The campaign for Vermont Senate is the main battleground in our rather underwhelming 2024 election season, thanks to a number of open and potentially competitive seats. Plus there’s little on the statewide ballot to divert attention, and the Dem/Prog supermajority in the House appears to be safe. That leaves the Senate, where key vacancies have attracted strong candidates and very generous donor support.

I’ve written previously about the highly unusual, possibly unprecedented, amount of turnover in the Senate between the 2022 cycle and this year’s: 2022 saw the departures of ten sitting Senators, fully one-third of the entire chamber. Six more incumbents will be absent next January through retirement (Brian Campion, Jane Kitchel, Dick McCormack, Bobby Starr) or death (Dick Mazza, Dick Sears).

Furthermore, five of the six vacancies are in districts that haven’t been seriously contested in years because of long-established, nigh-unbeatable incumbents. That’s especially impactful because sitting senators are virtually bulletproof. The last time an incumbent senator lost a bid for re-election was in 2016, when Bill Doyle and Norm McAllister were defeated. Doyle was 90 years old and had developed a widely-known habit of falling asleep during hearings; McAllister faced a bunch of criminal charges.

That’s about what it takes for an incumbent senator to lose. Which means this year’s winners are likely to be in office for a long time to come. Those are high stakes.

So, why is it so hard to beat a sitting senator? First, Vermonters are loath to dispatch incumbents on any level. Second, Senate districts are the wrong size for effective challenges. They’re too small for a top-dollar mass media campaign because too much of your money is wasted beyond district boundaries (See: Ledbetter, Stewart). But they’re too big for a grassroots, door-to-door campaign to overcome an incumbent’s name recognition. And third, most of our Senate districts are either deep red or deep blue.

In three of the six open seats, the partisan imbalance will carry the day. It’s a virtual certainty that Bennington’s two seats (Campion, Sears) and the one open seat in Windsor (McCormack) will stay with the Democrats.

Which brings us to the other three: Caledonia (Kitchel), Grand Isle (Mazza), and Orleans (Starr). They appear to be purple districts, and there’s no form chart because it’s been a generation — or more — since the incumbents weren’t on the ballot. Kitchel and Starr have been senators since 2005; Mazza served from 1985 until his death in May.

In two of the three districts, the Republicans have done what they so often fail to do: Field competitive candidates. Reps. Scott Beck (Caledonia) and Pat Brennan (Grand Isle) are respected members of the House, and they’ve got more than enough money thanks to the Barons of Burlington. It wouldn’t be a surprise if the VTGOP took both seats. Orleans is more problematic; Republican Samuel Douglass has a history of making extreme statements, and Democratic Rep. Katherine Sims has run rings around him in fundraising.

The Republicans are unlikely to win enough seats to derail the Senate supermajority. But if they win Caledonia and Grand Isle, the partisan balance will shift for the foreseeable future. Two safe Democratic seats would become safe Republican territory, thanks to the baked-in advantages of Senate incumbency. That would make veto overrides much tougher in the new biennium, and would put the Republicans within reach of ending the supermajority in future cycles.

But… if the Democrats retain Caledonia, Grand Isle and Orleans, their control of the Senate could be cemented for years to come.

And that’s why the Barons, and others, are pouring so much money into those races.