans) support from all eligible voters.

Last week I made a half-hearted attempt to grade President Obama’s performance during his first year in office. I acknowledged President Obama’s big vision and gave him the benefit of the doubt on his promise to reach out to those who did not vote for him. At the same time, I expressed my frustration with his inability to reach across the aisle to acknowledge the potential contributions that the Republicans could make to his main campaign focus – healthcare. As any political commentator well knows, the proposed changes to the healthcare bill would have to be quite radical in order not to receive the support of Maine’s two very moderate Republican Senators (Snowe, Collins).

Even the moderate Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown (MA) ran his entire campaign in direct opposition to President Obama’s healthcare platform. The shift in voter support was dramatic. President Obama carried Massachusetts by a margin of 26%, whereas the unknown Republican state senator from Massachusetts defeated the presumed Democratic successor to Senator Kennedy by 5%, representing a 31% voter swing. In the aftermath of such an upset, is it any wonder that the words emanating from one of the most gifted speakers to occupy the White House in recent times fell almost silent on the ears on many listeners. I confess that it was a bit painful to watch for three reasons.

First, there was an eerie sense of denial in President Obama’s demeanor that was inconsistent with the confident and disciplined politician that I observed on the campaign trail in 2008. I was expecting a more humble and accommodating speech that was in line with his graceful speech in Norway when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. At that time he clearly acknowledged that the award was more than a bit premature. After all, how many Heads of State have been granted such an award after only nine months in office?

Second, during his State of the Union address President Obama often assumed the role of a lecturer or teacher when, in fact, he should have approached the task with the mindset of a student who had just learned a valuable lesson from the silent independent majority. To chastise the members of the Supreme Court, for example, was clearly out of place. President Obama, of all people, should be the last individual to raise the issue of spending limits on campaigns.

President Obama was the first major-party candidate to reject taxpayer funding and, more importantly, the related spending limits, since the system was created. Senator McCain, on the other hand, did opt into the public financing system during the general election. As a consequence, he faced an $84 million limit on what he could spend, putting him at a huge disadvantage compared to President Obama. President Obama raised $66 million more than McCain’s $84 million limit in September alone. President Obama raised a whopping $750 million for his campaign. To add insult to injury, I found President Obama’s simultaneous 30-minute prime time infomercials on CBS and NBC to be a bit over-the-top.

A third reason the speech did not fully resonate with me was because it contained little acknowledgement of President Obama’s role in creating what he has identified as “a deficit of trust.” Before the voters in Massachusetts spoke, President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress were fully prepared to use there super-majority, filibuster-proof advantage in the Senate to railroad through a healthcare reform bill along pure party lines that contained not one Republican Senator’s vote. Is this how President Obama plans to “earn” the votes of the 164 million Americans who did not vote for him in November, 2008? His speech writers and advisors need to be telling him to think again in 2010.

My hunch is that President Obama is just too smart not to reconsider his options. It is understandable that he should tell his base not to “run for the hills.” He is correct – we the people do really expect government to solve some problems. As one of the great communicators, he should look across the aisle at the legacy of another fairly recent great communicator – President Ronald Reagan – and learn some lessons from Reagan’s first year in office.

On the day of his first State of the Union address, President Reagan stood before a divided Congress, the Democrats with a 50 seat majority in the House and the Republicans with a 6 seat majority in the Senate. He addressed the chamber with a very clear vision along with the realization that any success would have to be done together. I like the following series of “together” statements in his speech:

“Together, after 50 years of taking power away from the hands of the people in their states and local communities we have started returning power and resources to them.

Together, we have cut the growth of new Federal regulations nearly in half. In 1981, there were 23,000 fewer pages in the Federal Register, which lists new regulations, than there were in 1980. By deregulating oil, we’ve come closer to achieving energy independence and help bring down the costs of gasoline and heating fuel.

Together, we have created an effective Federal strike force to combat waste and fraud in government. In just six months it has saved the taxpayers more than $2 billion, and it’s only getting started.

