 Aloha, and welcome to Hawaii Together on the Think Tech Hawaii Broadcast Network. I'm Kidley Iakina. Today we get to talk about the election season. It's 2018. Elections come and go, and it's time to look at the issues and the candidates. And there's no one better to do that with than Colin Moore, director of the UH Public Policy Center and an associate professor in political science at the University of Hawaii. He's been observing the contemporary election scene for several years now. He's frequently featured on media, and he's the go-to guy when you have questions about what's going on in the political races in Hawaii. So without any further ado, please welcome my friend Colin Moore. Colin Aloha. Happy to be here. Thanks for having me. I'm glad you're on the program. Again, I think this is probably the third time or fourth time. I think so. I'm happy to be here. Well, that's great. You know, and I have my same stale old joke. Did you ever imagine when you were a little kid and you were asked what you wanted to be when you grow up? Did you say fireman or policeman or soldier? Certainly not political pundit. There you go. I know that. I know that for sure. But what is the art of political punditry, so to speak? And you really are a commentator upon the political scene. What do you do? Well, I think it's to look at the big picture. I mean, most candidates are concentrating on their own race. You know, people who advocates tend to just see their own policy issue that they want forwarded. So I see my goal is to really look at the whole map, I mean, to see how all of these pieces fit together and hope to make some sense of it. I mean, the other thing is that by virtue of being independent, I mean, being at the university, I can say some things that, frankly, other people can't say. Well, the whole map or the big picture is a great place to get started in our conversation today. In some sense, we are in a post-Noye, post-Tacaca era in terms of Hawaii politics. But we may not be as far along as we would warrant, calling it a post-era at all. What are your thoughts about that? Well, I agree. I don't think, I mean, saying it were post-Noye is a little premature because that power structure still exists. I mean, really, to move beyond that, we need to be in a new era. There has to be a new major political figure. And that person really hasn't emerged. So I think what you're seeing is that there are the vestigial remains of the Noe power structure, some competing structures. I mean, I think a pretty strong challenge from the progressive left. And then a lot of other folks who just now reside in this power vacuum. So you say we're in a period of transition and we don't know what we're exactly transitioning to. In what ways do we see the continuation of the Noe power structure? In what institutions and what parties, in what way in particular? Well, I mean, the Noe loyalist, so I mean, Colleen Honabusa identifies as one. She was his hand-picked successor. So I would say the heir apparent. The heir apparent and famously wasn't picked by Neil Abercrombie. And so I think a lot of the people who worked in Noe's office or were associated with him still hold very powerful positions in the state. And I think they still identify themselves as part of that group. Now it's much weaker than it was when he was alive. But there hasn't really emerged a challenge to that pretty cohesive group. I mean, there are individual leaders and other factions in the legislature. But in terms of a group that can draw from the government sector, the private sector, and people really think of themselves as playing on that team, that's still unique. Well, one might have thought a few years ago that that charge would have been led by Neil Abercrombie. He had a long-term career in the legislature. He was highly connected. He was in Congress. And he started off with a bang in his first term and only term as governor. So what happened there? Well, I mean, first I think that Abercrombie had always been an outsider. I mean, of course, he'd been in white politics for a long time, but he wasn't part of the annoying machine. And he always kind of marched to his own drum, as it were. So he really, I don't think, was ever in a position to build a group of loyalists. I mean, the closest person you could identify is obviously Brian Schatz, who I think has made a little bit of an effort. He sees the need. He sees the opening. And I think he's mentored younger, progressive legislators who he'd like to take leadership roles. But this takes a long time. I mean, and the annoying machine not only helped people get elected. They brought a lot of money into the state. They delivered on a lot of their promises. And so that sense of loyalty, really, from a lot of material benefits as well, is strong. So Abercrombie wasn't quite as good of a party builder as Dan and Noe was. Linda Lingle wasn't either. I mean, that's another missed opportunity for the Republican Party. That was a bright and shiny moment for Republicans here, the eight years of Linda Lingle. But we ended those eight years without a party structure really in place in the legislature or in any large numbers in the state. That's right. I mean, and I think partly that's how Governor Lingle operated, which is that she wasn't afraid to make deals with Democrats or unions. And I think she saw herself more as a check on the power of the Democratic Party than really her responsibility being to build a robust Republican Party. That may have been a missed opportunity, although I think some would argue that it was never possible to really build a strong Republican Party here in Hawaii. But you haven't really seen anyone emerge like Dan and Noe who saw, you know, who could reach all the way down into the civil service and all the way up to the legislature and their identifiable Noe partisans in all of these spots. I mean, he also served for a very, very long time. So