We’ve seen this game before

We’re painfully aware that another political scandal has erupted at the State House. Like Gordon Fox’s fall from grace, the details will likely come out weeks or months from now, but as investigators dig into former Representative Ray Gallison’s alleged misdeeds the discussion has quickly turned into a pitchforks n’ torches march to the State House with everyone offering their two cents on what we can do to make sure this never happens again. Ho hum. Unfortunately, I’ve seen this game before and bringing about a different result will require more than just voter anger.

I worked for Governor Sundlun when the banking crisis hit in 1991. Trust me, people were angry: bang-their-fists on doors and scream-in-the-halls angry. In the aftermath —and as a result of other scandals that followed — a wave of new legislators came into office in 1992 (Gordon Fox among them), four-year terms for statewide offices were approved on the ballot and later, separation of powers was instituted to further harness the power of the General Assembly. In recent years it seems that some of that progress has eroded as the General Assembly (using separation of powers as justification) took away the right of a governor to put a non-binding question on the ballot and the Ethics Commission no longer has oversight over the General Assembly.

While the pitchforks n’ torches gang will tell you that the key to success lies in getting the governor a line item veto and ending the secrecy of the legislative grants program, I see a bigger problem that needs to be solved. Call it participation, citizen engagement or just YOU and ME.

If you want to know who to blame, look in the mirror. Do you vote in every election? Do you know the names of your state representative and your state senator? Have you written a letter-to-the-editor and taken a public position on an important issue? Have you helped a candidate who is not an incumbent? Have you testified for or against a bill at the State House? Have you corresponded with your legislator about their legislative grants or their stance on the line item veto? Have you run for office? If you can’t say yes to at least three of the above, you have no ground to complain. If you have three or more, keep at it. Every election year dozens of General Assembly seats go uncontested and that’s inexcusable. This little experiment called Democracy requires participation from all of us to be successful and just and when only a small number engage, things are bound to go wrong because too few are too powerful.

Too busy working and paying taxes to get involved? Corruption is a tax on all of us. Corruption costs us dollars that are lining someone’s pockets, paying for less-than-adequate state services or funding a pet project of a powerful person. Corruption drives good people away from politics, repulses the business community and prevents us from landing companies that could bring good jobs and boost our tax base. Corruption drives down morale and civic pride, making Rhode Island a place that college graduates and retired people want to escape costing us smart minds and people with time to give. The only real way to battle corruption is for more good people to get involved.

So yes, please, push for the line item veto and yes, please let’s rein in the legislative grants program, but first and foremost, please engage public service. If not now, when? WE are the reason that we can’t have nice things and it’s time for that to change.

Whiners don’t like rules

Last weekend brought the first Red Sox-Yankees action of the season to Fenway Park and ended with the first Red Sox sweep of the Yankees since 2013. The final game was an 8-7 thriller that featured a bomb off the bat of Red Sox catcher Christian Vasquez. As New England did a collective happy dance, I’m sure the Yankees would like to bank some of those wasted runs for a future win. Thankfully the rules are clear: you can’t save runs for a rainy day.

Ah, those annoying rules. Children hate them, teens ignore them and most adults have learned it’s easier to follow them, but it doesn’t seem to end the bellyaching when someone doesn’t like them. This primary season, I’ve heard far too much whining about the dreadful primary rules. Everybody has an opinion about what state’s rules are “fair” and which are not. The latest gripes came from team Sanders as they feel “entitled” to all of Rhode Island’s delegates — even the super delegates that Hillary Clinton wooed into her camp long ago. Readers may recall that team Trump spent a fair amount of time and energy early in the campaign protesting the process through which delegates are divvied up. Now that he’s closing in on the required 1,237 delegates needed to secure the nomination, he’s pointing his finger at the rules every day to ensure that all the loopholes are closed in his favor.

The common thread amongst the whiners is it appears to be that few (if any) of the people who are complaining about the rules actually participate regularly in the parties that create said rules or are familiar with the logic that created the process. Reminder: primaries and caucuses are not supposed to be a democratic process. Party leadership in each state defines how delegates will be awarded with some degree of guidance coming from the national party. On the Democratic side the process is a consistent formula — although far from “democratic” — with unbound super delegates and scenarios that award more delegates to congressional districts that are heavily Democratic. This formula favors an establishment candidate with a strong organization and ensures that a party outsider (like socialist Bernie Sanders) has an uphill battle to capturing the nomination.

The Republican process (not surprisingly) leaves it up to each state party to decide how it will divide up its delegates. We now know that the Republican system is far more easy for an outsider (named Trump) to hijack and many of the #neverTrump folks are now furiously reading up on the convention rules to find their opportunities to take back the party — and the nomination — before it’s too late. Heads up to #neverTrump: it’s probably too late.

When the dust settles after the conventions, there will be plenty of time for the parties to reassess their nominating practices and fine-tune their nominating methods. With the general election now six months away there will be an opportunity to find some other election-related rules to grouse about, but it seems as if everyone’s time would be better spent becoming part of the process instead of a critic of it. 

This poll needs an asterisk

You don't have to be a fantasy baseball team manager to understand the role of statistics in baseball. With a quick review of a player's batting average, on base percentage or earned run average, one can determine how effective a player has been over the course of his career. These statistics even provide a way to compare players who never met on the diamond — or even lived at the same time. The exceptions are players who excelled in the steroids era and justifiably many in baseball put an asterisk (*) next to those numbers to note that the statistics may be out of whack because of the players alleged use of performance enhancing drugs.

Statistics — in the form of public opinion polls — are critical in politics too. While I am not asserting that anyone at the esteemed Taubman Center at Brown University is on drugs, their polling data is in dire need of an asterisk because each and every time they conduct a poll, their methodology is so out of whack with accepted industry practices that their results cannot possibly be accurate. They recently released a poll that covered the presidential primary as well as several state political issues ranging from legalization of marijuana to something they called a “toll tax on large trucks.” While I cannot disagree with their results because I have no better data to compare them to, their methodology (i.e. how they go about gathering the data) is so suspect that I can’t put any credence in their findings.

While there are many problems with the most recent Brown poll, the first is that they called “registered voters.” A good political pollster will only call “likely” voters. The difference? People who are “likely” voters have usually voted in at least 2 of the last 4 elections, making them more likely to show up again. A registered voter may or may not have ever voted in his or her life, but he or she has most certainly been to the DMV (where they were registered). When you ask registered voters about how they may vote in an election, your results will not be as accurate because they may never actually participate in the election (note that only 40% of RI’s eligible voters showed up to vote in 2014). When asked if they will vote, many registered voters will say yes even if they do not plan to show up, so asking them directly is not helpful.

The “poll” put Hillary Clinton up 9% over Bernie Sanders with 16% “undecided.” Chances are good that the “undecided” number actually represents people who have no idea that there is a presidential primary this week because people who are likely to vote this week know who they prefer. In fact, Brown could only scrounge up 164 people who said they were going to vote in the Republican primary — creating a huge margin of error in the Republican results. Even worse: Brown put out a statement last week saying that they were delaying the release of their poll because they were struggling to complete enough interviews due to “voter fatigue.” A well-executed poll is like “Fight Club” (there is no fight club) and a good pollster would not poison his or her sample by letting potential interviewees know that they might get a call.

Why does it matter? As a relatively small media market, there are very few public opinion polls released each year, so when one is released, it takes on an outsized significance. Just like hearing “9 out of 10 dentists recommend Crest” on TV, people are influenced by polls. If their candidate is out in front or very far behind, they may choose to stay home on election day. Polls are also used by campaigns to fundraise and build momentum and it truly unfair to have false information floating around in the ether. I do blame the RI news media for promoting it — the poor quality of Brown polls is well-worn topic among reporters, but the results still land on the front page of the Journal, making the state’s paper of record complicit in putting bad information out to the public.

The hard part is that there’s so rarely a “good” poll that runs concurrently for an apples to apples comparison, so political geeks are left to bemoan the methodology while putting an asterisk next to the numbers and reminding people to vote regardless of what they hear. So, * VOTE!

Benching Panda: cooler or warmer?

The 2016 MLB season - and the opportunity for the Red Sox to once again contend for a playoff berth - is finally here. It was a relatively quiet spring - without Manny’s grandmother dying (again), drama around injuries or who is or who isn't the staff ace - the time in Florida passed quickly. The one big exception was that Pablo (Panda) Sandoval, the $95 million third baseman, showed up to camp a little weightier than one would have hoped. While the team's statements optimistic early on, Panda was forced to compete for his job and ultimately lost it to Travis Shaw. While the ramifications of benching gold-plated Panda while league-minimum Shaw covers 3rd remain to be seen, I have to give the Red Sox credit for wanting to field a win-now team regardless of the criticism that might come their way for leaving so much money sitting on the bench. After all, they are wasting millions of dollars keeping Panda on the shelf.

One has to think that similar thoughts were being discussed in state government last week before deciding to put cooler/ warmer back on the shelf and dismiss the person who was managing the project. Like many Rhode Islanders, I am not sure what cooler & warmer meant (which may reflect my uncoolness) but I was certainly willing to see how it would roll out. After all, what do you think people said about "Virginia is for lovers" when it was introduced?

But cooler/ warmer never stood a chance once it was discovered that Reykjavík was proudly featured in Little Rhody’s movie (and surprisingly Reykjavikville is not a village in the Blackstone Valley). Any momentum generated by the campaign was channeled into mocking the website, tag line, logo and everyone associated with the creation of this collateral. While the governor initially defended the design and the plan, too many mistakes soon revealed themselves and by week’s end, cooler/ warmer was dead and the state’s Chief Marketing Officer had resigned.

While many in the advertising and design business have bemoaned the outcry over the logo and the tagline, noting correcting that rebranding almost never goes well, I think it was good for the governor to acknowledge the public outcry. Let’s face it, we know what makes Rhode Island special and if we don’t “get” the campaign that is supposed to draw other people here, it’s probably not that good.

So as we close out the spring, we know two things: Panda is too big to be nimble and cooler/ warmer is too meaningless to be useful. I am glad to see both on the bench so that we won’t waste a season watching him trying to bend over or a summer debating whether cooler/ warmer is about menopause or marketing.

Should we have anticipated Trump?

When people ask me what I think about the presidential campaign and the rise of Donald Trump, I’ll admit I don’t have a lot of smart things to say. Throughout the primary process, I expected one of the moderate governors (Kasich, Bush or Christie) to emerge as the party favorite and take down Trump for kidnapping the party of Lincoln. While plenty of alternate scenarios could still play out, After more than 25 years in and around politics, I had never seen this kind of traction for such an anti-establishment candidate but was reminded last week that maybe I had. While we don’t lead the nation in many ways, voter dissatisfaction in Rhode Island may have foreshadowed the national trend. After all, we had Bob Healey long before Donald Trump ran for president.

Let me be clear: there will be no comparing Mr. Healey to Mr. Trump in this space. By all accounts Bob was a kind and generous man who was passionate about everything he was involved in from pro bono legal work and local business to making state government more effective for those it serves. As a candidate for lieutenant governor in 2010 — even as he was campaigning to abolish said office — he was articulate, funny and obviously made a good case, garnering 40% of the vote. As a candidate for governor in 2014, he stunned most by grabbing 21% of the vote in the governor’s race, winning more than 69,000 votes. While some viewed him as a spoiler, for the tens of thousands of Rhode Islanders who voted for him he was the candidate who personified anything but “politics as usual” in Rhode Island. I met him when he spoke at my daughter’s student government assembly and he connected easily with the children and gave them a great talk about public service. The “Elect Healey Governor - Why not? You’ve done worse” yardstick is a cherished souvenir from his visit and its message remains sadly on point.

While I won’t argue that Bob Healey and Donald Trump have anything in common, I will say that both candidates have a message that appeals to people dissatisfied with their government. Bob’s common sense message and regular guy persona resonated with Rhode Islanders who were tired of Rhode Island-style leadership (“you’ve done worse”) while Trump supporters are the “mad as hell and not taking it anymore” group that has arisen from a fragmented Republican party. What’s interesting — and will continue to be hard to predict — is whether Trump will continue to engage people who have not previously voted, essentially creating a movement with “making America great again” the way Obama was able to bring in voters by saying “hope and change” was on the horizon. My crystal ball is pretty hazy but as I think of Bob Healey and his race for governor, I think I should have seen the Trump train coming down the tracks.

Look out below if Trump is on top

Don’t look now, but Donald Trump is leading the delegate count for the Republican presidential nomination. While there’s still a little time for someone else to win the nomination, time is ticking and Republicans around the country are nervous — not just about losing the White House in a winnable race (again) but about losing seats in the Senate, House and state capitals across the country. If he wins the nomination, Republican candidates up and down every ticket will have to make a very difficult and calculated decision — are they with him or not?  