Together, we’ve begun to mobilize the private sector not to duplicate wasteful and discredited government programs but to bring thousands of Americans into a volunteer effort to help solve many of America’s social problems.”

Together, we’ve begun to restore that margin of military safety that insures peace. Our country’s uniform is being worn once again with pride.

Together, we have made a new beginning, but we have only begun.”

At the end of his speech last week, President Obama reminded us: “I campaigned on the promise of change – change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren’t sure if they still believe we can change – or at least, that I can deliver it.”

It now seems clear that President Obama has taken ownership of his “deficit of trust.” If he wants to avoid a radical response to his agenda in November, he and the leadership in Congress must acknowledge a need to not only listen to what those on the other side of the aisle have to offer, but to embrace some of these ideas as reflective of the diversity evident in the American society. This is the only way to build trust again in 2010. Otherwise, Republicans and Independents will make a stronger showing in the November mid-term elections.

On second thought … stay the course.

Right from the get go, the man who was considered the early front runner at the beginning of the race seemed to have a haphazard, slapped together campaign that didn’t exactly know what it wanted to do.  It had an amateurish website (the new one isn’t that much better), no coherent message, and seemed almost passive and unsure of itself.

Recently I have been hearing some buzz that reinforces those same concerns.

Regarding his communications strategy, it is becoming apparent that the candidate and his campaign simply do not know exactly what they want to say, or how they want to say it.  When they do figure it out, they often do so in ways that actually hurt them, make them look bad, or outright promote opponents.

Take Rowe and taxes, for example.

Late last month, Rowe responded to the proposed cuts in Maine’s budget, and promptly said that he would be open to raising taxes on tobacco as a (very gimmicky) plug for the hole.

Yes, you heard it right, he proposed a tax increase.  Not only that, but he posted the article calling for the tax increase on his own website.  So if you go to Rowe’s newsroom and look through his articles, you are greeted with a heading that says “Rowe backs cigarette tax increase”.  Check out the article, and you get this quote:

Rowe said raising the tax will not only help fill the budget gap, but will help reduce youth smoking. He then took a mild shot at Baldacci.

“Putting tobacco interests above the interests of Maine people is wrong,” he wrote. “It’s time for leadership that protects what is most sacred, and that addresses Maine’s most urgent needs.”

Now I realize that the Democratic Party is more accepting of raising taxes than the Republicans, but this is hardly the year to walk around promoting yourself as a tax raiser.  The Democratic Governor of Maine has spent years fighting tax increases, and has gotten begrudging respect for it from both his own party and opposition Republicans.  Do you really want to tag yourself with the tax raiser label, in this of all years?  Why would he post this to his website?

But not only that, the tax he proposed raising is a regressive tax, which disproportionally hurts the poor and working class families in the state who are already getting hosed and having trouble making ends meet.  His premise is based on the same faulty nonsense of “sin taxing” – or proposing taxes on products viewed as “bad for you”, that only a small percentage of the electorate consumes, thus limiting backlash and allowing you to couch yourself as a champion of the public good.

The reality, of course, is that the increased tax will do one of two things – increase revenue as the people who smoke – which again are disproportionally poor – grumble about cost but buy anyway, thus hurting their wallets, or it will lead to people smoking less and quitting, which will not increase revenue at all.

All of this would be all well and good, and very standard for a politician to advocate (aside from the very odd “I’m a tax raiser” promotion on his website) – but he can’t even remain consistent on the issue.

In today’s Bangor Daily News, reporter Christopher Cousins talks about the opening of Steve Rowe’s new Bangor office, and manages to get a quote from Rowe:

“I have no plans to increase revenues,” he said when asked whether he supports tax increases to pay for some of his ideas.

This just makes he and his communication team look like they have no idea what they even want to say.  Last week they themselves trumpet a hike in the tobacco tax to fill the budget hole – by its very nature an increase in revenues – and now he says “I have no plans to increase revenues”.

