- If they had said, listen, there was some corrosion, but we didn't think that it was gonna be structurally that damaging and we should have corrected it, I think most Rhode Island would say, okay, you made a mistake, otherwise, you know, let's move on.

But they refused to do that.

- The coverup is always worse than the crime.

And this is exactly a great instance of that.

(drums beating) I called it the geriatric protest because most of the people were older.

There was no consistent messaging.

So I thought, what exactly are we accomplishing here?

- So there's a potential to harness this energy and make it count.

(bright music) - And welcome to this episode of "Lively", I'm Jim Hummel.

Thank you for joining us.

We are joined this week by Susie Cienki, National Committee Woman for the Rhode Island GOP, and Brown University Political Science Professor Wendy Schiller.

Welcome to you both.

- Thanks.

- Good to have you here.

- Good to be here.

- Providence was one of dozens of cities where large crowds rallied last weekend to protest the policies of the Trump administration, the so-called No Kings protests were largely peaceful.

But what did they accomplish?

Sue, I know- Sue and Wendy, we all looked at this, as you were watching this, what did you think?

Huge turnouts, 7 million across the country.

- You know, I have no objection to people that wanna peacefully protest, but looking at the crowd, I mean, there was one in my town, I called it the geriatric protest because most of the people were older.

There was no consistent messaging.

So I thought, what exactly are we accomplishing here?

But hey, if people feel better about themselves, go protest.

I woke up the next day, and was glad to hear that we don't have a king.

- Well, I mean, I think any sort of collective action that's peaceful is a hallmark of our democracy.

But for the Democratic party and the progressives, who want to actually thwart the Trump administration policies or counteract them some way, you have to get those people who went to the marches to register to vote, and to vote.

And the Republicans have become much better at that, at getting that sort of popular energy wave and translating into turnout, at least we saw that in 2024.

So the Democrats still have tremendous amount of work to do.

We're about to see Virginia and New Jersey and, you know, is this energy, this anti-Trump energy, going to translate into victories for the Democrats in both of those states?

And that's just less than two weeks away.

And I think that's a big test for both parties to figure out where people's sentiments lie.

- Yeah, I think that you're right.

It's gonna be interesting to see how those races turn out.

They're not expected Republican wins.

So if Republicans get close or if they win one of those races, it should send a shocking message to the Democrats.

- You know, I've heard this talking point, I will call it, oh, it's older people and it doesn't- What do you mean by that?

So a lot of older people turned out, maybe because they've had a lot of life and they're concerned, 'cause they've seen the way a lot of presidents have acted over the years, and this is the anomaly.

- Yeah, I just looked, thinking they missed the sixties and they wanted to get out there, and, you know, protest something, they don't like things.

I feel immense sympathy for the young people.

It is difficult if you're a first time homeowner to get into the housing market.

It is difficult, affordability in this state in particular is difficult.

So I could see why you would be frustrated and wanna protest.

But my observation is it was a lot of older people who do vote, you know, they do get out and vote.

You have to get those low propensity voters engaged.

You know, I look at what's gonna happen in 2026, typically non-presidential years, people stay home.

So, it's how do you get those people to the polls, tell them it is important, if you want your voice heard in a democracy, you have to show up, you have to register to vote.

Where is the energy?

I mean, you see somebody like Scott Presler who's all over the place, making sure people go and register to vote.

It's not only getting them to register to vote, it's making sure they get to the polls and vote.

You have mail voting, you have early voting now, you have day- there's plenty of opportunities to exercise your choice.

- Yeah, and, you know, the previous years, 2018, very, very large turnout.

That was a good year for the Democrats in terms of winning the House of Representatives.

And 2022, turnout was not as high as 2018, but a little higher than historical average.

It's about a 37% turnout, typically 38% turnout in midterm elections.

So, you're right.

Now, the curious things for the Democrats are that, you know, 72% of people over the age of 65 vote in presidential elections, and most of the time in the midterm elections.

So, older people are the ones who are more likely to vote in a midterm election.

So in that sense, getting people who are older out the door now, votes better for the Democrats in '26.

And the Republicans typically win about 9% more of that population, the older population in presidential vote than Democrats.

