After delivering an election-night concession speech, Sue Minter stepped offstage at Burlington’s Hilton and exited the limelight.
Now, nearly a month later, the former Democratic gubernatorial nominee is opening up about why she lost, what she might do next and what role her gender may have played in her defeat.
Many political observers predicted a close race, but Republican Phil Scott won by nearly nine points. “I definitely was not expecting those results,” Minter told Seven Days last week in one of her first interviews since the election. “I felt it was a toss-up.”
The prevailing postelection analysis has been that the incumbent lieutenant governor won because he was well-known and well-liked. Minter calls that a “core part of his success,” but she doesn’t think popularity alone carried her opponent to victory.
She suggested that Scott benefited from Vermont’s 54-year tradition of alternating between Republican and Democratic governors — and from voters’ desire for balance of power. Even stalwart Dems had told her they worried about single-party rule, Minter said.
Scott owned the message of economic opportunity, Minter conceded: “People who were concerned about the economy felt he would be a stronger candidate than they felt that I would be, because it was hard for us to define myself that way.”
Minter said she thinks Scott had a head start on messaging since he’d already held a statewide post for nearly six years. “He had a very simple, simplistic way of talking about it — that things were unaffordable,” she said. She maintains that her own plans to address the issue, which included making community college free and raising the minimum wage, were more concrete than Scott’s.
Minter also pointed to certain strategic disadvantages — most notably that her campaign was practically broke after the primary, leaving her powerless to combat a pro-Scott TV ad blitz paid for by the Republican Governors Association. (While the RGA ultimately outspent the Democratic Governors Association by a roughly 2-to-1 ratio, other pro-Minter groups — such as the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, League of Conservation Voters and EMILY’s List — helped close the gap.)
When outgoing Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin was asked about Minter’s defeat during an interview last month on Vermont Public Radio, he offered a different theory: “Let’s talk about gender here for a second … We still discriminate against women when we choose chief executives.”
VPR’s Alex Keefe responded, “It’s kind of an extraordinary thing to suggest that people who elected Phil Scott over Sue Minter may have just been looking at the fact that she was a woman.”
Shumlin pressed on: “I think there’s no doubt, and we can live in denial if we wish, that the reason it’s so difficult to elect women governors and that we’ve never elected a president of the United States who’s a woman is because we hold them to a different standard when we’re hiring a chief executive.”
Vermont ranks second in the nation for gender parity in its legislature. Forty-one percent of the state’s lawmakers are women, according to a 2016 report from the organization Representation20/20, which works to elect more women to political office. But Vermont is also one of three states that has never elected a woman to Congress, and only nine women have ever held statewide political posts.
“People have theorized that voters tend to feel more comfortable with women in the role of advocate rather than executive, and you certainly see that borne out in the numbers,” Minter said. “It is pretty extraordinary.”
Felicia Kornbluh, a gender studies professor at the University of Vermont, suggests this effect “may be especially acute [in Vermont] because the leap from a local legislative seat to one of the very few statewide opportunities is a great one — and the queue of talented people waiting is typically long.” Since the state is so solidly Democratic, turnover in the top ranks tends to be slow — particularly in the state’s congressional delegation.
Minter didn’t dwell on gender’s possible role in her defeat. But she has considered whether it affected the way voters viewed her.
“We don’t have any exit polls in Vermont, so I can’t speculate, obviously. But we just have to look at the fact that, as of this January, there will be a total of four woman governors in the United States,” Minter said.
Asked if she faced sexism while on the stump, she hesitated for a moment. “I did not — not overtly. But I think I encountered it.”
No one wore T-shirts declaring Minter a bitch, as some did Hillary Clinton. But people did question her fortitude. At one meet-and-greet event, Minter recalled a man asking her, “Are you prepared to be tough enough to be governor?”
“I thought it was a joke,” she said. “I literally took off my jacket. I’m very lucky to have grown up as a figure skater, and I have strong biceps, so I just made a muscle and said, ‘Hey, are you gonna question me now?’
“Then,” she continued, “I realized the guy wasn’t joking.”
