VTDigger’s post-Mearhoff political “team” has done itself proud in the early days of the new year, publishing not one, but two, articles outlining a fresh outbreak of an old familiar malady of the left — Democrats in Disarray.

Yeah, I’ve seen this movie before, over and over again. The Dems react to an electoral defeat by watering down their agenda and shifting (if not stampeding) to the center. When, in fact, the lesson to be learned from election victories on both sides is that voters reward authenticity — and are unconvinced by carefully titrated policy positions that have been focus-grouped to death. And by “authenticity” I mean everything from Jimmy Carter’s humble populism to Donald Trump’s extravagant disregard for political norms. (Trump may be a phony and a huckster but he’s consistent about it. He is, as he has told us repeatedly, that snake.)

Digger’s Emma Cotton brings us word of a panicky retreat from the Dems’ climate agenda, while the (at least for the moment) sole occupant of the political beat, Shaun Robinson, reports that quite a few House Democrats are prepared to defenestrate Speaker Jill Krowinski in favor of independent Rep. Laura Sibilia. Enough are against Krowinski or undecided that next week’s election for Speaker may be a close affair.

Both are clear and obvious overreactions to the results of the November elections, which saw many a Democrat go down to defeat — but which left the Democrats with a majority in the Senate and nearly a two-thirds majority in the House. To say that they “lost” the election is to avoid the fact that they still rule the Statehouse roost, and would be fully justified in pursuing an ambitious agenda in the new biennium. Even so, many Dems seem to be running scared. Some of their more influential member are, dare I say, sounding a lot like Phil Scott Republicans. And no, that’s not a compliment.

Take Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, who’s about to become Senate majority leader because of her alleged superiority at communicating Democratic policies and principles. So tell me what Democratic policy she’s trying to communicate when she channels the spirit of our governor with comments like this: “I think voters asked us to focus on their wellbeing over the allure of being some kind of national leader in an abstract sense.”

Yep, that sounds like someone preparing to throw in the towel on fighting climate change at the merest hint of some near-term costs. Which, despite the Scott administration’s fearmongering, is far from a sure thing. Then there’s Dem/Prog Sen. Anne Watson, who’s about to replace the defeated Christopher Bray as chair of the Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee and seems to be leaning toward a Phil Scott approach to climate issues: “Staying focused on affordability, I think, is key,” she told Digger. (Maybe the Progs should consider revoking her “P.”)

I’ve already speculated that the Clean Heat Standard is a dead policy walking. I fear the Democrats might give in to Republican pressure and rewrite the Global Warming Solutions Act — specifically, the provision that allows individuals or groups to sue the state for failing to achieve greenhouse gas reduction targets. At best, there seems little to no prospect of any further climate action that can’t attract tripartisan support. And with the Republicans intent on hammering the Dems relentlessly on climate action as they have done with property taxes, I doubt they’ll go along with anything more impactful than maybe a “Vermont Green” license plate to add to your “Vermont Strong” collection.

As for the Speaker’s race, Digger reports that 21 “non-Republican legislators,” most claiming the comfy mantle of anonymity lest Krowinski go all Dirty Harry on their asses, say they will vote for Sibilia or are leaning that way.

Even so, the math is not friendly to Team Sibilia. Necessary trivia note: The new House will begin the session with a vacancy created by the resignation of Chris Brown, a Republican from Rutland. A total of 149 representatives will be voting for speaker, which means 75 votes are needed to win. So if Sibilia racked up all 21 of those non-Rs plus all 55 Republicans in the new House, she’d have 76 votes. That’s right, she’d need to cash in almost every single chip on the table. Krowinski is making confident sounds, although this will be much less comfortable than it ought to be for an incumbent Speaker with a still-robust majority.

But wait. Republican Rep. Ashley Bartley has said she will vote for Krowinski. So as it stands Sibilia would need every single one of those 21 “non-Republicans” plus every single non-Bartley vote from the Republican caucus. That’s an extremely tall order.

(I’m assuming that Digger managed to identify all, or virtually all, the “non-Republicans” open to backing Sibilia. Presumably Robinson and his colleagues got in touch with as many potential Sibilians as they could think of. It’s doubtful, although possible, that there are more Dems out there willing to abandon Krowinski.)

But let’s say we plummet into the alternate universe and Sibilia beats Krowinski. What the hell have you won, exactly? What do you do with your big prize? Sibilia is a smart and experienced lawmaker, so I’m sure she has a plan. But I don’t see it. Here’s what I do see.

The hypothetical Speaker Sibilia enters office thanks largely to Republican backing. More than two-thirds of her “base” would be Republican. And she’d be trying to lead a chamber that’s nearly two-thirds Democratic.

Customarily, you’d reward your supporters with leadership positions and committee chairships and shut out your opponents. But how in the world could The H.S.S. do that? How could she manage a House with a very solid majority, most of whom are loyal to Krowinski, while giving the plum positions to Republicans and maverick Democrats?

Setting aside the partisan concerns, you’d be installing pretty much an entirely new leadership team and turning over most, if not all, the committee chairs. That’s not a recipe for smooth operation. Experience matters in these things.

It would set the stage for a deeply divided and dysfunctional House. And given the narrow Democratic majority in the Senate, we’d be looking at a potentially disastrous biennium with tons of fighting and very little actual lawmaking, all presided over by a governor who’s extremely popular but has shown little inclination to address the many urgent challenges we face including property taxes, school funding, housing/homelessness, the opioids crisis, climate change, and a health care system on the verge of collapse.

In truth, we may be facing that prospect in any case. But I don’t see how changing speakers makes anything better unless you believe that Krowinski is uniquely responsible for everything bad that’s happened to Democrats in 2024. It might provide balm to bruised feelings among those 21 “non-Republicans,” but at what cost?

Seriously, the Democrats were embarrassed in November. But that doesn’t mean they should willingly surrender the many advantages they still hold. It doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be optimistic about a 2026 comeback; they should. And it doesn’t mean that opening the new biennium with a circular firing squad is a good idea.