Which brings me to the AGC forum that I wrote about previously.

Missed in all the fuss about Bruce Poliquin’s answer on background checks was a stumbling Rowe, who was the last candidate to answer and had plenty of time to decide if he wanted to say yes or no (none of the other candidates had any trouble) – yet still fumbled for an answer that was at the very best a hedge.  You could literally see the difficulty he had coming up with an answer, as he presumably mulled over what answer would be best to give.

And speaking of Rowe’s take on guns, that brings us to another puzzling article on his website.

Augusta Insider wrote on Rosa Scarcelli’s challenge to Democrats on the issue, and offered to post statements from each of the campaigns in response.  Rowe took AI up on the offer, and issued a statement.  That isn’t the weird part.

The fact that it is currently posted on his website in the news section, is.

The article is itself about Scarcelli, and gives the bulk of attention to her challenge, and her statement on guns.  If anything, it is something the Scarcelli campaign should post on their website, because it makes her look like a leader who is driving the issue, defining the conversation, and forcing people to respond to her.  Why Steve Rowe’s communications team thinks it is a good idea to promote one of his rivals like that is beyond me.

All of which reinforces that idea that the campaign doesn’t have a message, doesn’t know what it wants to say, and doesn’t know how to go about crafting a communications strategy for the candidate.  I don’t say this to slander anyone working for him, but this is seriously Communications 101 type lessons we are talking about here.

But if that was just it, I would not be writing this article.  John McCain’s communications team was also famously chaotic, lacking in direction, and he managed to capture his party’s nomination and was leading in the polls in August of 2008.  There is plenty of time for them to course correct that and really start the wheels turning to define the race.

There is more, and it betrays either extreme pettiness, insecurity or fear.  You be the judge.

I have heard from a multitude of sources – all of which I consider extremely reliable – that the Rowe campaign is directing supporters not to sign other candidates’ nominating petitions as well as telling supporters not to give $5 MCEA contributions to other candidates who aren’t running traditionally financed.

A Democratic friend of mine described it thusly:

This is really disappointing and anti-democratic.

Now initially, this doesn’t sound all that unreasonable – why would Rowe want his supporters to sign petitions for other candidates or give them clean election donations?  Obviously, he doesn’t.

But taking the extra step to direct your team to lean on supporters asking them to stonewall the other candidates on things as meaningless as nominating petitions and clean elections dollars?  In such an early primary, supporters of a candidate are interested in more than one person and often lend their signatures around to several of them to help “the team”, and give support to the party – even if they don’t actually want to vote for them.

It helps to give the electorate a plethora of choices, and is just generally a good will venture that hundreds, if not thousands of party activists do.  And unless Rowe thinks his supporters not signing petitions or giving money will somehow amount to a candidate not making it on the ballot or getting clean election funds, this entire enterprise seems pointless, bitter and really bad form over all.

The reaction of the people on the ground to Rowe’s move has not been positive. This, from a supporter of another campaign:

Ran into some really rude Rowe supporters on caucus day. They absolutely refused to sign petitions of other candidates. One of our people even stood up and said ‘C’mon we’re all Democrats, what about party unity?’

One of the delegates yelled ‘Fuck party unity.’

And that’s not all. From a supporter of another Democratic campaign not affiliated with the previous comment:

“I’ve been involved in Democratic politics for a long time, including several gubernatorial primaries, and I have never in my life seen such a rude bunch of supporters acting so childishly. We all routinely sign each other’s petitions… we know we are all going to get the signatures anyway so there is really no point in being a dick about it. You’ll always find some people who won’t sign, but the universal stonewalling from Rowe’s supporters turned a LOT of people off.”

From a delegate supporting another candidate:

“…the Steven Rowe supporters almost universally refused to sign [redacted]’s petition or any other petition for governor.”

And from another:

“I have personally signed the petitions for multiple candidates, and I was so offended at the behavior of Rowe’s supporters that he has officially crossed himself off my list of candidates to take interest in.”