When the same question came up at another meet-and-greet in the Burlington area, Minter was better prepared. That time, the former state transportation secretary talked about running an agency where women are “underrepresented, to put it mildly.”
“Candidates are supposed to be likable, and they’re supposed to be strong, and that is easier for men than women,” she said. Minter noted that after debating Scott, some observers suggested she was “too aggressive.”
On the other hand, the RGA implied she was too passive in a series of TV ads that portrayed Shumlin as “Minter’s mentor.” Republicans were bound to try to saddle the Democratic candidate — regardless of gender — with Shumlin’s legacy, but some considered the suggestion condescending.
“I didn’t focus on it,” Minter said, though she added, “Certainly, my daughter was outraged by it.”
Minter did take note of a postelection analysis by columnist Jon Margolis that appeared on VTDigger.org and included this observation: “After some of the candidate debates, especially the Vermont Public Radio debate last week, some voters found Minter’s constant attacks on Scott too shrill for their taste.”
While campaigning for Minter, Sen. Becca Balint (D-Windham) said she heard comments about Minter’s style of dress and her size, “which made me feel like we really had not come so very far in our view of women in politics.”
Madeleine Kunin, Vermont’s sole female governor, has spent years recruiting women to run for office. One of Minter’s most prominent supporters, she said it’s “hard to say” if gender was a factor in Minter’s defeat. “I think her biggest challenge was that running against Phil Scott was almost like running against an incumbent, because he had so much more name recognition,” she said.
It’s also possible that Minter’s gender worked to her advantage. The prospect of electing Vermont’s second-ever female governor likely galvanized some voters. It definitely attracted well-heeled national organizations devoted to electing female candidates, such as EMILY’s List.
“Certainly, being connected with those networks was very helpful in terms of fundraising,” Minter said. Beyond the financial support, organizations such as the Barbara Lee Institute for Women Political Leaders provided training and other support.
Locally, Kornbluh said, “There is a very strong women’s network right now, and Emerge Vermont is the tip of the spear.” That organization trains women to run for office, and although its tax status prevents it from explicitly campaigning for candidates, many of the organization’s members supported Minter individually.
The jury’s out on whether ads criticizing Scott’s stand on abortion ended up helping or hurting Minter. Vermont’s next governor has long characterized himself as pro-choice but has supported certain restrictions on abortion.
“I do believe that it is because of those ads that I have now been painted in some people’s minds as having run a negative campaign,” Minter said. Unfairly so, she claimed, since a super PAC funded by the DGA and Planned Parenthood Action Fund were behind them. However, Minter never disavowed the ads during the campaign. Last week, she suggested that if more people had expected president-elect Donald Trump to triumph, the issue of abortion rights might have given pro-choice Vermonters another reason to vote for her.
Defeated candidates often declare some degree of victory to console supporters and campaign staffers. In Minter’s case, she may indeed have accomplished something: A large part of the struggle to achieve gender parity lies in convincing women to run, and her campaign may inspire other candidates to come forward.
She trounced two male opponents during a competitive Democratic primary. “I don’t think I was particularly taken seriously until I won soundly in that primary,” Minter said. And while Scott’s general-election victory was decisive, she claimed the largest portion of the vote — 44 percent — that a female gubernatorial candidate has won since Kunin left the fifth floor of the Pavilion Building.
“I think every time a woman is in the arena, they help change the conversation,” Minter said.
Will she return to compete again?
Last week, Minter was content to be in Florida, belatedly celebrating a wedding anniversary that fell during the height of the campaign. She said she’d been “devouring books” and was reading The Group, Mary McCarthy’s novel about Vassar College grads during the Depression.
Minter told Seven Days that she’s definitely not done with public service. As for running for office, she said, “I don’t think it’s going to be in the very near future … But I can imagine getting back to that.” Minter said the Scott administration hasn’t offered her a position, and she’s not angling for one.