Trump lost ground with some of that population because of this democracy issue, at least in the polling.

So there's a potential to harness this energy and make it count, but that's a year away, at least for the elections that are not Virginia and New Jersey.

- So the demographics clearly on a midterm are different.

But I mean, it's clear and you saw the research, in 2020 Joe Biden was able to harness that.

There were reasons otherwise with Trump, but he brought in the young voters, and that a lot of them shifted back to Trump in the 2024.

So I guess that's the theory is, where are they gonna go now?

And what message are the Democrats giving for them to come back?

- Well, when you say shifting back, what Trump did, what he did in 2016, and what he did in 2024, he actually got more young men under the age of about 32 to vote.

And when they did vote, the majority of those young men voted for him.

So he increased turnout among groups of people that were not voting before.

So I'm not sure how many people shifted from 2020 to 2024.

But we know that younger men got out in bigger numbers and they got out in bigger numbers for Trump, white men, and also Latino men.

And then, so you did see that kind of shift there.

And then Independents voted for Trump, when they voted for Biden in 2020.

So, now Trump's not on the ballot technically in 2026.

So, he's not up for reelection, he is not up for any kind of reelection of office.

And the Democrats will have to work harder at figuring out issues that will motivate voters other than we don't want Trump, because unlike the first term, he can't run again.

So there is a finite term, an end to the Trump presidency.

- Yeah, He's only- He'll be gone, he'll be gone in 2028.

I mean that's, there's an end to his presidency.

He will be gone.

So it can't be, and you see that a lot here.

The democratic message is Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, trump.

Well, what are you doing here?

Particularly in this state, I mean, it's run by all Democrats.

They own everything in this state, and are people happy with the direction of the state?

And that's gotta be a Republican message in 2026.

You know, is there time for a change?

What are we doing here?

And do we have effective leadership here?

- Yeah, and what message are the Democrats gonna give in the midterms?

There's no one person, it's kind of scattershot.

There's a little bit of interesting warfare.

I mean, they've got a year to do it.

But, what is the message to bring people out?

- Well, you know, if you look at 2006, you look at 2018, different strategies, both led by Nancy Pelosi, for the Democratic Party nationally.

In 2006, it was a single national message, anti-Iraq war, anti-Bush.

2018, she let everybody run district level.

Just said, figure out the messagings that works in your district, figure out the issues your constituents care about.

We'll run against Trump nationally, but in terms of issues, we can make this much more diverse.

And they did very well that way.

I think that's the only way that they can win.

They have fewer seats that they have to win, because the margin's so small in '26.

But they have to let Democrats in more moderate areas, be moderate.

And I think you're seeing some implosion already from, sort of these, you know, younger people coming outta the work in Maine.

You're seeing the implosion of a candidate now in the Senate race.

And they have to do, the national organization has to help vet.

And I'm not sure that they're doing a great job of that yet.

- Yeah, it'll be interesting to see what happens in Maine, particularly that the governor Janet Mills jumped into the race- - At age 77.

- At age 77, and has stated publicly, I will only run for one term.

- Against Susan Collins.

- Against Susan Collins.

- Well I believe she's 76, right, Susan Collins is 76.

So- - You're right, the demographic of the No Kings rally.

- And it's interesting because Susan Collins would be what I would consider it a moderate Republican.

And it's the same type of Republican that you need here in any of the New England states.

Someone that is willing to cross the aisle and get things done for the constituents in your state.

But they have, the Democrats have some very wild ideas on the far-left, people that are running, you see what's happening in New York City.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens.

If Mamdani actually wins that race, which it looks all indicators say that he's going to win and be the mayor of New York City.

What happens to New York City?

What policies does he actually push?

And is that gonna be a disaster for the Republicans, for the Democrats?

And on the Republican side, it's a long year.

What does Trump do?

Does he hurt the party?

Does he help the party?

Is he quiet?

How much defending does a candidate that runs in a moderate state, much like Republican, have to do, to win?

- What do you think about the Democrat strategy now about, we are drawing the line, in terms of the government shutdown.

We want to negotiate the healthcare now, because the open enrollment period's coming up in November, and I think that's gonna hit red and blue states clearly.

