So with that, we are launching #AskBillyV. The rules are simple, and there are only two. First, you must be a follower of @rrpartnersgov to ask a question. Second, you must use the hashtag #AskBillyV when asking your question. We will accept questions every Monday through the @rrpartnersgov Twitter feed, and post answers every Friday. Keep in mind, Billy knows politics nationwide, so there are no limits.

Happy tweeting!

Maybe this story resonates with me because of how strongly I believe in solid research. Polling is a vital strategic tool when utilized correctly, and I am certainly not against polling political races. My issue is with these snapshot in time polls published in the paper, sometimes with super-sketchy sample sizes, complete with conclusive sounding statements from the pollster, which are then reported mindlessly by the media as fact.

Do these polls get it right from time to time? Sure. After all, a stopped watch is right twice a day. Is there a high level of accuracy when all of these polls are averaged and outliers are weaned out, ala Nate Silver? You betcha.

But I believe it is no less than harmful to our democracy for reporters to mindlessly report the results of any given poll as an absolute fact, and then use those polls as the basis for actual hard news stories. Every poll taken has a margin of error, usually in the 4% to 5% range. Plus, you can easily twist the result you get depending on how you ask the question, or even how you qualify the sample of people you’re polling. (Are you polling likely voters or everyone? And how do you determine who a likely voter is? Are you using real people or machines to make your calls? Are you calling cell phones? Are you using bilingual surveys?)

The majority of media outlets do not weigh these variables; they simply report the results they get as fact. After all, this is math people! And that provides the valuable service of letting us unwashed masses know who is (maybe) winning and losing at that moment, which is important to know because…?

Here at R&R Partners, we have a first-class research team, led by our Vice President of Research Todd Gillins. After bouncing this blog-post off of some folks to ask them if it was too much of a rant and too light on thought-leadership, they pretty much universally replied “yes”…on both counts. But they were only really concerned about the thought-leadership part. So I cornered Todd, whose knowledge of this stuff dwarfs my own. I asked him if he could provide a little context. Todd?:

Even though many attempt to develop, conduct and analyze research, it is a specialty that not everyone is qualified to do. Maybe at first glance, most think they can ask a series of questions and then report the findings… seems simple enough. But understanding the science and art behind the numbers is not that straightforward. I would venture to say that most who may exhibit the symptoms of heart disease would not self-diagnose this serious health challenge, but rather they’d seek the expertise and advice of a qualified health professional. While definitely not as serious as heart disease, the ability to conduct surveys should be left to those who have immersed themselves in research techniques and understand the nuances and implications associated with studying a sample of the population. Journalists and the media are better suited at reporting the facts. And qualified research professionals are better suited to provide the insights that will assist the writer in developing a story. As with any industry there are those who are striving to provide the best work possible and those whose primary goal is only to increase their wealth. The old consumer cliché “buyer beware” should also be applied to those seeking to understand consumer opinions through research—find a reputable and credible research partner that has a proven history of providing solid and accurate research findings.Of course, he’s right. And as we see from what happened to the Daily Kos and subsequent stories that were based at least in part on their supposedly fraudulent polling, from time to time there is a complete abdication of journalistic responsibility. It is my humble opinion that we would all be better served if the Fourth Estate would focus on the actual issues that surround any given campaign, and not on the horserace.

R&R Partners has an office in Washington and our foundation is in government affairs work, so along with our agency’s Twitter feed (@rrpartners), we have launched a new Twitter stream specifically to talk about everything in the political realm — regardless of whether you lean left or right, bleed red or blue, or watch Fox News or MSNBC, Bill Maher or Glenn Beck – whatever your political views, follow us at @rrpartnersgov and keep up with all things politics.

We will be live tweeting from two political blogger conferences in Las Vegas over the next few days as part of our kickoff, one progressive and one conservative. We’ll also be live tweeting from a political consultant regional strategy conference in Sacramento, and obviously, we’ll have lots coming from our crew on Capitol Hill. Follow us and spread the word.

Financing remains the biggest challenge for renewable developers. The tax equity market all but dried up after the 2008 financial crisis. A lack of private capital flowing into clean energy development, coupled with an economy struggling to recover and uncertain long-term energy policy, has the ability to cripple the industry, or at the very least, stop many of the large-scale energy companies from developing. Without quick action, many in the industry fear for their survival.

ARRA funding, known in Washington as “stimulus money,” is getting ready to close out many of the renewable energy tax benefits at the end of this year. American clean energy jobs are a real stake in the current congressional debate. It’s all about jobs and who can claim the most credit in November for creating those jobs. However, fighting over how to pay for programs and finding a piece of legislation that can actually pass, has members of Congress frustrated and scratching their heads for a solution.

This could be very bad news for Nevada, commonly referred to as the Saudi Arabia of Sun. Not only could it affect solar in our state, but wind energy also is just as vulnerable. Both the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) have teamed together to lobby Congress on behalf of these vital tax breaks. R&R Partners represents the largest thermal solar company in the United States, BrightSource Energy, who has been actively engaged in the debate. Nevada is lucky to have a unified congressional delegation that works very hard on behalf of the renewable energy industry. But they alone cannot do it all.