Meanwhile, at the Statehouse, women are assuming leadership positions that can serve as launchpads for higher office. Rep. Mitzi Johnson (D-South Hero) has the votes to become the third-ever female speaker of the House, and Rep. Jill Krowinski (D-Burlington) was elected House majority leader on Saturday. Balint is running for Senate majority leader. Meanwhile, several other top leadership positions in the Senate will remain all male, following Sen. Claire Ayer’s (D-Addison) failure to win either of the two posts she sought.
Even in the relatively female-friendly legislature, women are no strangers to sexism.
“Where do I start?” Johnson said with a laugh. “There has been enough progress so that it’s more subtle.”
This article appears in Dec 7-12, 2016.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Typical of Shumlin to come up with an excuse for why the Democrats lost the elections for both governor and president instead of just acknowledging that this time the Dems. picked the wrong people to represent their party. It must just be easier to accuse everyone of being sexist, or racist instead of looking at your own parties issues or lack of understanding of the real issues voters face. Peter maybe if you had a back bone and supported Bernie instead of a lier your party could have won at least one race. Mr. Shumlin you are an embarrassment to real Vermonters.
Sue: You lost because people are tired of the same old liberal rhetoric. Time for people to own up to their responsibilities. Scott offers an “option” – nothing more. The “Shumlin Shuffle” of political favorites from agency to agency needed to end. Cutting the Dem chord at the Gov level will give the public some relief before Scott starts his political favors.
It’s possible to dislike someone who is a woman without being biased against all women. Sue Minter appeared to me to be a entitled and out of touch person who I didn’t think would represent my interests. I would happily vote for Elizabeth Warren for any elected office. I would happily vote for Bernie Sanders for any elected office. What do they have in common? I like their policies, their passion, and their integrity.
I hate Hillary Clinton because she cheated and stole the democratic primary with the help of the DNC and her establishment power brokers. I hate money-grubbing Wall Street bankers like Bruce Lisman who suck the blood from middle class workers and the world economy for their own personal aggrandizement. I don’t care if they are male or female, transgender or gay, Muslim or Atheist, I vote based on my view of who will best help improve our government.
There is a lot of truth in the comments by previous posters. It was known early on that Minter matched up poorly against Scott, and that the polls showed Matt Dunne would have been a better candidate against him. But the Democratic “machine” rallied behind Minter, in a similar way they went for Hillary early on.
Many on the left went over to Scott because of some very un-Democratic stances by the Democrats in power, some which came across as hypocritical and ingenuine. The list is a long one: VT Gas, Big Wind, Ethics Reform, environmental issues, VT Rail, PSB, school consolidation, and of course, taxes, etc.
And Minter’s call for free college tuition literally scared people senseless. Just how was this going to be paid for? Even the most progressives States like NY and California are having a very difficult time supporting Higher Education. Higher Education must be tacked on the national level, just like health care, as Bernie clearly pointed out. Folks feel like the education property tax is already out-of-hand.
Minter lost this race on her own. Blame is squarely on her shoulders and the Democrats in power as this was a winnable race. She had the opportunity to stand up for Democratic principles, but she ran away from them.
Minter should be able to get a nice paying job at Planned Parenthood. They pay really well, and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on political ads AGAINST Phil Scott, a pro-choice candidate. I think they may owe her a favor.
Sue was a true fighter with actual plans and real heart. Vermont missed an opportunity to be a leader on several fronts – from renewable energy, to affordable higher education, to women in leadership – but instead we elected a race car driver as chief executive. We elected a Republican to the governorship in the year of Donald Trump. No matter what Scott says about being different from the national Republican party it absolutely matters that he is going to be running our state from the same ideological stance. Instead of being a bulwark against extremism when our nation needs it most, Vermont rolled over and let a race car driver become our leader because it was ‘his turn.’ So much for Vermont values. So much for Vermont leadership. Now we’re just another Republican state. Sue Minter didn’t lose. Vermont did.
I’m still surprised by Shumlin’s comments regarding gender. Many states have elected women to the governor’s post, including Vermont. And it is hard to imagine a liberal state like Vermont, where women out number men by a small margin, would not do it again, all things being equal (which was the case when Kunin won).
Is Shumlin that out of touch? Yes, which is why he’ll soon be out of a job.