What do you think about the strategy to keep it going and not play ball with the Republicans on a continuing resolution right now?

- You know, the Democrats always face this dilemma at the end of the day, because more of their constituents view government as necessary.

It's not the case, that more democratic voters rely on government programs than Republican voters.

In fact, for food stamps, you have more people in red states that rely on food stamps, and the food stamps are in danger.

47 million Americans gets food stamps.

So, you know, Republicans, the question is, how responsive are they, when their own constituents are getting hurt by the denial of benefits?

So, it is true that right now, technically the Democrats are keeping the government shut down.

They won't vote for the funding mechanism in the Senate.

They've already passed this threshold of sticking together when people found out that their health insurance premiums are gonna go way up, and those premiums are gonna go way up no matter what.

That's not gonna- If the government reopens, that's not gonna change.

What happens is the subsidy that you can take a tax break on the increased cost of an Obamacare subsidy, that will expire at the end of December.

- Which has been baked in for years, and we don't even know it, that's what's kept the prices low.

- And President Trump has basically said, look, I'll do that, I don't- That seems fine to me, I don't wanna, you know, 12 million people raising their taxes, I don't wanna do that.

Gimme something and I'll take care of that.

But at the same time, he is urging them not to give in.

And then, you know, the speaker of the house, Mike Johnson is sort of keeping the house out.

So, he doesn't actually have to swear in, a duly elected house member from Arizona who's a Democrat because, she has pledged to sign the discharge petition on the Epstein files.

So, there's complications- - A lot of moving parts.

- Right.

And the Senate is quite different from the house and what they're doing.

But I think the signal's coming from the White House and Trump has basically said, don't cave, don't cave.

And until he says, okay, you can cave, I don't think this thing gets resolved.

- Yeah, I think that the longer this goes on, it's interesting to see some of the polling on the shutdown that Trump is actually gaining support, which is also interesting because you're right, most of the red states do benefit from the subsidies.

So what is going to happen the longer this goes on, people when they don't get paid, it starts to really hurt.

So, what does happen?

Chuck Schumer and Representative Jeffries seem to be, we're not moving, we're not moving, we're not moving.

But when people pay attention, you need those 60 votes, my hope is that the Republicans do not go nuclear and get rid of the filibuster, I think that that is a disaster.

So, try to convince some of those Democrats, let's get the government open.

You voted for it before, you look like hypocrites, because 13 other times you voted for a continuing resolution.

Let's vote for it, healthcare needs to be fixed.

It is getting too expensive.

Let's see what happens next.

- All right, no end in sight, but we will keep an eye on that.

Engineers looking at why the Washington Bridge failed in 2023, concluded that support rods had been corroding for more than 15 years.

But it was information left out of a key report given to the Rhode Island DOT last year.

Wendy, let me begin with you on this one.

This is a report that I did for the Hummel reporter who was in the Providence Journal this week.

I got a tranche of documents that basically said, this was a lot worse for a lot longer than what was led on publicly.

- Yeah, I mean this is the kind of information that Rhode Island voters want.

They've wanted for quite some time.

It's always been curious to me why the McKee administration and Alviti have not been willing to talk about this.

You know, you can say, look, we have to make decisions about, what disruptions we have, what money we spend, and what we think is dire.

And if they had said, listen, there was some corrosion, but we didn't think that it was gonna be structurally that damaging, so we put it off for a little while, and we made a mistake with that, and we should have corrected it, I think most Rhode Island would say, okay, you made a mistake, otherwise, you know, let's move on.

But they've refused to do that.

They have stonewalled and stonewalled and they have not been forthcoming.

And I blame the governor for that, I blame Alviti for that.

And this sort of hiding behind the lawsuit was never acceptable.

And I think now it's coming out, thanks to journalism, and I think Rhode Island voters are not necessarily surprised.

But I do think it matters a great deal.

And I think that the governor has not handled it well.

- I think the coverup is always worse than the crime.

And this is exactly a great instance of that.

You know, when you're hiding things from the public.

And you're right, this happened pre-Mckee, he was not governor.

I mean, why didn't he just say, yeah, there were mistakes made, you always blame your predecessor.