I’m sure I can dig up more quotes, but I trust at this point I don’t have to.  What appears clear to me is that Rowe’s team has sent instructions for his people to not lend any support – no matter how minor and insignificant – to any other candidate.

For what purpose?  At this point, one can only guess – and my guess is some kind of misplaced sentiment.  I understand not wanting your supporters to go around to all the other candidates and help them out in any way, but actively pushing to block them from doing so en masse like this?  Seems very insecure to me, and a symptom of a larger tactical problem with his campaign.

Indeed, this small, seemingly insignificant act appears to be doing him more harm than good at this point, because tracking down these comments from Democratic activists (I bet you never though I was plugged into that network, huh?) was insultingly easy to do, and you could tell immediately there was a bad taste in their mouth.

Now, in the grand scheme of politics, this is no scandal.  It isn’t dirty, it isn’t controversial, and it isn’t wrong. He wasn’t sending around pamphlets about another candidate having illegitimate minority children, or engaging in phone jamming – so this is hardly something to get overly excited about.  It is just petty, and very small of his campaign – and probably very stupid politics in such a fractured primary election.

The larger point is that, along with a bizarre communications strategy and a candidate who himself doesn’t seem very sure of what he believes or why, this kind of thing points a very negative picture about the internal workings of the Rowe campaign.  From my admittedly outsider perspective (but one that has witnessed very strong, and very weak campaigns from the inside), I simply do not see any discipline, any strategic plan, or even any political competence.

Perhaps this is a symptom of Rowe never having run for any campaign larger than a Maine House of Representatives district (roughly 8,000 people) – he was elected AG by the legislature he had been previously voted Speaker in.  Maybe he lacks the political acumen to have built a tight political ship this early in the race.  Maybe he’s just starting slowly and will adapt and craft a campaign that rivals the best ever put together.

We will see.  I am not a Democrat and I don’t claim to know the innermost workings of the campaign.  It is possible that my observations are totally wrong (but I highly doubt it) and Rowe is really putting points on the board.

All I know is that for some time now, I’ve been hearing very unhappy things about his campaign from my rather extensive network of Democratic associates – a set of folks made up of High School students all the way to elderly party activists.  I have heard no such dis-satisfaction with any of the other campaigns to this point, and so until I do, I will consider Rowe’s campaign to be a rather disastrous work in progress compared to the others.

Would it then interest you to note that in the January 2002 pre-election semiannual (i.e. just the second half of 2001), then Congressman John Baldacci raked in a staggering $329,258.97 for his budding race for Governor, which frightened potential primary challenger Chellie Pingree so much, she folded like a cheap suit?

Does it peak your curiosity that in the eight way primary fight in 1994, the eventual Republican nominee – Susan Collins – only raised $119,308.13 all the way up to the 6 day pre-primary report filing?

There is no way I could break down the fundraising numbers of the current crop of gubernatorial candidates any better than Mike Tipping did for Down East a couple Fridays ago.  His breakdown masterfully deconstructed the totals, where it all came from, the burn rates, and everything else you would want to know about how each respective candidate did was as comprehensive and insightful as anyone could want.

So, I decided to take it a step further, and examine the recent history of gubernatorial fundraising numbers to see just what money means in Maine.

My thanks go out to Gavin O’Brien at the Ethics Commission for taking the time to find, scan and send me all the major candidates’ financial disclosures going back to 1990 – something that was essential for this project, as the online disclosures only go back to 2002.

As both parties are now embroiled in intense primary fights between 5 or more serious candidates each, I think the most instructive race to look at is the 1994 Republican gubernatorial primary.

1994 also featured a wide Democratic field, but Joe Brennan as a former two term governor was able to handily win the primary with little real worry.  The Republican field on the other hand featured a fractured set of candidates with no real clear advantage – something that I think both parties are seeing right now.