When did 7Days start running humor as news? Blaming gender? Seriously? Minter lost because she never had any intent to represent Vermonters. She was the first candidate to ever run for statewide office on a platform of gun control. That is a political death sentence here in Vermont. We have a proud tradition of firing candidates who attack Article 16 of the Vermont state Constitution, so why would we possibly consider electing someone who commits to doing so? Why even Senator Campbell, for all his tenure and power, knew enough to retire gracefully after the gun control debacle he tried to force through last year, yet not once does this article mention the gravity of taking such positions. If you are going to report on something like this, at least be honest rather than trying to deflect to so obvious a red herring. To be blunt, Sue Minter shot herself in the foot.
I disagree with the gender bias issue. I voted for Scott instead of Minter because I could not see how ordinary Vermonters could pay for her programs. She was not for the ordinary Vermonter but her special interest people like Blittsendorf. The other thing that did not sit well with me was how Scott had met with Planned parenthood and is a pro choice person but the Planned Parenthood PAC came out along with Minter painting him as something he was not. Sorry Sue when you took that tack and then lied to get in office, I had no desire to vote for you for any position.
Note that “journalist” Freese does not mention the success of Gov. Madeleine Kunin until paragraph 26 (!) of this propagandistic pile of false political narrative posing as “journalism.” Gov. Kunin was clearly an inconvenient fact for Ms. Freese given the “gender bias” premise of the propaganda. Is it possible that the most likely cause of Minter’s defeat was her suicidal support of the immensely unpopular proposed Carbon Tax that would add $.88 to a gallon of gas in 2017? Possibly. But this is a possibility “journalist” Freese never explored.
Wahrheit says that Sue Minter supported “the immensely unpopular proposed Carbon Tax that would add $.88 to a gallon of gas in 2017.” First, she didn’t support it and said so clearly. She supported a RGGI regional effort, not the bill proposed last year.
Second,. the bill does NOT raise the gasoline tax to 88 cents next year, but in TEN years. The first year tax is actually 8.8 cents, and then intent is to raise the tax by that amount each subsequent year for ten years. In ten years, the CAFE average for US cars will be 55 mpg, thanks to President Obama.
John Greenberg rightly corrects my error in asserting Minter supported the Carbon Tax proposal. I was wrong. Mr. Greenberg then points out that Minter instead DID support the RGGI regional proposal for an increased Carbon Tax. As they say in the law, the difference between a state Carbon Tax and a Regional Carbon Tax is “a distinction without a difference” and I believe tax-crippled Vermonters knew it and Minter paid the price on election day. As for the Carbon Tax increasing “only” 8.8 cents a year for ten years: ANY tax scheme that steals from Vermonters to redistribute income based on Obama’s “promised” 55 mpg CAFE in ten years sure sounds a lot like “check’s in the mail” or “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” or “an inflammatory video triggered the murders of 5 Americans in Benghazi.”
Wahrheit now admits that Sue Minter did not support the proposed VT carbon tax as proposed, so he or she has changed the argument, claiming that the difference between a state Carbon Tax and a Regional Carbon Tax is “a distinction without a difference.
But actually, there is a key difference. If Vermont acts alone, then its fuel prices (and some others) are likely to be higher than those in surrounding states. As the tax grows annually, the difference would heighten year by year.
Like imposing sales taxes when NH imposes none, the likely result would be a significant loss of sales to other states for effected products. A regionally imposed solution eliminates this problem for Vermont. (It might end up being displaced to other states in the region, bordering states with no carbon taxes).
As to Wahrheits second claim about the amount of tax stolen by the bill, it is specious as well. The effect of the bill is clearly and specifically delineated in the language of the bill: http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Docu….
Section 8804 explains how the tax would be imposed. Section 8810 and following explain how the revenues would be allocated.
The repeated claims clearly from folks who havent bothered to look at the bill about promises, vagueness, etc. — are blatantly false.
Either the bill passes as proposed, in which case the redistribution scheme is laid out with specificity, or well be talking about a different bill from the one proposed.
