The latest round of campaign finance reports tells the same old story: Gov. Phil Scott is meandering to re-election, while Democratic challenger Esther Charlestin is on a road to nowhere.

This post will focus on the governor, who is squandering an opportunity to put his stamp on Vermont politics. As is his wont. But first, a moment on Charlestin. She did manage to raise more money than she spent in September, so her campaign actually has two nickels to rub together. But not much more than that.

Charlestin raised $12,921 last month, which was decent by her standards but pitifully small in terms of fueling a competitive effort. Her fundraising total for the entire campaign is a ridiculous $34,522. Recall that Howard Dean set $2 million as the required bankroll for a serious run at Scott, and realize that with a month left before Election Day, Charlestin is 1.7% of the way there. Yikes.

Context: As of October 1, 2022, the famously resource-strapped Brenda Siegel had raised $149,193 — more than four times as much as Charlestin. Double yikes.

Charlestin’s campaign spent $8,626 in September, bringing total expenditures to $30,935, so she enters October with a robust balance of $3,587. Triple yikes with whipped cream and sprinkles on top.

But enough about that. Let’s turn to what Phil Scott is doing. Or, more to the point, what he could and should be doing.

Continue reading →