Esteemed journalist Chris Graff summed up the Democratic primary race for governor perfectly in his Wednesday op-ed: “Intensity beats out competence almost every time in hotly contested primary elections. And that’s the key takeaway from Amanda Janoo’s narrow win over Aly Richards in Tuesday’s Democratic gubernatorial primary,” Graff wrote. “The outcome is especially interesting because Richards had most of the conventional advantages – money, organization, endorsements, and political connections – and still lost.”

Graff also neatly summed up the essence of each candidate’s campaign: “Richards presented herself as a pragmatic problem solver who knew how to make government work and who could build a broad coalition. Janoo presented herself as a disruptor: tax wealthy Vermonters, provide universal primary care, reduce reliance on Washington, challenge corporate power and rethink the state’s economic model.”

But back to Tuesday’s turnout. “In a low-turnout Democratic primary,” Graff explained, “ideological intensity can matter enormously. And it did on Tuesday: The electorate voted for change over credentials.”

Graff, who served as the Vermont Bureau Chief for The Associated Press in Montpelier from 1978 to 2006, has covered a lot of political contests in Vermont, yet was still fascinated with the results.

“Janoo’s victory was narrow enough to resist easy explanations,” Graff writes. “She defeated Richards by just over 2,000 votes out of 70,000. What’s truly fascinating is how geographically eclectic the results are. Janoo won because she combined progressive strength around the state with a decisive breakthrough in the state’s largest Democratic vote center.

“Chittenden County supplied almost half of her statewide victory margin. Within the county Richards won the suburban communities while Janoo ran up margins in Burlington and Winooski large enough to offset those losses. The most telling statistic: Janoo won the Chittenden Central Senate district by roughly 2,000 votes, which is roughly her margin of victory.

“But interestingly, looking outside Chittenden County there is no real pattern. The map doesn’t show an urban-rural split or a north versus south or progressive versus moderate.”

As for voter turnout, the 70,000 who voted in this year’s primary was significantly higher than the 50,000 who voted two years ago (in 2024) but far less than the 100,000 who in 2022, Graff reported, making the point that primaries are a far cry from the 372,885 who voted in the General Election two years ago. That is, what works in the primary can’t always be assumed will work in November.

We’ll expand on two of Graff’s points as a path forward: 1) the intensity of Janoo’s campaign and 2) the sincerity of her message.

“Intensity” infers her vibrant grassroots support. That is, it was her strong network of grassroot supporters, campaigning door-to-door, working the phones, being out at public events, creating a movement that converts voters into active campaign workers.

Marry that “intensity’ of supporters with a fun, novel and exciting campaign message and you create a vibe that ripples throughout the state and creates enthusiasm for the candidate and her vision for change.

But it’s the fundamental message for change that may carry the day this November.

Even as voters may struggle to articulate what change might look like, they know they don’t want 10 more years of what Janoo has rightly labeled “managed decline.” Voters also rightly understand that the economic dynamics they are working with — supply side economics, better known as the trickle-down economic theory — favors the wealthy and leaves them worse off. They are hungry for change because the current system, which Phil Scott and John Rodgers embrace, has made living in Vermont more expensive in terms of health care, housing and property taxes, and has produced worse educational outcomes, fewer manufacturing jobs, and has hastened youth flight from Vermont.

Indeed, Scott can’t point to improvements in any of those key economic metrics during his tenure — except the state’s childcare system is more robust and more affordable, thanks to legislation championed by Democrats, and which Scott wrongly vetoed.

Scott also has the Trump albatross hanging from his neck. In blue Vermont, Scott’s been smart enough to keep his distance from Trump and to meekly protest at his most outrageous offenses, but that’s hardly enough for the many Vermonters nauseated by Trump’s direct attacks on the nation’s democracy, his reckless and needless war in Iran, selling out Ukraine to Russia and turning America’s back on our European allies, not to mention his abhorrent environmental policies, his personal corruption and shameless waste of national resources on vanity projects like the White House renovation, the botched Reflection Pool, the proposed arch, and on and on and on. In presidential politics, what we don’t criticize, we embrace, and there’s far too much Scott has left unsaid to the nation’s detriment and to Vermont’s shame. States have a role in keeping the rogue president in check, but Scott has failed that task.

Over the next two-plus months, Janoo has a herculean task of getting her name known to tens of thousands more Vermont voters, not to mention convincing them to support her optimistic vision. Moreover, she must demonstrate she can pay for her ideas without driving those with money to other states. As in the primary, Janoo is the clear political underdog, but she has a compelling case to make, just as voters are tiring of Scott’s empty promises to deliver affordability.