Lets debate what the bill actually says and does, not whatever opponents can dream up to say about it.
All well and good, Mr. Greenberg, but you have now at least acknowledged that it is a “redistribution scheme” and therein lies the rub: as such, any Carbon Tax on gasoline and heating fuels will always be an unacceptable burden for tax-crippled Vermonters. You did nicely explain why Vermont can, I guess, never “go it alone” with a Carbon Tax. So, I guess, we low-income-but-employed-and-driving-to-work Vermont residents can rest easy knowing that a “go it alone” Carbon Tax will NOT be introduced this session?? I’d be willing to give long odds that some arrogant, elitist, well-heeled “help the poor” Prog will in fact introduce a “go it alone” Carbon Tax this session, e.g., Tony the (inherited wealth) Prog from Washington County or Tim Ashe from Burlington?? And, by the way, you never addressed my assertion that the “promised” 55 MPG CAFE is yet another false narrative like the scores of false narratives we have weathered from Obama and Shumlin. My personal favorite ramains Shumlin’s assertion, when he ran against Brian Dubie, that the (miniscule) tritium leak from the now-defunct Vermont Yankee was “the worst environmental disaster in the history of the state of Vermont!” The eternally-mendacious Shumlin made that assertion in every campaign speech. Funny how we never hear anything about that “disaster.” It appears no diligent reporter from the Vermont media has followed up on that Shumlin whopper.
Mr. Greenberg suggests, “Don’t worry, Vermont won’t pass a carbon tax by itself.”
First, it’s so reassuring that Mr. Greenberg knows what the Legislature will and will not do. But, like Wahrheit, I’ve got my doubts that the we-know-best and we-love-taxes Legislature won’t at least give it the ol’ college try. Fortunately, I’m hopeful they wouldn’t have the numbers to override Gov. Scott’s veto.
Second, Mr. Greenberg’s answer is, “Hey, you’ll feel better about the tax because New Hampshirites will be getting whacked, too.” Yep, that’ll make me feel so much better about getting whacked. Misery loves company!
Here’s a different — and novel — idea for the Vermont legislature: NO NEW TAXES. Give it a try. Just once.
Wahrheit:
Clearly, the proposed carbon tax is a redistribution scheme, if by that you mean that it substitutes one tax for another. Thats facially obvious. Its backers have never presented it otherwise.
Since it is largely revenue neutral, it cant be a new unacceptable burden for tax-crippled Vermonters. 90% of every penny raised by the tax is obtained by REDUCING existing taxes. The reductions are spelled out in the proposed bill.
If I were a legislator, I would make that 100%, meaning that the burden on tax-crippled Vermonters would not change at all and we could get away from this distraction.
The real question is not whether or not to tax, but whether sales taxes at current levels are preferable to carbon taxes, or whether taxing carbon makes more sense than taxing income (personal tax credit) or work (payroll tax credit).
Arguments about the overall LEVEL of taxes whether or not theyre too high are really arguments over state spending; they raise perfectly legitimate issues. But they have NOTHING to do with HOW revenues are raised and have no bearing on carbon taxes.
I never suggested that the bill wont be re-introduced; indeed, I assume it will.
The 55mpg CAF standard is current law. Every previous CAF standard has been met, so I see no reason to believe that this one wont be. Of course, a new administration may change the law. Should that happen, the 55 mpg standard wont be a false narrative; just a policy which a subsequent administration reversed.
Every Republican president since Reagan has imposed a gag rule on international abortion providers, for example, and every Democrat has reversed it. No false narratives, just opposing policies.
Knowyourassumptions says Mr. Greenberg suggests, “Don’t worry, Vermont won’t pass a carbon tax by itself.” No, I dont; I never made any such suggestion. Nor did I ever suggest what the legislature would or wouldnt do. I said that the RGGI proposal Sue Minter endorsed is actually qualitatively different from the carbon tax bill proposed last year on a substantive point.
I didnt suggest either that you’ll feel better about the tax because New Hampshirites will be getting whacked, too.”
Please let me speak for myself: I dont need you to put words in my mouth.