Let’s take a look at the top five vote getters in that primary, who spent what, and what they got out of it (numbers are from the start of their respective campaigns, though the 42 day post primary finance report):

Note:  The Collins number in the above chart is not completely fair, as she was the eventual nominee and continued to raise and spend money after the primary was over.  While the bulk of what she spent was undoubtedly the final push in the week before the election, some of it was not.  However, I wasn’t going to have the Ethics commission copy the dozens upon dozens of pages of segmented out information so I could nail down the exact figure she raised and spent for the primary vs. for the general – so for the purposes of this exercise, we’ll just assume it was all primary money.  Practical reality, however, would dictate you take several thousand off Collins’ “spent” total in your mind.

Back on track now.

As you can see from the chart above, money by no means bought a candidate love from the voters.  The conversion of dollars per vote obtained shows us that the biggest spender (by far) – Sumner Lipman – paid close to twenty dollars for every vote he received, and finished only a single percentage point ahead of somebody he outspent by more than $210,000.  Jasper Wyman knew how to turn dollars into votes, only dropping a Lincoln for every person voting for him.

Collins, the eventual winner spent a good amount of money, but with my above noted caveat was likely only the second, or maybe even third highest spender in the primary.  In other words, she hardly won because she dumped the largest amount of cash in the election – but she did have enough to mount a credible push.

By comparison the two who spent the least, Wyman and Paul Young, had the highest conversion of dollars to votes.

Want a few more fun facts?

• Sumner Lipman gave his campaign $120,000 in loans.  In terms of personal investment into the race, he was the Bruce Poliquin or Les Otten of his day.
• In the period of July 1, 1993 to December 31st, 1993 (which is analogous to the most recent fundraising period we saw here), Susan Collins raised $35,219.84, Lipman raised $29,529.04, Wyman raised $31,480 .00, Judith Foss didn’t raise anything, and Paul Young raised $7,662.00.  That means that all of the top five vote getters in that primary raised $103,890.88 all together, or less than Bruce Poliquin raised by himself in this cycle.
• If you want to adjust them for inflation, that would put those numbers at $53,598.94, $44,938.45, $47,907.50 and $11,660.33 respectively.  Just to note, in this period Poliquin raised $125,939.85, Otten raised $74,819.45, Jacobson raised $43,798.00 and LePage raised $41,115.00, all of which are respectable, “in the game” totals when compared to 1994.

So, what is different today?

A few things.

2010 features two candidates who are prepared to dump unheard of amounts of money into the race.  Maine has not seen a primary election quite like this in its history.  Certainly there have been knock down drag out primaries, and certainly there have been big spenders, but two men willing to potentially spend a million dollars each in a primary?  No.

The more Collins/Lipman/Wyman type fundraising totals would be operable in a more traditional year with a fractured primary that did not have a plethora of money being spent, however on top of Otten and Poliquin spending what they will spend, Peter Mills will have 400,000 dollars of taxpayer funds (edit:  as well as matching funds, which will give him more than $600,000 to spend), and Steve Abbott will likely be able to leverage his national contacts to raise several hundred thousand dollars as well – which means that not having those kind of resources in this election may make it difficult for a candidate to cut through the noise.

But don’t sell any of the candidates with fewer resources short, either – remember the performance of Jasper Wyman on a shoe string.  With such an orgy of spending going on as multiple candidates attempt to elbow each other out of the picture and position themselves as the lead dog, they all risk a very real possibility that they will turn off voters, annoy them, and drive them to what voters will perceive as the more genuine, less obnoxious options.

Never forget that Mitt Romney outspent Mike Huckabee 20 to 1 in Iowa, but turned off a lot of voters in the process and drove them to what was perceived as the more “genuine” Huckabee who was a natural ideological fit for the Iowa voter.

Which is all to say this: no one is out of the race, so long as they can raise enough money to operate an efficient and competent campaign.  With so much uncertainty, so many fractured constituencies, and the potential for so much over-saturation in the media, money will be only one of the factors in who ends up being the eventual winner.