this is a long-term project. And we're fairly young in terms of our congressional delegation and that kind of tenure in the long run. That's right. Now, just to sum up what you've been saying, we can't really rightly say we are fully post-Noe or post-Akaka now because we don't really know what the new power structure is. That's right. In terms of an individual who leads in an iconic way or in terms of institutions. There are a couple of things I wanted to ask you about before we dive in and talk about issues and candidates, which we're going to do. I'm going to actually ask Colin for his take on the 2018 elections. Most of that will take place in the second part of this program. But first I want to ask you, Colin, what do you think about these two features of Hawaii politics? Number one, exceedingly low voter turnout and participation. And number two, single-party dominance. And do you think that they're related to each other? Oh, I think they absolutely are related. I mean, partly the low voter turnout is driven by the fact that we don't have particularly competitive elections. And the current incumbents really have an incentive not to really try to increase voter turnout. I think the resistance of the legislature for adopting something like mail-in ballots is an example of that. If you've won from the electorate that already votes, why would you want to change much of anything? What you're suggesting is that we're dragging our feet in terms of getting modern technology in elections, like mail-in voting or even computerized voting, largely because incumbents in a one-party system would be threatened by a larger part of the population participating. Is that what you're suggesting? That's exactly what I'm suggesting. And I think it's true. Politicians, especially incumbents, hate uncertainty. They know they can win given the current electorate. Why would they want to introduce more uncertainty into that? That's unfortunate because it means that we get fewer people participating. There are fewer voices heard. But the question is really why should they get excited about our elections here? Nothing much changes. We haven't really been a major leader on public policy issues in decades. It really is kind of an incumbency protection racket that the legislature runs. And so it's not surprising to me that people don't engage because the other thing is that there aren't real clear, because the Democratic Party is so dominant, for the most part, our elections tend to be kind of devoid of any real policy debates. I mean, they're more about personality than public policy. So what you're suggesting is that if the electorate had more of a choice, more of the population would get involved in voting? Oh, I think absolutely. I mean, people get involved when elections matter. People tend to get involved in politics at a relatively young age if they're going to get involved at all. But it tends to be around an issue, a moment. And then they might become habitual voters. But beyond the techniques of maintaining incumbency, why does the single party, the Democratic Party, remain dominant? In fact, totalistically so. Is that because of the failing of the challenging party of Republicans? Or is that simply because the system is just so monolithic at this time? Change is not likely on the horizon? Well, it's all of those things, to some degree. I mean, first, it is that the Republican Party here has been poorly managed. They haven't always fielded good candidates. They have a tendency to go after their own. I mean, you saw this when Beth Foucamoda left the party. That was a silly and unforced error by a Republican Party here. Why sometimes think values ideological purity over winning elections. Well, with Beth, we had a Republican who was progressive in many ways, attractive to the broader community in many ways, young, with a future ahead of her, who chose to differentiate herself from the cohorts in the party by distancing herself from Trump. That's right. And she was attacked for that and eventually left. I mean, not by all Republicans and a lot of the mainstream Republicans, especially the ones who are serving the legislature, I think were pretty frustrated by that development. But some of the fringe factions really went after her. So the disorganization of the Republican Party is, of course, one factor. The second factor is the fact that the mainland Republican Party has become so conservative. This just contributes to a longstanding suspicion of Republicans in Hawaii that goes back to the territorial period. But the mainland Republican Party is so conservative that it's difficult to figure out how you can differentiate a more libertarian local Republican Party from a more conservative mainland Republican Party. And that's a difficult thing for the electorate to understand. You talk about the territorial days, and there certainly was some suspicion of Republicans on the part of many. But at the same time, there was great support for Republicans. The Republican Party was much stronger. Oh, it certainly was. So at the time of the Prince Kuhio on through the territorial days, it was a viable competitive party. At one time, it was the dominant party. Absolutely. But my question to you is this. When the general rank and file here in Hawaii do choose not to vote Republican or choose to be Democrats rather than Republicans, what is their understanding of Republicanism? Is it a local brand of Republicanism that they're opposed to or in absence of seeing a strong local brand? Are they reacting to the national brand right now? Oh, they're definitely reacting to the national brand, to Donald Trump and the Tea Party and what people see as some people. Someone wants to describe this as a southern accent problem that there's a lot of mainland Republicans from the south. And people I think people in Hawaii are a little suspicious of that. They're a little they're a little worried that