This election season is shaping up to be both boring as hell and one for the record books. Really, can you think of a comparable set of circumstances in Vermont or anywhere else? We have a Republican governor certain to win re-election. At the same time, no other Republican on the statewide ballot has a hope in Hades. And despite the governor’s efforts to whip up anti-tax frenzy against the Legislature, the Democrats stand a very good chance at retaining their supermajorities because, well, the VTGOP can barely tie its own shoes. At worst, the Dems will retain substantial enough majorities to frustrate the governor even if they can’t win veto overrides by the half-dozen anymore.

You see this becoming reality in the July 1 campaign finance reports, which feature an all-time dismal performance by the only Democratic candidate for governor. It’s not quite George Aiken level — the longtime Republican kingpin famously spent a mere $17.09 on his final Senate re-election bid — but it’s astonishingly bad.

Gubernatorial candidate Esther Charlestin reported total fundraising of $12,235 for her campaign.

For context, Charlestin is no better than the 12th most prolific fundraiser among Democratic candidates in 2024. She trails every fellow statewide Dem, many of whom are facing token opposition at best. She also lags behind five candidates for state Senate: Dems Stewart Ledbetter, Katherine Sims, Kesha Ram Hinsdale and Martine Gulick, and Republican Scott Beck.

Here are the top 12 fundraisers among those who will appear on the Democratic ballot this fall:

• Sen. Bernie Sanders $4,054,190
• U.S. Rep. Becca Balint $924,346
• Treasurer Mike Pieciak $212,310
• Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman $111,089
• Attorney General Charity Clark $88,728
• State Senate candidate Stewart Ledbetter $49,189
• LG candidate Thomas Renner $43,194
• State Rep. (and state Senate candidate) Katherine Sims $42,196
• Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas $31,695
• State Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale $16,194
• State Sen. Martine Gulick $12,990
• Esther Charlestin $12,235

I realize it’s tough running against Phil Scott, but c’mon now. We’re less than four months away from Election Day, and Charlestin is barely mounting a Potemkin campaign. If there was any shred of doubt that Scott will win a fifth term, her latest campaign finance report eliminated it entirely.

I also realize that money isn’t everything, but unless you’re a thoroughly established officeholder with proven popularity, you can’t expect to George Aiken this thing. You do need some money. At this point in the 2022 campaign, the famously under-resourced Brenda Siegel had raised more than $40,000. (In her first run for office, as a candidate for governor in 2018, she raised more than $17,000 by mid-July. The reporting deadline has since shifted to July 1.) At this point in the 2020 cycle, Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman had raised over $130,000 for his ill-fated gubernatorial bid. Hell, his primary opponent Rebecca Holcombe had raised $101,000.

And in case you were wondering, Gov. Phil Scott has raised more than $126,000. Plus he entered the cycle with a $332,359 surplus from his previous campaigns, so he could return every future donation from now until November 5 and still be able to run financial rings around Charlestin. Not that he’ll need to.

Now recall that when former governor Howard Dean bowed out of the race, he said it would take at least $2 million to effectively challenge Scott. And at the time, VDP Executive Director Jim Dandeneau agreed with Dean, saying “This is going to be really expensive to do.” Charlestin can’t possibly take on the task with a campaign kitty in the five figures, no matter how much People Power she might inspire.

In other circumstances, I’d think Charlestin’s presence at the top of the ticket would damage the Democrats’ prospects for November. But in truth, it’s not going to make any difference at all. Bernie Sanders is running for re-election, likely for the last time. Vermonters will turn out for him. Even more importantly, Donald Trump will inspire heavy turnout among voters who see him as a reprehensible human being and an active threat to democracy itself.

I guess that’s why you don’t hear wails of despair among Vermont Democrats. They know the governorship is a lost cause, and they think the party will do just fine anyway. They’re probably right. And that’s where we are: an utterly predictable campaign season that will absolutely make history.

(Next in this space, unless events overtake my plans: A closer look at the dire situation for Vermont Republicans and a few miscellaneous notes on the July 1 deadline.)