U.S. Congressman David Cicilline (D-RI)
David Cicilline got some good news when WPRI’s independent poll confirmed what Democratic pollsters had been saying: that he was beating challenger Brendan Doherty in opinion polling.
But the added bonus is that he got to shut up doubting ninnies like me by proving us wrong. Earlier this year, when the polling was especially bleak, I attributed him staying in the race to stubborn pride and a Democratic Party incapable of removing problematic incumbents. While there is a certain amount of ego associated with being a politician, “pride” might’ve been too strong a word. “Confidence in his own abilities,” seems more appropriate (a confidence that outstripped that of many cynics like myself). And the RI Democratic Party’s problems are endemic to political parties that have had many of their functions taken over by government (often for good reason).
It’s too soon for jubilation in the Democratic camp, but for Mr. Cicilline and his supporters (and progressives), the increasingly likely chance that a Republican won’t represent RI’s First Congressional District is a heartening sign that cooler heads have prevailed.
I’ve long said that simply being “against David Cicilline” is not enough to carry the election. Anthony Gemma proved that it was certainly not enough to win a Democratic primary. And Mr. Doherty may soon find that it’s not enough to carry a general election. This is a problem for Mr. Doherty, because when you take away the “I’m not David Cicilline” argument, what does he really have? He’ll be a Republican but not a total Republican. He’ll vote to repeal Obamacare, but only when the Republicans have something to replace it with (don’t hold your breath). The days of “maverick” Republicans are gone: Sarah Palin saw to that. See, no one trusts maverick Republicans. Republicans don’t like them because they don’t always follow party dogma. Democrats dislike them because they follow GOP dogma too often. I seem to remember a Bible passage about how a slave can’t serve two masters.
Another factor which is worth noting is that Mr. Cicilline is a damn fine campaigner. Having worked on a campaign that got our asses handed to us by his operation, I had confidence that his campaign would not slip up; a meeting with his campaign manager Eric Hyers confirmed that the campaign was likewise highly confident in their candidate. But even a good campaigner can run into problems, especially with an albatross like Providence hanging around his neck.
Providence City Hall
Except, it has not yet really turned out to be an albatross. Certainly the “excellent fiscal condition” misstatement was hammering him hard for a while. But Mr. Cicilline did his act of contrition. Mayor Angel Taveras has pulled the city away from bankruptcy while at the same time publicly supporting our embattled congressman. And then: messenger matters.
Neither Anthony Gemma nor Brendan Doherty could have been/can be convincing bearers of the Providence attack. For one, neither of them live in Providence. Neither were they Cassandras during Mr. Cicilline’s tenure in Providence. The most convincing type of person who could’ve utilized that attack would have to be an opponent from perhaps the Providence city council, who spent the last two years in a higher state office (with part of that being a run for Congress). There is not a politician who fits that description. There’s no one who fits that description.
Furthermore, the Providence argument is problematic. If you’re talking about dishonest politicians alright, but I still think it sounds a bit more cheerleader-y than dishonest. But if the implication is that the way Mr. Cicilline treated Providence’s finances is indicative of the way he’d treat the country’s finances (though a city is not really comparable to a nation for how their economies work), then you get into the deficit and how you bring that down. And everyone in Rhode Island knows the Republican solution: cut everything that doesn’t blow people/things up. I can see why Mr. Doherty is not taking that tact.
The race is by no means over as we head into the final months. I can always be wrong twice (my ardent critics will say “most of the time”). But if you were pessimistic about the chance that a progressive Democrat would retain their hold on the First Congressional District, you can smile now. A bit.
Sam, I believe you are correct to say that progressives can smile. A bit.
The person who could have used Providence against the mayor is his former opponent in 2010, John Loughlin. Loughlin would be ahead of Cicilline today and he’s much further to the right than Doherty. Loughlin is the one who told Rhode Islanders that the mayor was “misstating”…err…not telling the truth about Providence’s finances. He’d have the legitimacy to make attacks against the mayor all day.
In fact, I think the Doherty campaign should run an add doing just that…showing loughlin’s attacks against the former mayor in 2010 with a video montage of Taveras shaking and baking to keep providence out of bankruptcy to Cicilline apologizing. Ending the advertisment with this…Can Rhode Island afford to elect a politician who will do anything to win….again? or some derivation. Fade to black with a Cicilline dissident talking about being disillusioned.
But yes, Cicilline has a lead…a lead that is technically in the statistical margin of error…and a lead that is much less than what the Cicilline camp was pushing a week or so ago. Doherty has time on his side whereas Cicilline wishes the election were today. And I also agree that the Cicilline campaign machine is excellent, that’s why I detest Cicilline. He’s a great politician, but in my opinion, is the worst politician for Rhode Island because he will do anything to win. Even not tell the truth about the fiscal state of the city for which he presided over for eight years.
I just can’t see why progressives line up to support this guy.
Don,
I think it’s a mistake to think Loughlin would’ve been a better candidate against Cicilline. First, Loughlin had already lost. That puts the stink of “loser” on someone, especially in a big race. But perhaps he could’ve capitalized on his opposition to Cicilline to push the Providence line.
That still walks into the problem that other candidates have: what is the Providence attack line about? “Fiscal responsibility”? That ties directly into national policy, and Cicilline would have an even easier time tying Loughlin directly to Republican policies like dismantling Medicare and de-funding Planned Parenthood. Loughlin, who stands to Doherty’s right, is just as easy a target as Doherty for this method.
I disagree about Doherty having time on his side. I think one can reasonably conclude that Doherty does not have time on his side. Time has been his distinct enemy, as time puts distance between Providence’s financial troubles and Cicilline’s statements. Time also allows the electorate to get to know Doherty, and the fact of the matter is that the electorate is largely in step with Cicilline’s positions and out of step with Doherty’s positions.
I think progressives support Cicilline because he is a consistently strong progressive champion; especially when he’s in a legislative position. They may not like his time as mayor, and may have been disappointed by what he did with that time, but when it comes down to the choice between David Cicilline and Brendan Doherty, they’d much rather have the progressive champion than the waffling conservative. I didn’t include David Vogel in that choice because I’m still trying to understand many of his policy positions.
Finally, campaigns win elections. I’m still not understanding how the RI Republican Party, which so dominated the state’s political apparatus for years in the past, could have almost totally ignored that. Certainly, saying that because someone is a consummate campaigner they shouldn’t be elected is to ignore how our election system works. Someone told me recently that an RI Republican described their party as content to lose (I’m paraphrasing a paraphrase there). Maybe that’s true, since there’s a level of disconnect with Republican views and those of the rest of the state, and I don’t see that disconnect being reduced, but rather growing.
Sam,
Last week, I was on the radio for two segments with Ian Donnis (WRNI Radio), and was on “10 News Conference” with both Mr. Cicilline and Mr. Doherty (WJAR TV); all three pieces are available as podcasts on the net, so it’s not as though you have “missed” them somehow. Moreover, I do have a website which is easily accessible (just click my name at the top of this post).
I believe these items would give the listener/viewer/reader a good basic understanding of how I think. Given how easy it would be to listen/view/read them, it’s a bit disingenuous for someone who not only pays attention to this topic, but who also writes about regularly, to claim that she or he is “still trying to understand many of his policy positions.”
It tells me that either the available material is not as clear as I had thought (which is possible), or that you simply have not bothered to examine any of it (which I believe is more likely).
David
Sam, regarding losing a campaign. I think you’re dead wrong there. We have Whitehouse and Chafee as statewide officials to prove my point. Rhode Island voters are really interesting, they like longevity and people who will run on more than a lark.
That’s why I believe Loughlin would have posed a greater threat to Cicilline even though he’d be coming at him from a farther right position.
No doubt Cicilline is an excellent campaigner and has been able to effectively focus the debate on issues that are important for him. He was in a bad position, but I unlike you, I did not believe his chances were minimal. Indeed, I was hoping/praying that the RI public would fault him for his wrongs, but RI voters are very forgiving. And I think Doherty hung back too long resting on the Feb. poll numbers instead of focusing the debate on issues that favored him.
…but I have not given up hope that the ABC (Anybody But Cicilline) can pull out a victory next month.
David,
I have a limited amount of time in the day but I did watch the WJAR debate between you, Cicilline and Doherty, but you’ll have to forgive me for not getting everything that was said (there was a lot of talking over each other there). And I’ll catch up on the interviews (I’m doing so as I’m writing). But I wouldn’t revert to a binary of either a) you’re not clear, or b) I’m not paying attention.
With a post, I usually focus on a few pieces of information after taking time to mull it over and process the info. Alternatively, I read something and instantly fire something off, with mixed results. So that I’m slowly processing information about you shouldn’t really be an issue. If you feel I’m not paying enough attention to you, make me pay attention. Make me believe.
Don,
I agree about Chafee and Whitehouse, but notably, they didn’t win the positions they lost in. I think the days of Grover Cleveland coming back to win his old position are slowly fading, though that’s pretty theoretical.
I pretty much thought Doherty was going to be the victor if a good Democrat failed to unseat Cicilline. But good Democrats were also good Democrats, and didn’t challenge Cicilline. I also think Anybody But Cicilline is a bad platform in this day and age. Maybe driving people to cast a vote against was a good Cold War tactic, but I think people want something to vote for.
Sam,
I do understand that when someone is covering/writing about a topic as complex as politics, being busy is par for the course.
With respect to the “10 News Conference” program, most of the banter was created by my opponents. As we began to tape the segment, I attributed their hyperactivity to the pent-up energy that I felt surely must have present for each one of them; after all, this was the first time the candidates had been face-to-face since election season commenced. It was not until about fifteen minutes into the taping that I realized that not only were they not going to stop, but that neither of the hosts seemed to have either the ability or the interest in controlling the flow of the program. One other note: Prior to our going on the set, Mr. Rappleye had made it clear to all of us that the discussion was meant to be just that — a discussion; he expressly told us that this was NOT a debate. I took that to mean that the format was to be Q & A. I was rather surprised when it finally dawned upon me that I was the only one of the three who had paid attention to the ground-rules as enunciated by our hosts.
In any event, if you have any interest in learning more about me, my e-mail address is listed on the last page of my website. Shoot me an e-mail with your phone number, and I will be happy to call you and discuss anything you like and/or answer any questions you might have. Because I have made the decision to not accept any campaign donations, I have an inherent inability to flood the airwaves with vacuous platitudes and meaningless soundbites. I must find other ways to “spread the word” and, if that means I need to hold the occasional lengthy one-on-one conversation, then so be it.
Hope to hear from you.
David