there is kind of a a racist element in the mainland party. And I think whether it's true or not, I think that is a difficult thing to overcome for the Hawaii. And these are all perceptions or even misperceptions, to some extent. Absolutely. They get imputed upon local Republicans. Whereas in my experience, talking to local Republicans, most of them are really concerned about issues, perhaps more conservative on the fiscal side of things, less in terms of large government and so forth. But frequently, they're imputed to be Trump supporters. They may or may not be Trump supporters, but that's the brand that they get. That's right. I mean, if you look at the successful Republicans or the ones who've tried to run and have been competitive candidates while not just Lingle, Charles Dejeu, for example, they really do run as different sorts of Republicans. I mean, they do have pretty issue heavy campaigns. They tend to be an important critic of the establishment Democrats and our state government, but for voters here, mainly from the mainland press, this image of the Republican Party and it takes a lot of work and a consistent messaging to try to convince people that the local Republican Party is different. One last question on parties before we go to a break. And then when we come back, we'll talk about candidates and races. The Democratic Party, what do we see taking place in a party that has virtually no competition? Would it be safe to say that we actually have diversity within the Democratic Party in terms of conservatism and progressivism, or do we have disarray? Well, I think what you have is disarray. I mean, there's certainly Democrats who are more conservative and Democrats that are more progressive, but that doesn't really show itself in kind of coherent competing policy programs. What you see is factionalization. And first, this isn't great for democracy because it all happens behind closed doors. It's much more based on personalities and personal conflicts than it is with with a coherent policy package that voters can choose from. And for the most part, voters don't have a choice in any of these things. So even if there is debate and dialogue amongst and between Democrats in the legislature, at the end of the day, those who control the Senate in the House, who have the chairs of the major committees, the leadership ultimately make the decision for a single party in power. Oh, absolutely. And here in Hawaii, we have an extremely strong committee system and we have that because current Democrats want it that way. OK, we're going to take a break. And when we come back, we'll talk about candidates and politics. My guest today is Colin Moore, head of the University of Hawaii Public Policy Center, a political scientist. And when we come back, I'm going to ask him, what are the races that we really should be watching for in 2018? And how does it look that that certain candidates will fare? I'm Keeley Akeena on Hawaii Today, Hawaii Tomorrow, Hawaii Together. Always then the same. We'll be right back on the Think Tech Hawaii broadcast network. Aloha. They said I could play, so any chance to play at all, you know, that's my life. So we do it. Hi, I'm Ethan Allen, host on Think Tech Hawaii of Pacific Partnerships in Education. Every other Tuesday afternoon at 3 p.m., I hope you'll join us as we explore the value, the accomplishments and the challenges of education here in the Pacific Islands. Hi, everyone, I'm Andrea Gabrieli, the host for Young Talent Making Way here on Think Tech Hawaii. We talk every Tuesday at 11 a.m. about things that matters to tech, matter to science, to the people of Hawaii with some extraordinary guests, the students of our schools who are participating in science fair. So Young Talent Making Way every Tuesday at 11 a.m. only on Think Tech Hawaii, mahalo. Welcome back to Hawaii Together on the Think Tech Hawaii broadcast network. I'm Keeley Akeena. Today we're talking about the 2018 election season here in the state of Hawaii. And my guest is the director of the UH Public Policy Center and a professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Hawaii, Colin Moore. Well, Colin, we've had an interesting conversation about the actual environment in which elections take place here in Hawaii. What's the big race to look out for in 2018? Well, obviously the governor's race. I mean, that's that look at the most the most views and I think it really will tell us something about what's happening in local politics. I mean, we talked in the first half about how there seems to be this power vacuum and I think the best illustration of this is the fact that it looks very likely that we're going to have another incumbent Democratic governor lose in this race. That would be extraordinary. But before we talk about how extraordinary two first term governors losing one after another is why do you say that Governor E. Gay is likely to lose in this race against Colleen Hanabusa? Well, I mean, so there's it's early days and there's a lot of campaigning that still has to be done. But Governor E. Gay is one of the least popular governors in the United States, which really is a remarkable feat, given how the economy here is booming. He's a Democratic governor in a Democratic state. And the most recent Colin Colin, it's booming. Yes, for those who are in the boom. Exactly. But not everyone shares that. And that is exactly what you're seeing. That's why there is this malaise or frustration and the governor is getting the blame for that, whether or not it's his fault. It's kind of irrelevant for voters. Well, what has he done wrong? You see, has he done anything that amounts to high crimes and misdemeanors? Has he really been behind some major fiasco other than not finding his Twitter code during an emergency episode? I mean, communication. Has he done anything bad? No, I mean, he hasn't done anything that would explain why he's 20 points behind Colin