You know, there were mistakes made, someone was not watching, but we're gonna fix it.

That's what people expect to hear.

Not find out through your report, oh this was a problem 15 years ago, and everybody, you know, had turned a blind eye to it.

- Yeah, I mean I think this is, the curious thing though, of course it's always politics, and always campaigning, is that, you know, will folks be able to really capitalize on it, without sounding like, okay, you did bad things, but now it's happening.

Because then McKee and Alviti, who's still in his job, would say, well we're moving ahead.

We've demolished the the bridge.

We've got a contract, we're building a new bridge.

We've addressed the problem.

So I think this is the question mark about how much of an issue this will be in a Democratic primary, you know, eight months from now.

- Thank you for your patience while we redo the bridge as I ride over, that my blood boils, because I have to go over the Washington Bridge a lot.

My patience is wearing thin.

- Well, and the impact that it will have on small businesses, I mean, how do they- - And it has.

- Yeah, how do they survive?

I mean, are you going to see more and more closures of those and can the Democratic candidate Helena Foulkes, can she capitalize on that and say, listen, I would've done a much better job than he has.

I would've told you what had happened here and let's get it fixed.

And I think she's already stated that Alviti would be gone.

He would not be- - Yeah, she would've kept held people responsible.

Yeah, now Shekarchi, the speaker, this is an- - [Hummel] House speaker Joe Shekarchi.

- Right.

So, when you think about that and his position, and he's sort of sitting on the sidelines with a lot of money, and still hasn't decided.

I never think that plays well.

If you want the top job in the state and you wanna be governor, you gotta go for it.

You gotta get out there, and to his credit, McKee said, I'm coming again, I'm gonna run again.

And I think that says to Rhode Islanders, I'm committed.

This sort of waffling, I just don't think, the longer it goes, I don't think it's helpful.

- Well and the other thing, Wendy, is Joe Shekarchi, we all know him.

If you go to Exeter, or Middletown, or Newport, is he in the legislature?

Not a lot of people know.

What was the mistake that Helena Foulkes made four years ago?

She got out of the blocks too late.

And so people said, oh, maybe she had two or four more weeks.

The election's the same time in November every year.

If Joe Shekarchi is gonna run and use all that 3 or $4 million, start now.

- But the bridge will be an issue for him.

He was also a very powerful guy.

- [Hummel] You think there's backsplash on him from the bridge?

- Absolutely.

He's running the the state government.

And why hasn't he come down harder on the McKee administration?

- Yeah, I think that he looks at the race right now, I don't think he's going get in.

I don't care really that he's got $3.8 million.

- Why not?

- I don't think he's gonna get in, because I think Joe is, A, he's too sensitive.

He doesn't have an alligator skin like most politicians, you have to have an alligator skin.

And I think he wants a clear pathway.

I think he realizes that McKee has the backing of the union and they're not gonna leave him yet.

So if McKee gets out of the race, maybe he will jump in.

- But would they leave him if Shekarchi got into the race?

- No.

- You don't think so?

- No.

- Well, I mean- But the issue is that in this day and age, in the Democratic primary, and that population may be shrinking in Rhode Island, in terms of registration, but we've seen in New York, we've seen in other places, that the primary voting constituency may not respond so well to the good old boy network, saying, oh we're sticking with McKee or the unions.

That's a percentage of the voting population the primary, but it's not a majority of the democratic voting population in the primary.

So it doesn't mean you're gonna win the primary.

And that's the sort of reality politically now, that you know, the inside baseball people don't quite get, looking around the country.

- Yeah, and I also think that he's got $3.8 million, but Helena can stoke a check for $4 million.

- Right.

- I mean, she's got the money.

And how does he have that money?

He has that money because he's the speaker.

When he is no longer the speaker, is he gonna be able to attract that money?

He's got lobbyists, he's got people that wanna push legislation forward so they're throwing money at him.

I think that he's got an issue, because there is a time limit to be speaker.

I mean you have to get out of that role or trouble just- - [Hummel] Yeah, there's a shelf life that always- - There is a shelf life.

- And that's why Bill Murphy was probably the example of getting out- - He's the smartest one.

- and cashing in, right?

Because these lobbies- - Get out.