Stay tuned in the future, I’ll be playing with some of these numbers more, including other races from other years as well as a look at the general election campaigns, complete with an analysis of spending in each election going back to 1990.

Interestingly, Maine comes in as the seventh highest slip in support for Democrats, losing six percentage points.  However, Maine still remains – according to Gallup – a net 13 point Democratic stronghold (48.1%-34.7%), earning the “solid Democrat” moniker.

The method to their madness was not looking at voter registration stats (according to the 2010 Almanac of American Politics, in 2008 Democrats only enjoyed a 5.6 point registration advantage over Republicans [33%-27.4%] – something that is undoubtedly smaller today) – but rather the result of a mash up of polling conducted by Gallup over the course of the year:

These results are based on aggregated data from Gallup Daily tracking in 2009, including interviews with more than 350,000 adults in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Gallup conducted at least 1,000 interviews in every state except Wyoming (878), North Dakota (968), Delaware (997), and the District of Columbia (632). Gallup interviewed more than 20,000 residents each in California, Texas, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Just for clarity, Gallup counted not only self-described Democrats or Republicans, but they also counted Independent “leaners” – i.e. people who have no loyalty, but mildly prefer one over the other – in their totals.  The results are, of course, not surprising for multiple reasons.

First, it comes as no shock that 2009 saw a slip in support for the Democratic Party in Maine.  This is part of a larger national trend that we are seeing, in response to the failure of Democrats to push through any kind of meaningful legislation in 2009, the skepticism circulating around ballooning deficits, and the solidifying opinion that the stimulus was unsuccessful and represented a fabulous waste of taxpayer dollars.  This is little more than the natural reaction of voters to unchallenged Democratic power in Washington, and Maine is no different.

Secondly, it is no shock that despite this, Democrats still enjoy a large lead in self-identification in Maine.  We are, of course, talking about a state that in 2008 voted for Barack Obama by 17 points, elected more than 90 Democratic members to the state House of Representatives, and 20 state Senators.  Even with some erosion of support for the Democrats, they are still in the driver’s seat.

But what does all of this mean for the upcoming elections in 2010 – particularly for Governor, and what I would consider a very vulnerable majority in the Maine Senate?

The answer?  Nothing.

Massachusetts, for example, still maintains a 29 point advantage for the Democrats – yet just handed Republican Scott Brown a five point state wide victory with incredibly high turnout.  He won 22% of Democrats, and over 70% of Independent voters in the state – the very same Independents who probably told Gallup that they leaned Democratic.

They say all politics is local, and in Maine this is especially true.  Voters in local elections tend not to care about your registration as much as they care if they have personally met you.  In the larger races – like the upcoming gubernatorial contest – identification with a candidate will matter much more than what party they belong to.

Which is just to say that each election is an individual contest with hundreds of variables involved, and no assumptions about who will win should be made by any survey like this from Gallup.

But, the reason I’m talking about this now is that they have updated their website, and now have a section for my appearances.  Go check it out.  They have an archive of all of my appearances (check out my October 14th appearance for some startling clairvoyance).

And if you want to listen, it is on WMEB 91.9, and you can listen online at www.DriveTimeBangor.com

Since Brown’s victory, I’ve received dozens of enthusiastic emails, Facebook messages, and Tweets declaring that Maine’s gubernatorial race will be the next big Republican victory.  The GOP hasn’t won the seat in two decades, but the combination of both national and local elements give Republicans one of the best shots in the country to win.

The economy and jobs are foremost on the minds of Americans and Mainers.  National Democrats have neglected the issue in favor of pushing a wish list of big spending items and expanding the role of government.

Here at home, the politicians in Augusta appear tone deaf to Mainers’ calls for proper fiscal management.  The most recent budget is an abomination littered with arbitrary reductions, borrowing from future revenue, and budget gimmicks like furlough days.  Instead of fundamental reforms that address the root causes of our poor economy, Augusta has continued their ostrich policy of ignoring the problem and hoping somewhere down the line it will fix itself.