Hanabusa, why he is so unpopular. That's the sort of thing that happens because of some major disaster, financial scandal or kind of personal impropriety. Nothing like that has ever happened. But it didn't happen with Governor Abercrombie either. And he had a historic defeat. Well, he lost favor. What do you think that was attributed to? From why did Abercrombie lose favor? I mean, I think in part because he went after some very powerful public sector unions who were then campaigned against him. But but there was something deeper than that going on. And I think no one has a persuasive answer for why he lost so badly when he lost. I mean, there's a lot of possibilities, but that level of loss usually happens with a scandal. And so we're seeing the same thing with David Eagay, who, again, has presided over a prosperous economy. You know, other than the missile attack, there hasn't been any huge errors. Everyone thinks he's the false missile attack. The false missile attack, yes. Well, we wouldn't be standing here if it wasn't. And and so people think of him as generally honest and a good person. They criticize his leadership, but that is really the only thing you can point to. So I think a lot of this is because people hear that the state is doing very well, but they don't feel that. I mean, when you have these new federal statistics that show that a family of four making $90,000 is still considered poor, you can understand if you low income, low income, yes, not poor, excuse me, low income. You can understand people's frustration. Well, you mentioned leadership and it seems that critique of Governor David Eagay frequently uses that word leadership, a lack of leadership. And as you pointed out, not that he's done anything wrong, but there's a sense that there's a lack of leadership. And it seems as though that gets compounded with what you're talking about, this malaise, the sense that the economy is not working for the average person out there, the sense that we have some problems that haven't been resolved. And would you throw into that some of the standoffs we've had where leadership has not been able to give us resolution, whether it is with the rail, pro rail versus anti rail or the 30 meter telescope, these highly visible opportunities for leadership, would you say that perhaps the governor hasn't been present there to demonstrate the leadership needed? Oh, absolutely. I mean, criticizing him for a lack of leadership is absolutely fair. I mean, he's tried to spin this as a virtue that he's trying to bring all parties together or he kind of leads from behind or he's a quiet leader. But no one's really buying that. I mean, in the moments when it matters, part of the point of being governor is that you have the bully pulpit. You can get everyone in the room and get them to come to some sort of agreement. You can speak to the public. You can mobilize public opinion. He doesn't see that as his job. And I think, frankly, he's mistaken. I think that is one of the major jobs of the governor. Well, on the counterpoint, why do you say that Colleen Hanabusa has the advantage? Well, I mean, first, just empirically, she does. She's so much farther ahead in the polls. Second, because people are frustrated, they're likely to vote for a change candidate and she can credibly say that she is. I mean, I think she varies strategically while she was on the hardboard, became a critic of rail. I think her public reputation is one of a tough attorney, a tough former labor attorney. She uses that pretty effectively. She seems more decisive. Now, if she wins, she may face the same problem EGAY has, because I think a lot of these are just structural problems and it's difficult to change the way we operate here. But she can really credibly, I think, convey this image of a tough and decisive leader. And I think that's what people are looking for, or at least that's what they claim to be. Well, someone from the Old Boy's Network has emerged in the race. He, as well, what do you think his prospects are? What impact will he have on the race? Well, so Clayton, he has, he again, like Hanabusa, gives voters an alternative. I think that he is part of the old guard, but so is Hanabusa. I think he's planning to run as more of a progressive candidate than she is. But for the most part, I think he really helps David EGAY. I mean, he is going to take voters who never would vote for EGAY and give them an alternative. I think he hopes that the racial politics of Hawaii will work in his favor slightly, that you have two Japanese politicians on the ballot and he'll get a large group of other folks. I actually think that's too simplistic. I don't really think politics here is that simple, but I'm sure that'll help a bit. But I think it depends on how he pitches his campaign. I mean, he has the luxury of being the underdog, which allows him to take risks. I haven't seen exactly how he plans to campaign, I mean, what his specific issues are going to be. But I hear that he's interested in talking about some radical ideas for housing, perhaps something to do with gambling and legalizing marijuana. I mean, these are the kind of issues you'd expect an underdog. Well, at the very least, he offers a choice for those who've decided that they're not going to re-elect David E. Gay. He offers a choice different from Colleen Hanabusa. Although it may not be a very robust choice, because I think a lot of people, as you suggested, think of him as a member of the Old Guard, just like Colleen Hanabusa, just from a different faction of that Old Guard. Let's switch to Congressional District One, which Colleen Hanabusa will be vacating, and we've had several emerge in contention for that seat. Donna Mercado-Kim, Doug Chin, are probably the two at the leading edge. That's right. I mean, I think Doug Chin is the favorite in this race. Donna Mercado-Kim is well known, but that cuts both ways. I mean, she also she has a