Coffee & Politics

Greg Lagerquist, it's always a pleasure. Thanks for being here. And we, as usual, have plenty of stuff to talk about. Oh, my goodness. But perhaps more than usual. Yeah, two months before the primary, and we got stuff flying. We do. And you mentioned the primary. Our first casualty of the election yesterday. So the, you know, news number one was Jim Libby not qualifying for his clean election funds. And he was the only, I'm pretty sure he's the only candidate in either party. Yes. That was doing that. That's correct. There's no Democrats that are, they're all doing private. All the other Republicans are doing private. So he was the only one. He was the only one. And he didn't quite make it. No. And on the surface, it looked like he did make it. Well, he submitted like 3,300 or something. Yeah, somewhere north of that. And he needed 3,200 official. I mean, they had to be 32 valid signatures collected, including the $5 checks to qualify for the clean elections funding. And the main ethics commission reviewed it and said that. Let's caveat this. They specifically said there's no evidence that Jim Libby himself knew about any fraud, but they found fraud. They said that there was questions about the signatures. There were questions about who submitted the money, whether these were even valid, qualified people to donate and sign his petitions. All sorts of problems cited. So Jim Libby, then hours after that came out Thursday morning. Didn't take long. He said, look, I'm very frank and short statement. I am no longer have a viable campaign. I'm out. And he's out. Well, he's not wrong. He's not wrong. You need money to do it. And if you're attempting to do clean elections, all throughout that period, you know, you're not raising private funds. So you'd have to like start from zero. I don't even know what the law says. Like if you try to qualify and you don't, can you then become a private? I believe you can, but obviously the assumption is that if you could raise tens of thousands of dollars, you would be raising tens of thousands of dollars. Yeah. And he didn't. Or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a gubernatorial race. And he didn't. So, I mean, looking at the impact on the race, my feeling is that, and this is no offense to Jim Libby. I've known him for years. I think he, this has minimal impact on the actual. primary itself. I think he was he was pulling on the lower side. He was definitely polling on the lower side. He was a long shot. So, you know, I don't even want to speculate about, okay, Jim Libby supporters, who do they go to? The polls suggest there weren't a whole lot of them to sort of filter out to the other six or seven candidates still on the Republican primary ballot. So I don't, I think this has relatively minimal impact. on the actual outcome, but certainly interesting. And I did not have it on my bingo card that Jim Libby was going to be excluded for the race because of fraud on his attempts to get clean elections funny. Well, it seemed like his problem from what the ethics commission said and just kind of my own observations was that he didn't really have people around him. He didn't have staff. He didn't really have staff. No, and I guess that's the catch-22 if you're trying to raise clean election funding. You don't have money to pay for staff until you get the clean election funding. So it's a little bit of a catch-22 for a campaign person. But, yeah, they did specifically note that he didn't have sort of a supervisor looking over-the-shoulder and monitoring the efforts to collect these signatures and the $5 checks to make sure that it was being upheld and done in an above-board legal way. And so...

Without those checks and balances, apparently this was the outcome. So, yeah, I mean. So here's my question to you, Greg. Loggerquist. I have an answer. Is this the first tree to fall? Or is it the last tree to fall? Is there anybody else out there who you think is on the precipice of, yeah, maybe this isn't for me? I think at this point, we're two months out. This is the time we're going to find that out. So that's a fence-riding answer. I wouldn't be surprised if there's another couple that drop out, or at least another one. Having said that, I do think that they, you know, look, you don't jump into a race for governor without thinking that you can win a race for governor and that you don't think you're the right person to win the race for governor. And so it doesn't take a whole lot to at least have. some semblance of a campaign. I mean, a viable campaign versus a semblance of a campaign are two different questions. But there are definitely others. He's not the only one who's been polling low in these polls. And that's not to say, we've talked about this year before. We try not to put super stock into the specifics of these polls because it's an inexact science to begin with, especially when it's sort of in an early phase and it's sort of frayed and there's not a lot of attention on it yet. And yet it does matter. I mean, for example, the debates that we host on CBS 13 that we partner with the Bangor Daily News on, we have a 5% threshold in the polls to make our debate. So at some level, the numbers matter. But at the same time, you know, obviously it's not the be all end all. And somebody can, we've seen. So is it in one debate or is it in multiple, or excuse me, in one poll? Or is it in multiple polls? Or is you have to show that? So, or aggregate? No, it's not an aggregate. It's like you just hit 5% in any poll. You make it once. You made it. Yeah, you make it once you've made it. And there are other criteria that we use. Like, for example, do you have proven electable? that you've been electable before. Jim Living, obviously, would have qualified on that criteria. He is a sitting state senator, so he has proven electability. By the way, these things, for those who are curious about these criteria for different debates, a lot of this has actually been settled in, like, lawsuits in other parts of the country. There was a very important lawsuit in Louisiana, I think it was, like maybe 20 years ago that's sort of where they're, you know, they were excluding people from a debate and should they exclude them? And it helped to sort of you know, coalesce around certain viable criteria that could be used on a consistent basis. We've been using the same criteria for more than a decade. So anyway, so we're down a tangent here. Fun fact. No, if you want to go down a rabbit hole, I'll go down rabbit hole. So we hosted a debate. The main policy institute did, as you know, of course, because we talked about it on the air. I am legally prohibited from disinviting anybody. if I do that because as a nonprofit, you know, it's an element of public education. So if you qualify for the ballot, you must be invited. And if I start picking and choosing and setting polling thresholds and stuff like that, I get in trouble with the IRS. So news organizations don't have that issue. We do not. But, you know, another lift, a further lifting of a veil of perhaps no one wanted lifted. Does anyone care about any. Like, for example, there are three U.S. Senate primary debates between Janet Mills and Graham Platner and David Cust.