The time is right to send a strong message to Augusta.

Voters are calling for competent fiscal management from the top.   They want to see reform of our overly generous social service programs and more accountability with how our hard earned tax dollars are spent.  They want to see real tax reduction, not the shell game Augusta passed last year.  They want action on simplifying business regulations that chase away our jobs and discourage employers from locating here.

More and more, people in Maine tell me they want someone in the Blaine House who has the background and experience to deal with these financial issues.  They want a competent manager who has handled similar challenges in the private sector.  Mainers are demanding leadership from someone who knows how tough it is to start and run a business in Maine.

The most common thing I hear from Mainers is that we cannot afford another career politician.  They are emphatically opposed to the same people pushing the same failed policies that have so badly damaged our economy.

Each day I crisscross the state listening to voters, I am more encouraged about my campaign for Governor.  I am passionate about this state and dedicated to creating more opportunities for its 1.3 million citizens.  My background is in finance and economics.  I know how our state government makes it difficult to do business here.  I’ve dealt directly with safely managing as much money as our state spends in a year.  I’ve created jobs and run companies that have invested millions of dollars into our economy.  And I’ve got the guts to stand up to the career politicians in Augusta as they try to maintain the status quo.

Across the country, voters have spoken.  They are tired of the overspending, high taxes, and fiscal mismanagement.  We must have competent leadership with the experience and background to address our economic challenges.  It’s now Maine’s turn to speak.

Bruce Poliquin is a business owner and manager, and a Republican candidate for Governor.  For more information about Bruce, please visit www.BruceForMe.com

(Editors note:  this is an updated paragraph to clarify the description of the questioning section) One of the more interested parts of the forum was what was known as the “lightning round”.  The rules for these questions were that you may only answer “yes” or “no”.  Everyone had to answer every question.  All of the questions were prepared by the moderators – no candidates got to ask any questions.

One such question has stirred up some trouble for one candidate – Republican Bruce Poliquin – “Do you support mandatory background checks on the purchase of a firearm?” The answers from the field were as follows:

Democrats

• Pat McGowan – No
• Rosa Scarcelli- Yes
• John Richardson – No
• Libby Mitchell – No
• Steve Rowe – No
  

Republicans

• Paul LePage- No
• Bill Beardsley- No
• Steve Abbott – No
• Matt Jacobson- No
• Bruce Poliquin – Yes
• Les Otten - No
  
• Peter Mills- No

Independents

• Eliot Cutler – Yes

Only Cutler, one Democrat – Rosa Scarcelli – and one Republican – Bruce Poliquin – answered that they would in fact be in favor of mandatory background checks for the purchase of firearms.

Guns are an interesting political wedge in the state of Maine.  It is one of the backbone issues that has given credibility to Democrats in the second district (indeed, this was McGowan’s question), by separating their image from the more traditional limousine liberal appearance of Democrats in the first district.

So it comes as no surprise that the Democrats were just as opposed to mandatory background checks as the Republicans, who have universally hated the idea from day one, decrying it as a restriction on the second amendment.

Still, a Democrat or Independent is given a lot of leeway to answer yes to a question like this, because their electoral base is far more forgiving of somebody stepping out on that particular limb.  I do not believe, for example, that either Scarcelli or Cutler will really be hurt by their answer to this question – either in the primary (for Scarcelli) or the general.

But in the case of Poliquin, this does in fact cause him significant trouble, particularly in the Republican primary.

Gun rights are a sacred cow to Republicans nationally, but in the state of Maine the issue is even more hyperbolic – again, due to the nature of the state.  For many primary voters, being perceived as “anti-gun” is a litmus test issue that will immediately disqualify somebody.  Poliquin, as the only Republican answering yes to this question, has exposed himself to that criticism.