lot of supporters, but she has folks who who really don't like her at all and are not going to change their mind. But as Doug Chin's stance with respect to the President of the United States and the suits that he has launched, give him that advantage in an anti-Trump state? Absolutely. Doug Chin's narrative for this election is very clear. He can say, send me to Congress. I stood up to Trump. I'll stand up. I'll stand up to him again. I'll defend and support our local values in Congress. It's a very simple script. Donna Mercado-Kim is a little more difficult. I mean, she does have a reputation of being a famous critic of government incompetence, but how that translates into D.C. I mean, will mainly be a campaign about her experience. And so I think this is Doug Chin's election to lose by which I mean, I think he's the favorite going into this because of his stance on Trump, because because his positives are generally pretty high, because he hasn't been in politics as long as Donna Mercado-Kim. And but at the same time, he is a novice candidate. This is the first time he's ever run for public office, despite being attorney general and lieutenant governor. And I think sometimes that inexperience shows he isn't the same kind of fighter that a lot of these veteran politicians are. In many ways, Doug Chin, what would Doug lacks in terms of political experience, Donna has. And so do you think that translates into a real disadvantage in campaigning? Doug has strengths in terms of his litigation work. He has strengths in terms of his career practices. But as you point out, he's not a campaigner. He's not a campaigner. I mean, you being a lawyer is different than being a political candidate. I mean, you have to get comfortable with talking about yourself all of the time, making making yourself the center of attention, asking for people's support. That's that's a hard thing to do for people who are new to politics. And I think you've seen some of that inexperience in his campaign. But he does have such a compelling narrative. And I think mainly what people who are going to vote in this election want is someone who will go after Trump because we. Yes, we've got a couple of minutes left. Any thoughts on a race that didn't factor much in the public eye? The Office of Hawaiian Affairs for many, many years, but has of late drawn a good deal of attention. Well, a lot of attention due due to your campaign. But I think it don't blame me. But I think your victory signals that that race has changed from a sleeper to something that more and more people are paying attention to. And not just Hawaiians, I think more non-Hawaiians are voting in that race. And so the dynamic I think you're going to see in this election for OHA is that the incumbents are going to either try to embrace the audit and try to say that they're they're a reformer as well. Or they're going to face this, you know, I think they're going to face kind of a kick the bums out attitude from the electorate. Let's just, you know, give incredible candidates. And there are some. Why not why not give these other folks a chance? And that may be tricky for them to brand themselves on the right side of that issue. It's going to be very difficult and they may not be successful. I expect, I mean, OHA used to be a place where incumbents never lost. And I think you're going to see some lose this time as we head into the election season. There's one big issue that doesn't have to deal with a candidate per se. And that's the Constitutional Convention. Your thoughts about that? I think there's a sense that people want the Constitutional Convention. But what hasn't happened is that the labor unions haven't taken a strong view on this. I think when they do and if they oppose it, people's views will change pretty dramatically if they if they're worried about losing their rights to collective bargaining and the protection for the pension system. Well, there are stakeholders in many issues who would like to see a Constitutional Convention, the environmentalists, Hawaiian issues and so forth. But I hear you talking about the Union. Do you think that's really going to be center stage in terms of preservation of union benefits and the status of our public sector unions? Absolutely. If people don't vote for it, it's because of their fears that somehow a new con con will change those rights because those are the things that affect people's pocketbook and those are what folks vote on. And there's a case right now, Janice, in which the courts are considering allowing workers not to join the public sector union. And it looks like that case will be decided in the conservative position. So I think there'll be a lot of attention on those issues right at the time when people are thinking about con con. They may just say it's not worth risking it. We have a good situation right now. Let's not let's not change anything. Last question and you can turn and take a look at that camera. If you want to talk to our voters out there, our citizens and so forth. What's something every citizen can and should do perhaps to prepare for in 2018 election? Well, I think that they can inform themselves. And I think that if you spend a little bit of time reading about the issues, you will feel more confident in your choice of voting. I mean, the other thing is to work for a campaign. I think it is a tremendously can be a tremendously fun and fulfilling experience. And if you do that, I think you tend to be much more engaged in politics for the rest of your life. Well, thank you, Colin. I appreciate your good service to the public and look forward to hearing more from you, perhaps on the night of the election. Yes. My guest today, Colin Moore, director of the UH Center for Public Policy, a great commentator on the political scene. You'll be seeing a lot of him during these elections. I'm Kaley Akeena on Think Tech Hawaii's Hawaii Together. Until next time, aloha.