- Getting back to the bridge, Gina Raimondo seems to have gotten a pass on this whole thing.

And I've always thought the feds have always been the savior in Rhode Island.

They came in, they prosecuted Buddy Cianci.

There's state cases that the attorneys general for a variety of reason have not wanted to go after.

And when I heard that the DOJ was gonna come in and get to the bottom of it, because there was a lot of Federal highway money that went into that bridge, where did our investment go?

You've heard nothing.

Now I've heard from some sources that said, the Biden administration didn't want backsplash on the Secretary of Commerce.

And I wonder, where Raimondo is all this and whether politics kind of gave her a pass.

Where is the DOJ now on this?

- Well, I mean, you know, I think that Governor Raimondo and Secretary of Commerce Raimondo hasn't been asked point blank yet.

You know, what did you know?

And when did you know it?

You know, the famous Howard Baker comment from the Watergate hearings, 50 years ago.

So, I think that's- I'd like to know, I'd like to know, what did Alviti tell her?

Did she ever ask?

Was she ever- I mean it's quite likely it never came across her desk, but she was governor.

- And why didn't, Governor McKee throw former Governor Raimondo under the bus?

They didn't have the best relationship.

She froze him out for years.

Was he getting marching orders?

Do not say anything about her.

- Right, she kept him in a closet.

So, I don't understand his strategy whatsoever.

- I think he didn't want her to come in and campaign for Foulkes.

I don't think he wanted her to come in and endorse Foulkes.

She may come in and endorse Foulkes anyway.

But I think, and that's a curious thing.

If she doesn't come in and endorse Foulkes, does then that mean then you have to think to yourself, maybe there's some agreement about the bridge, right?

That, you stay out of this and I'm- - And we won't go after you.

- [Wendy] Throwing you under the bridge, while you're gearing up- - Under the bridges, is that under the bus, throw one- - Yeah, and I think Helena, the problem becomes, if, Governor Raimondo actually does come in, is she then labeled as Raimondo 2.0?

- Right.

- And does that hurt her?

- Right.

- I mean I think it may hurt her in the Democratic primary.

It's certainly gonna hurt her, Republicans would be turned off by that.

- Wasn't she labeled that already in the first- - But not now.

- Not in your face.

- Not, you know, you bring that person in, you get labeled that.

- She's been doing a lot of work, Foulkes, talking to a lot of people around the state, for a long time now.

And I think she's trying to establish herself individually.

So, but there is that dynamic of the Raimondo questions.

You know, this was a really big deal and you were governor, what happened?

- [Hummel] Right.

- And how did you not know about it?

- You know what's interesting?

A lot of people have short memories, voters have short memories.

You know, you hip, what was that?

And the bridges and all of the stuff- - [Wendy] We just had a settlement, right- - The settlement.

- The settlement just paid.

- But the Washington Bridge is different because it goes on every single day people have to cross it.

And I don't know how the governor gets over that.

No matter how you try to spin it, It's not something you can put in the rear view mirror until the new bridge is built.

- Yeah, and what's interesting is, that the legislature keeps saying, we wanna have a more oversight.

Well now they're saying we wanna put them under oath.

You're not gonna get anything.

I think that's a dog and pony show, because they're gonna rely on, well we're in litigation, we can't say anything.

- How about getting a subpoena and holding them in contempt?

- Yeah well, I just don't think we're gonna get the information that we deserve.

- And the litigation is being, is prompted by the governor's office.

- Yes.

- The government is suing.

Oh, we can't talk because we're in litigation.

Well, nobody's forcing you to be in litigation.

You could settle litigation and then tell us what we need to tell.

- I'm the one who was in the camp.

I'll ditched the lawsuit tomorrow, if I could get to the bottom of who was responsible for all this.

- Every voter on Rhode Island do the same thing.

Because also, blaming companies that work in Rhode Island and then wanted to do business with those companies again, why would they wanna come back here?

Because they just feel like they're gonna be sued.

- You're going to keep a lot of businesses away from wanting to do any business here, 'cause they're saying, well, you're just gonna sue me.

And what actually happens is, they're gonna up their bids to cover their losses.

So, who loses?