If there was any doubt, note the reaction from the activists in the As Maine Goes forum.  While not exactly representative of the entire electorate, it should at least give you an idea of how important this issue is to a lot of Maine Republican voters:

What an IDIOT…He might as well pack it in now…It is OVER for him….

I will not vote for him based on this.

Poliquin is one less candidate we need to concern ourself about in this HUGE field of hopefulls.

WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! — Showstopper!

Man, he’s dead to me before he ever got out of the gate!

Note to Mr. Poliquin: Nice going, Dumbass!

Unbelievable. There’s no hope for this state.

Get a certain talk show host fitted for a dress. Poliquin needs a fat lady to sing. As a gun owner, I won’t be voting for him.

I’d say I support him less now, but I was already at zero.

Game over man.

Stick a fork in him he is done.

It goes on and on and on [and on] from there. The reaction was immediate, and very negative. It should be noted there were a couple defensive comments made, but they were very weak, and immediately attacked.

Now, I tend not to cite As Maine Goes as a barometer of conservative grass roots opinion, because 9 times out of 10 it really isn’t – but in this case, I think it does show the general reaction of most Maine Republicans on this issue.

Poliquin’s answer to this question is not a surprise, however.

In December of 1989, Poliquin donated $500 to an organization known as “Handgun Control, Inc.”, which has since (June of 2001) morphed into the organization now known as The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

In its most simple terms, it and its predecessor organization advocate further gun regulation.  So, given Poliquin’s previous support for this organization, it really doesn’t come as any surprise that he would answer yes to this question.

The organization’s mission is stated:

“…to reform the gun industry by enacting and enforcing sensible regulations to reduce gun violence, including regulations governing the gun industry. In addition, we educate the public about gun violence through litigation, grassroots mobilization, and outreach to affected communities.”

Additionally, the Brady Campaign’s website states the following:

“As the largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center are dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities. The Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center believe that a safer America can be achieved without banning all guns.”

Though the growth of the organization over the years has undoubtedly lead to a modification of goals and strategies, it should be noted that in 1976, Pete Shields, the founder of what was then Handgun Control, Inc. stated the overall strategy for his organization, and the gun control movement in general:

We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. . . .  [W]e’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again.  Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice.  Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. . . .  The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country.  The second problem is to get handguns registered.  The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

I imagine the rancor caused by Poliquin’s statement at this candidate forum will not be helped by his donation to this organization twenty years ago, especially given the strategy outlined above.

Still, it was twenty years ago, and I myself spent some rather considerable time blasting “guilt by association”.  I, for one, do not believe that Bruce Poliquin really has any active interest in banning all handguns simply because he donated to an organization that apparently did.

That, of course, does not change the fact that many voters will still find the donation objectionable.

Poliquin’s campaign gave me a statement on the issue in response to this most recent storm of criticism.  The following statement is from Bruce Poliquin:

“I think our campaign just takes it in stride, knowing that everyday we’re out growing the grassroots, communicating our message, and doing the things it takes to win the support of voters.  Some campaigns look at our early success and see that we are going to be very competitive.  It’s natural to target someone who’s out in front.  They’ll take words out of context, push conspiracy theories, and try to mislead others about your positions.  I think we’re prepared for that and we’re going to continue to run our race.  This campaign will be about who has the experience and background to best manage the problems Maine’s economy faces.  I have been dealing with these financial issues my entire professional life.  It has caused us to receive a lot of early attention – both good and bad, apparently.”

So, is this a big deal?

I leave that to the reader, and the voter.

It should be noted that this is hardly the only conservative plank that sees a candidate standing out of step with the primary voters.  There are pro-choice Republicans running, a pro-tax form Republican, some have expressed support for (or voted for) gay marriage, and there are a host of other issues that see divergence.

Still, this is the topic we are talking about right now, and I think it is an issue which could be damning to the Poliquin campaign, especially in the second district, where (especially among Republican primary voters) guns are sacred, and restrictions upon them are fought tooth and nail.

Here is the raw video of the question and answers, for any who may want to watch: