In House of Representatives especially. The chamber controlled by conservative Democrat Nick Mattiello saw the GOP membership almost double – from six to 11 while Democrats dropped a total of six seats.

Linda Finn of Portsmouth lost to Republican Dan Reilly and Larry Valencia of Richmond lost to Republican Justin Price. Scott Guthrie and Lisa Tomasso, both of Coventry, lost to Republicans Robert Nardollilo and Sherry Roberts. And Donna Walsh of Charlestown lost to Blake Filippi, an independent from Block Island.

The good news is Aaron Regunberg, of the East Side of Providence and Shelby Maldonado of Central Falls won. That Peter Palumbo lost to Republican Robert Lancia can be seen as a wash to progressives if not Democrats.

Things weren’t quite as bad in the Senate, but Democrat Cathy Cool Rumsey lost to Republican Elaine Morgan.

Here’s a list of some of the legislative seats I was watching:

Portsmouth/Middletown (House District 72)

Linda Finn 45.9%

Dan Reilly 53.9%

Narragansett / Wakefield (House 34)

Teresa Tanzi 53.5%

Steve Tetzner 46.3%

Providence, East Side (House 4)

Aaron Regunberg 82.5%

Ethan Gyles 16.8%

Coventry (Senate 21)

Margaux Morrisseau 35.8%

Nick Kettle 54.7%

Coventry (House District 26)

Nick Denice 43.7%

Patricia Morgan 49.4%

West Warwick (Senate District 9)

Adam Satchell 55.7%

Michael Pinga 44%

North Kingstown (House District 31)

Julie Casimiro 46.8%

Doreen Costa 53.1%

North Kingstown (House District 32)

Sharon Gamba 47.8%

Bob Craven 51.8%

Richmond (House District 39)

Larry Valencia 42.5%

Justin Price 57.4%

Central Falls (House District 56)

Shelby Maldonado 83.4%

Albert Romanowicz 16.5%

Central Falls (House District 56)

Elizabeth Crowley 84.7%

Dan Bidondi 14.8%

Cranston (House District 18)

Art Handy 65.9%

Don Gendron 33.8%

Newport (Senate District 13)

Teresa Paiva Weed 54.6%

Mike Smith 45.1%

Progressives already lost Providence legislator Maria Cimini this election season, but we’ve also picked up Lauren Carson down in Newport. Here are some of the races where the liberal left could pick up – or lose – legislative seats.

In Portsmouth/Middletown, Rep. Linda Finn is in a dog fight with young Republican Dan Reilly, whom she beat two years ago to first win the seat. Finn says Reilly has been claiming credit for legislation he didn’t author, and telling other tall tales on the trail.

Also on Aquidneck Island, Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, who has the support of the Sierra Club, also has a challenge from Republican Mike Smith.

In Narragansett/Wakefield Rep. Teresa Tanzi‘s opponent Steve Tetzner, an NRA-supporting mortgage broker, spent more than $100,000 on his campaign touting fiscal conservancy.

On the East Side of Providence, Aaron Regunberg already passed one big test by beat Heather Tow Yick in the primary, but he still needs to fend off Ethan Gyles, who is running as an independent. Whomever wins will be replacing former House Speaker Gordon Fox.

In Coventry, Margaux Morrisseau is hoping to win the senate seat currently held by Nick Kettle, who is best known for fake Facebook pages and disparaging homeless people. Morisseau runs the New Leaders Council, a training program for progressive activists, and for leading the fight for payday loan reform. And on the House side in Coventry Nick Denice hopes to unseat Republican Patricia Morgan.

Nearby in West Warwick, Senator Adam Satchel, a teacher and a Democrat, is defending his seat against independent Michael Pinga.

In North Kingstown, self-described conservative Democrat Julie Casimiro, a charter school supporter, is challenging tea party favorite Doreen Costa, who has the backing of the local fire fighters union in the race. The GOP could also pick up a seat if Republican Sharon Gamba beats conservative Democrat Bob Craven for a House seat.

Central Falls City Councilor Shelby Maldonado hopes to beat independent Albert Romanowicz and Dan Bidondi is running again Senator Elizabeth Crowley.

In Richmond, Rep. Larry Valencia is running against Republican Justin Price. In Cranston Rep. Art Handy is running against Republican Don Gendron.

One would think Rep. Mike Marcello would have a race on his hands, after making an unsuccessful run at being speaker of the House. He’s running against Lillian Jean Delmonico and Robert Quattrocchi.

Many urban progressives have already effectively won their races because they are unopposed, including Edith Ajello, Chris Blazejewski, Juan Pichardo, Gayle Goldin, Josh Miller of Cranston and Dave Bennett of Warwick.

What other races should I be watching?

Gina Raimondo has the best ideas about how to better Rhode Island – and her middle class-friendly campaign message is far more appealing than Allan Fung’s policy proposals of cutting taxes and shrinking government. Couple that with Raimondo’s track record of being able to move political mountains and it seems like an easy choice.

But it wasn’t.

Maybe I’m holding a grudge because of her ability to shepherd through landmark pension reforms, which I still feel were too one-sided, but I’d like to think it’s more than that. I’m not sure I want to contribute to The Narrative of ‘A Democrat Can Screw Unions And Thrive’. There may be many short and long term wins to be had there (lower unfunded pension liabilities, for just one), but ultimately I’m far from convinced that’s the best row to hoe if we really want to fend off increasing economic inequality, which I firmly believe to be the root cause of much of our social and economic ailments.

Then there’s Wall Street.

It’s not a place in lower Manhattan, it’s a sector of our economy. Maybe the biggest, depending on how you define it, certainly it’s the strongest, and the only thing it makes is profits. This can be harmless in times of growth but, ultimately, can only be predatory unleashed on a society that consumes more than it produces. As such, Wall Street is the glue that solidifies increasing income inequality as the New American Way.

I’m not sure Gina Raimondo shares my thoughts on these issues. But I’m pretty certain Allan Fung doesn’t either. And in the short term, Raimondo will be far better for Rhode Island.

Payday loans don’t stand a chance with Gina Raimondo as governor. I bet she can whip the legislature into raising the minimum wage. I’m confident she can attract vibrant new businesses to downtown Providence and that she’ll be a fantastic ambassador for our tourist economy. She will not only defend our pioneering healthcare exchange, but I’d be surprised if she doesn’t find a way to make it even better. She will prioritize preparing for climate chance and sea level rise, and someday soon Rhode Island will regret if we are not.

Both Raimondo and Fung will support charter schools more than me. But I can see Raimondo turning the focus to a Constitutional right to an adequate and equal education for all. If one thing is obvious about education politics in Rhode Island it’s that we need someone to lead a high level conversation about where it’s going. I hope whoever is the next governor will pick up Bob Healey’s idea to fund education statewide as a way to offer both property tax relief and education equity. Raimondo is the only one who could pull this off.

I wanted to vote for Bob Healey, but it’s just too close with too much at stake. I think he’s the only one telling the truth on the campaign trail, even if he’s sometimes mumbling it. He may well be more popular if he had shorter hair, but instead he chooses to mock our political process. He’s the only one who earned my respect. But I think Rhode Island needs my vote, so it’s going to Gina Raimondo.

When my father first heard Cianci was running for office again, he was silent. Shaking his head, he sighed. “Well, everything is going back to normal.”

Normal. Normal in Providence doesn’t have to be synonymous with a nod and a wink. It doesn’t have to be synonymous with job trading, cash payments, hurting children and neglecting neighborhoods. It doesn’t have to be connected individuals – some with a history of violence- calling the shots. It doesn’t have to be razzle-dazzle downtown, and “Buckles” Melise on the side streets.

Cicilline worked hard, and then worked easy, cowardly vaulting to Congress to avoid difficult budgets and real choices. Taveras worked hard to clean up the fiscal mess left by Cianci and Cicilline, before he launched a failed run for Governor. Yet even with all the goofy insider behavior of the last 12 years, there were fewer homicides, and an improving graduation rate.

During Cianci’s last four years as Mayor:

• there were more homicides in the city than in the past four years.
• high school graduation rates fluctuated from the low 60s to low 70s.
• a police chief was forced out of office for running a corrupt department
• there was more child poverty than in 1989

During his 1990 race, Cianci manipulated people’s religiosity as a tool to gain votes. As he put it in his book, “I was in a close race, and I knew there were a considerable number of pro-life zealots looking for a candidate. I ended up getting a list of pro-life voters from the diocese.” Throughout the 1990s, Cianci repeatedly said he was against adult entertainment, but from 1991-2000, the number of adult clubs in the city grew by 300 percent – from 4 to over 12. This time around, Cianci is vowing opposition to charter schools. Why trust him? Cianci lies for power.

Charismatic and abusive, Cianci has left his mark on the city. He has attracted his share of idealists, but also plenty of the abusive, violent and manipulative.

It is long past time for a new chapter.

Vote Elorza, tell your friends to vote Elorza – and then work like hell to make Elorza deliver for the people and families across Providence.

• Cianci needs Fecteau, Williams Metts more than they may know – Dan Lawlor
• Coalition of the Terrifying: Cianci’s power players – Dan Lawlor
• Buddy Cianci’s Providence: Better for whom? – Dan Lawlor
• Should Buddy Cianci pick the next police chief – Dan Lawlor
• More murders when Buddy Cianci was mayor – Dan Lawlor
• Why one rape victim won’t support Cianci – Emma Sloan

I recognize that many of those opposed to a convention are not insiders.  I know a lot of the people doing the grunt work on the anti-constitutional-convention campaign, and I can vouch for the fact that they’re not insiders.

Rhode Islanders are split on the issue, though polling suggests more of us are in favor of having one, including many good-government people such as former Common Cause director Phil West, and many progressives such as those who founded Just Reform Rhode Island, a group I belong to.  So it’s true, if you’re looking for non-insiders, you can find them on both sides of the issue. But it’s significant where the biggest insiders stand, and they’re not as split as we are — they’re backing the opposition to the convention.

Let’s start with the top politicians.  We are told by anti-convention people that we should vote against a convention because it could be controlled by top politicians, like the Speaker of the House.  Well, if that was true, you would expect politicians to be favoring it. They’re not.  Speaker Mattiello opposes a convention.  Not a single top politician in the state is in favor of it, and they try to get voters to turn it down (example1, example2).

In fact, conventions shift power away from top politicians and toward the voters.  If there’s no convention, politicians can continue passing bad laws and rejecting good ones, and the voters never have a say.  But a convention is different.  While in ordinary times most State House politicians get re-elected easily without even having any opponents, a constitutional convention attracts more candidates.  If you were a political insider wanting to keep your friends in power, you’d prefer leaving things to the General Assembly, where year after year it’s pretty much the same career politicians elected and doing each other favors, and you’d fear the reforms that could be passed in a constitutional convention where it’s easier for decent people who aren’t career politicians to be elected.

We, as regular people, have goals that are the opposite of political insiders’ aims.  After the 38 Studios scandal and the police raid on the State House, we want to see more democratic accountability, and insiders naturally don’t like the good things that are likely to be pushed forward in a convention by a public which is eager for positive change.  What comes out of a convention will not make the insiders stronger, it makes them weaker and makes the people stronger.  Another advantage of a convention is that a convention doesn’t have the General Assembly’s ability to pass laws on its own.  Every change that the convention proposes must go to the voters, and will not take effect unless voters say so.  So, compared to the General Assembly, a convention offers more safeguards against bad laws.  That’s especially true in 2014 Rhode Island, where the voters not only want reform but also support progressive values, much more so than our politicians.

In case anyone thinks insiders like Mattiello secretly want a convention, their actions speak even louder than their words.  Mattiello and other top State House politicians appointed a “preparatory commission” this summer to produce a report on the possibility of a convention, and Mattiello chose a convention opponent to help run the commission.  The commission held only a few hearings in the State House in Providence, without visiting the rest of Rhode Island.  Its final report only briefly discussed what a convention could do, and estimated the cost of a convention as $2.5 million: a surprisingly high estimate, considerably more than the costs for the 1973 and 1986 conventions even after accounting for inflation.  Next, this report was edited down, in the version sent to voters in the Voter Information Handbook, so that it said nothing at all about what topics a convention could address and only told voters about the convention’s cost, again using the unusually high estimate of $2.5 million (which is still only $2.40 per person).  When our political elite dwells on the minor cost as an argument against change and accountability, it’s a telling sign.

A couple of people involved with the anti-convention campaign have posted articles on RI Future, highlighting a press conference where 3 former delegates to the 1986 convention tried to convince us not to have another convention (article1, article2).  It’s worth noticing that these 3 former delegates at that press conference trying to stop a new convention are all people who have developed strong insider connections.

Two are former RI state senators (one became the Senate Minority Leader), and the third was appointed by notoriously corrupt mayor Buddy Cianci to a judgeship (and later promoted by Cianci to chief judge).  Now, I don’t know what was going through these 3 people’s minds, and I don’t want to trash their motives.  The fact that a person has insider connections doesn’t necessarily mean that he or she isn’t an honorable person. But on the other side, I think it’s reasonable for Rhode Islanders who are concerned about the future to not accept things just because an insider-y group says so.  And the fact is that these 3 well-connected people don’t speak for all former delegates.  It’s significant that so few of the former delegates were willing to join in that message — I’ve talked to other former 1986 delegates who have learned from the 1986 convention and now want a new convention to do things better.

It’s true that the 1986 convention had flaws: there wasn’t enough public organizing in advance of the 1986 convention to keep things out of the insiders’ hands.  (My group, Just Reform Rhode Island, is already working on that.)  And it’s also true that the last convention was held in 1986, when Rhode Island was in a much different place politically than it is now — for instance, Rhode Island voters are now pro-choice by huge margins.  We’re now faced with a choice: we can either vote down Question 3 and stay closer to the constitution written in 1986, when Rhode Island was very different, or else vote for a convention as an opportunity to move the constitution to something that better fits the values that Rhode Islanders now have 30 years later.  What does it say when 3 of the people who had the privilege of being involved in writing the 1986 constitution, and then later developed insider ties, are telling us not to try changing their work now?   I can’t speak for why they’re saying that, but to me, their anti-convention message doesn’t cut it.

The insider effort against the convention isn’t limited to politicians.  Take RIPEC, the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council, a group whose board is largely made up of big businesses (some of them based out-of-state) and those with political clout.  They’re always given a very respectful hearing at the State House, more so than people who are trying to voice the concerns of the rest of Rhode Island.  RIPEC issued a report on Question 3 that didn’t directly say “Vote No on a convention”, but does repeatedly hint that a convention may not be a good idea.  The fact that these economic super-insiders are leaning against a convention is worth noting.

In fact, it’s seriously misleading when the anti-convention campaign says that a convention would mean “wealthy special interests” would take over.  In reality, the anti-convention forces are the side with the most money.  They’ve spent over $140,000 trying to stop a convention from happening, about twice as much as was spent on the pro-convention side, according to Board of Elections filings.  Not all of the groups contributing to that $140,000 are bad.  But one of their biggest donors, for instance, is an organization administered by the Senate Majority Leader, Dominick Ruggerio: it’s called the New England Laborers’ Labor-Management Cooperation Trust.  Despite the word “Laborers” in its name, it’s not strictly a union group, but is a kind of combo labor-business-political insider lobbying hybrid, with half its trustees coming from business and half from labor people. This group runs mostly on business contributions, but it’s administered by the Senate Majority Leader, and it has already spent $10,000 trying to stop a convention.

If you look at the expensive ads paid for by the anti-convention campaign, they never mention that Senate Majority Leader Ruggerio’s group is backing them.  Rhode Island law requires political campaign ads to include information about who is behind the campaign, so that voters can learn who is backing or organizing a campaign without having to go look up little-known filings.  Until a few days ago, the anti-convention campaign simply left out all of these required disclosures from all their ads.  After the Board of Elections found they violated the law, they started adding more information, but they still don’t mention that Majority Leader Ruggerio’s group is one of their top donors.  Their list of top donors includes several more innocent-sounding groups instead.  On the whole, I think this persistent lack of disclosure shows a terrible attitude towards voters’ right to know.

It’s ironic that the anti-convention people act like they’re in favor of good government, and stir up fears of big money trying to buy the system, without doing what real good-government people do and showing an open attitude towards disclosing the issues related to their own finances.  In reality, screaming that “wealthy special interests” will buy a convention misses the point: the real problem is that the system we have is already dominated by these wealthy interests.  Big money can do very well if there’s no convention.  What a convention does bring is a chance for the people to have more of a say.

If big money at the national level wanted a Rhode Island convention, or if big money at the state level did, why wouldn’t they spend their cash here and make a difference?  The fact is that the insiders and the fat cats are fairly satisfied with how things are.  Most of them are aware that they face more risk of losing than gaining if a convention did give voters the opportunity to have a say in how the system works.  Don’t just take my word for it: the money speaks for itself.  The idea that a convention could be a tool for wealthy special interests is backed up only by a little talk, not by serious money.  No investor out for mere gain has decided to treat financing a pro-convention campaign as a reliable investment, because voters are quite likely to use a convention to rein in the abuses of the well-connected.

So it’s clear where the insiders stand, the politicians as well as the financial backers.  As for the rest of us, we’re unfortunately split on a convention, and it would be better if more of us start taking this opportunity to promote the positive changes that the insiders are resisting. I know there are some who are honestly against a convention, and it certainly isn’t true that those against a convention are all bad people.  But to suggest that a convention is a tool for insiders and the wealthy is a misleading, expensive falsehood.  It’s a tool for us, if we prepare for it right, and those with too much clout are right to fear it.

Both men describe themselves as liberal, and both have a history of community service. There is no question that Kevin Jackson has worked to better his Ward. The upgraded Billy Taylor Park, on Camp St., is the most obvious testament to that. Marcus Mitchell led the formation of the Providence Community Libraries, which successfully prevented the closure of nine public libraries throughout Providence. He currently sits on the board for the Hope High School Dollars for Scholars foundation, which was named Scholarship America’s national new affiliate of the year.

Despite these similarities, there are also stark differences. The most obvious, and probably the most divisive, is Jackson’s post as campaign co-chair for Buddy Cianci. Mitchell, by contrast, does not want to go back to the old way of doing things. This says a lot about each man’s vision for the residents of Providence.

Currently, Providence residents pay high property and car taxes, yet our streets are a disaster, public services are diminished, our public schools are struggling for financial assistance, and economic development is seemingly at a stand still.

This election stands a chance to change this. The primary election in September proved that Rhode Island is ready to move forward; political newcomers upset the endorsed candidates in several races. Running a write-in campaign is no easy task, but Mitchell is familiar with grassroots organizing, and has made a name for himself in his work with local organizations.

Jackson describes himself as a liberal progressive Democrat. Mitchell prefers to let his record speak for him. He has worked with some of the most conservative politicians in this country to give voice and funding to underserved communities, his background is in economic development, and he has won awards for community service and dedication to civil rights. Mitchell says that he works to “get the job done with whatever resources are available.” I, for one, am ready to see Providence “get the job done”, and hope you will join me in writing in Marcus Mitchell for Ward 3 City Council on Tuesday.

Cianci has left a confusing, tattered, disjointed legacy – cheerleading the city, heralding public works projects, while at the same time undermining Providence’s long-term success through failures in policing and schools. Cianci’s administrations have long balanced the idealists, the power-hungry, and the marginalized. He can’t return to power if one of those groups backs out.

Among the anecdotes I came across in Mike Stanton’s book, one activist from the 1970s was particularly astute, noting Cianci’s outreach to community leaders was based on a simple calculation: “At this point, he needs us.”

And just as in the early 2000s Cianci needed a decent officer like Richard Sullivan to be police chief after the chaos of Prignano, in this decade Cianci needs community populists like Leah Williams Metts and Matt Fecteau to give legitimacy to his return campaign. Cianci needs Alan Shawn Feinstein and Yvonne Schilling to support him.

• Coalition of the Terrifying: Cianci’s power players – Dan Lawlor
• Buddy Cianci’s Providence: Better for whom? – Dan Lawlor
• Should Buddy Cianci pick the next police chief – Dan Lawlor
• More murders when Buddy Cianci was mayor – Dan Lawlor
• Why one rape victim won’t support Cianci – Emma Sloan

Cianci worked with many housing activists in the 1970s – and betrayed them once in power. As Michael Stanton wrote, “the director of the office’s Homestead Board…was arrested for defrauding homesteaders seeking to move into abandoned houses that had been acquired by the city. When the police did a routine background check, they discovered that the director had been on parole for kidnapping and rape, and had been when he was hired in 1975. Besides shaking down homesteaders, he had another sideline- running a string of prostitutes who worked the streets of downtown Providence, in sight of City Hall.” (p76)

Same song in the 1980s. By 84, “the Providence Chief of Police, Anthony Mancuso, had held an extraordinary meeting in his office…Council members came away shocked. Mancuso displayed two lists – one of Public Works employees with criminal records, another of Public Works employees with ties to organized crime.” (p187) Though truth be told, it’s hard to imagine how many councilors were really “shocked” by these revelations.

In the 1990s, Cianci promised he never stopped caring. In 1991, Cianci signed agreements with a supporter leasing an old, side street autobody garage shop as a registration building for schoolchildren, for at least $750,000. The lease was up for renewal in 1994. Stanton noted, “When Julia Steiny, a maverick School Board member and East Side playwright, fought the lease, hoping to steer more dollars to impoverished educational programs, she was warned by a school official not to buck City Hall. After the lease was renewed, Cianci dumped her from the school board.” (p258)

These anecdotes are a few of many. There are real splits and divisions in Providence- splits Cianci has used for his own success. Good people have had their hearts broken so many times. Cianci’s charisma hides the truth – he loves power, needs it. And his administration’s record  – inconsistent graduation rates, rising crime, uneven job opportunities, inconsistent policing, blatant corruption -shows he doesn’t deserve another go in office.

More on Cianci:

Raimondo’s support has been relatively consistent, though it’s dipped slightly. Fung seems to have had a rough first half of October but has since rebounded. Meanwhile, Moderate Party candidate Bob Healey (combined with other independent candidates) have plenty enough support to make a difference.

“Every few years,” Ian Donnis wrote in the Providence Phoenix at the time, “an incident involving Providence police has provoked outrage and prompted calls for a greater degree of public accountability. In 1992, it was the police beating of a student at Mount Pleasant High School. In 1995, a controversy erupted after an officer was videotaped kicking a man [Corey West] on the ground outside the former Strand club on Washington Street.”

Cianci criticized the violence in both instances. However, the follow-up raises eyebrows.

In the 1995 case, the rookie officer involved kept his position following protests from the union. The chief involved, who faced heavy criticism from the union for moving too quickly to suspend the officer, resigned shortly after. Despite positive words, little was done to change the culture or procedures of the force.

A 1998 Human Rights Watch report reviewed complaints of police abuse in Providence, noting, “During a ride-along with a Providence police sergeant, he … repeatedly mentioned that officers only fear a federal inquiry, not investigations by IAB [Internal Affairs].”

• Should Buddy Cianci pick the next police chief – Dan Lawlor
• More murders when Buddy Cianci was mayor – Dan Lawlor
• Why one rape victim won’t support Cianci – Emma Sloan

In 2000, community protests and organizing followed the shooting death of Sgt Cornel Young,Jr, a black Providence police officer who was shot dead by two white colleagues who thought he was a suspect and a threat, not a fellow officer off duty trying to help at the scene of a crime.

Ten years ago, Marion Davis wrote a piece in the Phoenix, “Did Cornel Young die in vain?” examining the Providence police early in Cicilline’s first term. Many neighborhood leaders saw halting changes, some saw no difference (as was sadly echoed in this police- run drug ring found during Cicilline’s last term), but some experienced a culture shift.  As Jose Brito, a Southside business owner, saw it:

Five of the 15 candidates seeking a statewide office this year live in North Kingstown, as do two of the six candidates running for congress. Providence has three residents running for a statewide seat and one seeking reelection to congress. Warwick has a resident running for governor and congress.  Jamestown, Newport, Warwick, Barrington, Cranston, Cumberland, West Greenwich, Pawtucket and Scituate each have a resident on this year’s ballot.

The five candidates from North Kingstown, including the office they seek and their party affiliation, are:

• Nellie Gorbea, secretary of state, Democrat
• Dawson Hodgson, attorney general, Republican
• Kate Fletcher, governor, unaffiliated
• Bill Gilbert, lt governor, Moderate
• Tony Jones, lt governor, unaffiliated

North Kingstown has candidates from all three recognized political parties, with one candidate from each. There are two unaffiliated candidates from North Kingstown and the treasurer’s race is the only statewide contest not to include a North Kingstown resident. Two of the four candidates for lt. governor are from North Kingstown.

But that’s not to be confused with a 50 percent chance that the next lt. governor will be from North Kingstown. According to the latest WPRI/ProJo poll, only one North Kingstown resident is a favorite to win: Gorbea has a 41 percent to 27 percent advantage over her West Greenwich rival John Carlevale. Hodgson was the only other NK resident to win double digit support in the poll, trailing incumbent Peter Kilmartin 46 percent to 32 percent.

Similarly, 33 percent of the candidates in the three congressional races this year are from North Kingstown, or two of the six. Republicans Mark Zaccaria and Rhue Reis, both from NK, are running against incumbents from Jamestown and Warwick in Senator Jack Reed and Congressman Jim Langevin. Congressman David Cicilline is from Providence and Cormack Lynch is from Newport.