The taxpayers again.

- But you hit it right on the head, you said, so it's gonna be 2027, after the election, they're gonna settle, and there's gonna be an NDA.

- That's right.

- Non-disclosure agreement.

- And we'll never gonna know.

- Just like happened the settlements in the Station nightclub fire, we never got to the bottom of that, because ultimately, so they pled out and we never got to open up the whole thing.

So wouldn't you rather have a little more accountability?

- I would absolutely love to have more transparency and accountability throughout government here.

You know, we just don't get enough here.

And do people care?

I mean, I don't know if people actually care.

- And has there been, I am not aware of this, but I wonder if the Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce has done a survey, of statewide businesses, about the impact of the bridge.

Because even going down to Warwick or East Greenwich, you think about the time of day now, you think rush hour, but now you think, oh I don't wanna get caught in bridge traffic coming back.

So, you know, you may not go down there for things.

And so I do think the whole state's infected, and I would like to see a survey from the Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce, really understanding what the impact has been.

- That would be an interesting survey.

- I was gonna say interesting that you said that, because I had a meeting yesterday in Warwick, and somebody said, did you look at the red on every artery- - [Hummel] In and out of Providence city.

- [Sue] And that was at nine o'clock in the morning.

- And it's not just the East Bay people, it's all around.

- Well, I have friends that live on the East Bay, I said to them, I'll see you when the bridge is done.

I'm not coming- - I see you in 2028.

- Not doing it.

- To be continued.

Let's go with our outrages and our kudos, so let's begin with you this week.

- Okay my outrage, and you know it's gonna be the same thing always, it's the energy prices here.

And whether the act on climate was actually a good legislation here, and relying on wind and solar, which we know is only going to produce about 3% of our electricity needs, not energy needs, 'cause the energy sector is broken up into electricity, transportation, agricultural, and industrial usage.

It is not a great policy, to rely on that, and it has environmental damage.

You know, people talk about national security, but I'm more worried about the environmental damage.

We said that we were gonna protect Cox Ledge, and all of a sudden that went out the window.

So, that's my outrage.

- But do you think even if the legislature rolled back all of the green energy X, what effect would that have?

Has anybody done the study on what dollar amount or percentage amount that's gonna be on our bills?

- So about 33% of your bill right now, is based upon these ridiculous- - On the delivery charges?

- Yes.

The ridiculous mandates that the General Assembly has.

They need to open up right now, the natural gas pipeline, and then you need to start looking at diversifying how you're gonna get energy needs here.

I mean it's the only feasible, reliable solution.

- Alright Wendy, what do you have this week?

- Yeah, I mean I think the delivery charges are also a combination of sort of, Canada and sort of, energy transportation and deals made by private utility companies, I mean I think it's a complicated mix, but I agree with you.

And even our gasoline taxes, or you know, you go down a place like Texas and I think, oh well they have the oil right here, but it's not true.

The oil that they actually produce in Texas is not the oil that becomes gasoline, but nonetheless it's way cheaper.

And I think why is it so much cheaper?

A $1.50 gallon cheaper, it's crazy.

So I agree with that.

I feel like, I'd like to see the truck tolls turned on.

What is going on with these gantries?

We spent the fortune, you know, they won on appeal, turn 'em on.

- They have to do an analysis as to whether the technology is, I know it's taking a while, but some of, the gantry is turned off, and they were off for a while.

They may not work the way they're supposed to.

So you have to update- - [Wendy] I don't believe that for a minute.

- You don't?

- This is political.

The governor doesn't wanna do it, because he doesn't wanna make the trucking people mad.

- [Hummel] So maybe they're be turned off after next year's election.

- It'll be January 2027.

- Small business owners who have trucks don't want this turned on, so not turning on, I don't believe any of that.

It worked fine before, it'll work fine again, and we need the money.

Every other state has tolls, even Texas has tolls.

So, this is ridiculous, turn them back on.

- Alright, Wendy and Sue, thank you.

It was a quick segment.

Appreciate you joining us.

And thank you for joining us.

Be sure and check us out on Facebook, X, Instagram, and on the Ocean State Media YouTube channel.

We'll see you next time here on "Lively".

(bright music)