that have been that have been confirmed. Ours is the only one that excludes David Costello at this point because he has not polled above 5% in any poll and he hasn't previously held elected office and he doesn't meet other criteria. However, I happen to know there are a couple of the debates that are partnering with nonprofits as part of that. And because they are partnering with a nonprofit, the media companies. ability to exclude based on these criteria is now removed because they've partnered with a nonprofit. So that anyway, again, like I said, details that people didn't necessarily want to know, but it's interesting to know. If you want to know why your debate that you're watching is set up the way that it is, this is some of the inside baseball will be at my understanding of the three debates and there's a couple other forums too. Ours at the moment is the only one for which David Costello is not qualified for. Okay. So funny enough, that was going to be my next subject was not only the U.S. Senate race, but the debate. because Mills got in some hot water a little bit. I think it was earlier this week, right? I think it was more like Monday. Well, I don't remember when the story broke, but she was supposed to be going in theory to this, I think it was one of the mid-coast Democratic Party debates or whatever. It was going to be hosted by Colin Woodard. And she claims she never confirmed that she was going. Colin said she pulled out and said like she's ducking it and no wonder because she's losing so bad or whatever. And there was a big brouhaha over that. I noticed that within like four hours of that story breaking, Jane Amill's social media said, here's the list of all the debates I've committed to. And she had all those ones you just listed on there. So, you know, whether she goes to that one or not, she's going to these other ones. We think. And the reason I say we think is because now we're talking about her being not on the air, pulling all of her ads, which is odd. And now Graham Platner's saying that they're not even paying attention to her anymore. And they're going to be redirecting their attention to Susan Collins because honestly, this is a mosquito and I've already swatted it. Yeah. All the above. All the above. Wow is right. I mean, again, all is breaking this week. Yeah, Governor Mills's campaign for Senate. You know, we have access to this information, too. She hasn't booked any advertising. I think Wednesday was the last day she had anything booked. And again. And planters up with like $150,000 worth of stuff in a week. In a week, yeah. And I think he has another couple hundred grand already booked, you know, going forward. And there's, and more to come. So, yeah. The fact that somebody would pull. pull out of their advertising. Now, they've been at pains to say that their campaign is not suspended. They are still viable. They are still running. Janet Mills is still mounting a vigorous campaign for U.S. Senate. So believe she's the best candidate in the primary to win the nomination. All those nice statements. Money talks. They're off the air. They're no longer advertising. That is a terrible sign for any campaign. So it's not even being specific to this campaign. It's not a good sign at all. And she has the money for it. She has money. She has money. In the court, in the first board, she raised more than... He's winning the money raised. Yes. But she has plenty. She raised more than $2 million in the last cycle. She's got money. She's been spending that money.

I, you know, again, I've been hearing that, you know, within their, their organization, well, it's not even that I'm hearing it. Everyone's hearing it. She's basically said, she's gone on national news outlets and stated that she believes the grand platinum is going to get destroyed. in the fall, which is why she's sort of running these attack ads now to draw the stark difference and point out what she sees as being the, you know, potentially fatal flaws in his campaign going forward. My understanding, though, is within the Democratic primary base, it's been, it's been poorly received the ads that she's been running. hasn't worked as intended. Has not worked. And so I don't know if this is, so there's always a chance. I mean, we can probably all agree that that's true, right? I think that's true. Anecdotally, we've heard that. And the very fact that she's not running them anymore. I mean, if it was working and all of a sudden a 20 point lead is 10, you know, then, hey, keep it, you know, keep spending. Keep doing it. Rotate out new ads. You know, keep firing. And it just does not appear to be happening. So the end, so to back out half a step from this, it's possible that this is a retrenching in a re-analysis of her campaign strategy and that she might be trying to, okay, this isn't working. Let's assess. We'll go out with a whole different set of ads two weeks from now or a week from now or, you know, whenever. But we can tell you right now, nothing is booked. And to book something, it's, you know, yes, can you place a political ad on a TV station or radio station, a website in relatively short order? Yes, you can book. But there's generally, you know this, Matt. You know, there's generally a schedule to these sort of things. And there's definitely. You know, if you want preferred time slots, for example, or preferred programming or you want to get your message specifically tailored to a certain audience and you want to put it in a specific spot, that kind of specificity you need to be working on and scheduling and strategizing now. So I'm frankly a little confused about what might be happening here. But having said that, Governor Mills is still committed to five different, three debates, two different Democratic forums leading up to the June primary. Do you think there is any likelihood or possibility that she drops out? I think there's definitely have to say there's a possibility. Do I expect it? I'm not necessarily here saying that I expect it. But no, given what we've seen with the polling and with this decision, you have to leave it as a possibility. Wow. Again, I'm not saying it's likely. I'm not saying I think that it's going to happen. I'm saying it's definitely a possibility. How could you not say so?

It's a suspicious thing for me. But then the millionaire's tax on top of it, right? So those two things together, in the context of running, she does. Right. But do they say to Democratic voters? First of all, thanks for the checks. And secondly, I love that millionaire's tax. So, you know what? Bonus points to you. Great job. Now I'll think about voting for you. Does that actually happen? I don't think so. See, I don't either because I gave the Coke Diet Coke lecture yesterday about, you know, when you're on authentic something and you see an authentic something and you see something that's trying to look like it's also that thing. Yeah. You take the real thing. I mean, Graham Platner is an authentic Bernie Sanders. Whatever else you might say about him, he clearly. Believes what he says that he's pretty far over there and he's he's an actual progressive, right? Janet Mills seems like a calculating progressive in a lot of ways. And I think that's the way that many people are seeing it within the electorate. So when you do this kind of stuff, does it buy you anything? No, I don't think so. I mean, I think it might be the fact that she feels it's the right thing to do at this moment. You know, but the thing is you go back to, we've said this last week, I think, too. The. Look, you just made the point that she opposed the millionaire's tax last year. In fact, basically strong-armed it out of the budget. It's been majority budgets for a long time, meaning the Democratic majorities ignored the Republican minority and just passed a budget without them. She also was opposed to doing anything with the rainy day fund up until now. True. The so-called, you know, the budget stabilization fund, the rainy day fund. In fact, I think our listeners know this, but we'll say it just in case they don't. In order to use this money, the $150 plus million out of the rainy day fund, I think it's a little more than that, actually, in order to write these $300 checks, they actually had to, as part of that, change the law. Right. Allowing it to be used for this purpose. So it wasn't just like, okay, we want to use this, we want to write this big check off of the rainy day fund for this purpose. Well, no, you couldn't do that under the current law until they just changed the law. Right. So it's not a piggy bank. No, it's not a piggy bank. It's supposed to be there in case of some sort of economic liability. There was a specific set of criteria that was supposed to apply to. And this was not included until they changed the law in order to write the checks. So there you go. She was opposed to that until she wasn't. She was opposed to the millionaire's tax until she wasn't. And these are both changes that I think that you can't help but look at it at it. I'm on four and a half hour sleep. Sorry. You can't help but look at it without the lens of politics and the current election cycle. Okay, we got a minute. We got a minute. Oh, how about that Iran thing? By the way, you know, to turn national here, you had, you know, over Easter threats of ending civilizations and it's all over and they better or else. to now there's on Saturday apparently going to be some, a big, you know, confab meeting with the vice president trying to hammer out a true end of the conflict. We have a two-week pause here. Still plenty of hiccups with, you know, obviously stuff going on in Lebanon and all that jazz. But what do you make of all that? Israel wasn't so keen on a ceasefire just yet with Lebanon. There's so many, I mean, my goodness. Shocking, they're not a big fan of Hezbollah. Yeah, I do think that, look at how the markets immediately went up, like, the Niki average went up like 5%.

immediately upon the news of the ceasefire. Oil prices dropped. There's questions today of whether, is this trade of Hormuz open? Is it not open? It's barely open. Regardless, this is a major moment for President Trump. Look, he wants it out. Everything is, everything we've seen from him. Honestly, some of the things that he put out there is Easter social media post, the end of civilization or wipe out a civilization in Iran. Those are extreme by any measure. He's desperate for a way out. Let's see how this weekend goes. Indeed. And I'm sure we'll talk about whatever happens this weekend next Friday. So thanks as always, Greg. I'll see you tonight.