Normally, aligning oneself with the chosen presidential candidate is a no brainer for most politicians and unite quickly once primary season has ended. In 1966 then-candidate Ronald Reagan said that the 11th commandment was “thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Fifty years later, many Republicans will still cite it when choosing to hold his/ her tongue. Trump presents a different challenge of course because he’s not been a particularly loyal Republican and he certainly does not live by Reagan’s words, calling his fellow candidates everything from “loser” to “wimp” and even something that can’t be printed here. He even said John McCain was “not a war hero.” Wow.

Of course Trump goes far beyond violating the 11th commandment and being “plain spoken” seems to be one of the things that voters are finding appealing about him, so the usual flubs (sexist remarks, racist comments, discussion of his body parts) don’t seem to have an impact on his popularity. Just think: a few years ago, Governor Rick Perry’s presidential campaign came undone because he momentarily forgot the name of a government office he wanted to eliminate. How things are different for the Donald!

While the GOP faithful are breathing into a bag and reminding themselves that “there’s still time,” the truth is that the clock is running out. After March 15^th, many GOP primaries turn into “winner take most” allowing Trump to quickly build his lead in delegates. If he goes into the convention and has secured enough delegates to win, it would take a lot of maneuvering — and behind the scenes chicanery — to deny him the nomination.

If you caught Mitt Romney’s speech last week blasting Trump (and detonating the 11^th commandment), you’d surmise that traditional Republicans (i.e. not Trumpublicans) were concerned about the future of the party with Trump as the nominee. What Romney knows is that polls show Trump can’t win the White House but his nomination would split the party and cause devastating losses in down-ticket races. For Republicans running for everything from governor to dog catcher, a Trump nomination could be a killer. In all states, candidates will be peppered by the obvious questions about what Trump says and whether or not they agree. Voters who might see Trump support as a litmus test (either way) for local races could make their decisions based solely on where that candidate stands vis-à-vis Trump. In some states — where moderate Republicans rely on ticket-splitting Democrats to win — Trump’s presence at the top of the ticket could mean having to pick between the Republican base and the Democrats that provide a win margin. That’s called a no-win situation and could be the reality for Republicans if Trump comes out on top.

It's too early to panic, right?

It's the most wonderful time of the year! The political junkie in me is thrilled with the nonstop conversations about presidential politics and the baseball fan in me is thrilled that Spring Training has officially opened. Of course this year, both above-mentioned parts of my psyche are in full panic mode. Not only did Red Sox 3rd baseman Pablo Sandoval (known as Panda) report to spring training looking like he gained a whole Dustin Pedroia, it is unclear at this writing exactly where Dustin Pedroia is. While I am quite certain that his slow-to-show is no reflection on his enthusiasm for the season and I want to be clear that I am NOT concerned Panda that ate him, it is worth noting (with anxiety) because Pedroia is usually early-to-show.

All kidding aside, the panic in my political brain is far more serious. Donald Trump has now won two primaries. I will say it again: Donald Trump has won two primaries. On the Democratic side, folks are "feelin' the Bern" and this too angry, too old socialist has not lost momentum. Welcome to the year of the extremes.

People who vote for Trump and Sanders are sending a message by rejecting traditional candidates. Republican primary voters are looking for someone to shake things up and get things done. Sanders supporters are taking a hard left turn with a rallying cry of ending income inequality and adding entitlement programs. While Sanders policies are extreme, his path to the White House still has to go through a Democratic nominating process where Hillary Clinton has a lead and an organizational edge. Democratic voters who are "feelin' the Bern" now may decide "I'm okay with her" when the chips are down. If Sanders wins the nomination, I suspect he loses in the general election: there are simply too many people in this country who believe in lower taxes and less government to vote in a self-described tax-increasing socialist.

Trump. Ugh. Even if I agreed with his politics (and I don't) he acts as if this campaign is just one long episode of "The Apprentice" and the stakes are just a job at a cool office building. To him it may seem like another adventure, but being president of the United States comes with some serious responsibilities and I for one, am concerned that Trump does not possess the temperament or self control to do the job. I don't know what would happen if Trump called Kim Jong-un a "pansy" — and I don't want to risk finding out. What concerns me most about Trump is that he appeals to independent-minded (“swing”) voters and those that don't pay a lot of attention to politics — in other words — he appeals to exactly the kind of people who show up at the polls every four years and vote for the names that they recognize. Double ugh.

There are still many contests to decide - and a brokered convention to get through - so I'm not panicking today. But if Panda doesn't slim down and Trump doesn't tank, it's going to be a rough season all around.