We need to get to a place in Washington where things start working again. Partisan gridlock is literally killing us as a nation. If the recent oil spill has taught us anything, we as a country need to stop gambling with our energy future. We live in a world that is dependent on fossil fuels and we must make the necessary changes in our energy policy to include all forms of energy, especially renewable energy, into a comprehensive mix that is balanced and fair to all developers. This will play out nationally once the Senate takes up an Energy Bill, which is expected to happen between now and the August congressional recess. It’s now or never for renewable energy tax breaks, so stay tuned for a long, hot, frustrating summer in D.C. politics.

What I’ve learned is that while lithium is found in many places around the world, it is commercially viable to mine and process in very few places. Western Lithium USA is working to develop a deposit of 11 million tons lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) – the fifth largest known lithium deposit in the world. What makes it stand out from The New York Times headline-grabbing likes of Afghanistan and Bolivia is that the Nevada project is actually commercially viable.

Nevada’s lithium will power America’s plug-in vehicle batteries long before these other projects are developed, if ever. That’s good news to counter those who’re concerned that through the electrification of transportation, we are simply exchanging dependency on foreign oil for dependency on foreign lithium. It’s also good news for Nevada, where the project will create about 150 jobs. And thanks in part to the interest generated by the recent coverage of Afghanistan’s $1 trillion deposit and some quick work by Public Affairs Account Supervisor Mike Draper in our Reno office, the news about Western Lithium USA’s project is starting to spread.

Charter schools are public schools that have the freedom to try new things, from methods of teaching and instruction to the length of the school day and year. In Nevada, R&R Partners has worked with the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy charter school since its creation 10 years ago. Founded when Nevada’s charter school movement was in its relative infancy, Agassi Prep has been the poster child for the successes and challenges faced by charters. The school has also been a leader in helping to shape the state’s charter-school legislation to ensure that state laws don’t interfere with what we are all trying to accomplish – innovation and the overall improvement of all public schools.

The article refers to a study by Stanford University, which found that 37 percent of charter schools produce worse academic results than their public counterparts, and only 17 percent outperform them. In a vacuum, these results may be cause for concern. However, the author also points to the possible reason for these results: while some states have laws that make it easy to create a charter school, they fall short with respect to closing down those that shouldn’t be in business. Any charter school administrator worth his or her salt would agree that certain standards should be met in order for a school’s charter to be renewed.

It is difficult, though, if not impossible to assess the success or failure of the “charter movement” based on studies such as this one. Every charter school has its own ways of operating. Each has its own unique teachers, administrators, lesson plans, curricula and different state laws with which to comply. The very flexibility these schools are given is what makes them an incubator for other public schools – we should learn from them what works and what doesn’t, and improve all public-school education according to these lessons.

You see, I was the guy who used to be President Bush’s “producer.” I was responsible for making sure the president’s image matched the message. This mission included coordinating, among other things, a live presidential address to the nation like the one President Obama gave Tuesday from the Oval Office.

It’s a lot more complicated than it looks and an Oval address represents unique opportunities and challenges for every president. Before the address, I shared my insights into the process and the pitfalls with John Hockenberry on his nationally broadcast radio show, “The Takeaway.” Take a listen and see what you think. I hope you watched the President’s address tonight with a “producer’s eye” and will check back here to see if you saw the same things I did. I’ll be blogging my reaction and critique in this space.

Reader’s Note: Adam Belmar is VP of Communications and Marketing in R&R’s Washington D.C. office. Before joining R&R Partners Adam served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Communications Director in the George W. Bush administration. Adam was also a long-time Senior Producer at ABC News running the Washington bureau of Good Morning America and producing the network’s Sunday show THIS WEEK with George Stephanopoulos.

If you were paying attention in high school government class you might remember the teacher explaining how there are three branches of government and one of them, Congress, is made up of two houses. The idea behind this mechanism is the need for a checks-and-balances system, so that no one branch or house of Congress could impose decisions without the approval of the other. This system remains a testament to the genius of the founders of the Republic.

But recent events suggest that the system is no longer functioning the way it was intended to.

The presidency has become increasingly powerful, with Congress continuing to take a back seat. In large part, this is a result of gridlock in Congress. And within Congress itself, the Senate has become the dominant house. With its 60-vote margin necessary for passage of any bill, the Senate now dictates the outcome of most every major policy debate. The House is not able to negotiate with the Senate where the leadership is unable to guarantee passage without considerable parliamentary hurdles. As a result, the House most often simply takes the Senate position. Witness healthcare reform. And now the same scenario is likely to play out with financial reform as well.

This all sounds pretty arcane, but the practical result of this situation is a Congress that is unable to make sweeping policy changes or react to public will in all but the most dramatic circumstances. While the voting public continues to look for change and real progress on issues like spending, immigration and healthcare, Congress is unable to untangle itself to address the issues. And only when the President uses the bully pulpit to insist on action does anything occur.

Congress has ceased to be a source of policy innovation, or action on the most pressing issues. Meanwhile the presidency becomes increasingly the center of action for the federal government, far beyond the role the founders envisioned when they created the office.

Despite the outcry by the Tea Party and the liberal left for their respective change agendas, the outlook remains grim for any real change. And even if you don’t happen to agree with either of those extreme agendas, the more moderate solutions remain balled up in the partisan ideological debates on which members of Congress continue to thrive. Demagoguery has become a very effective campaign tool.

So what’s the solution? It occurs to me that part of the problem is that we’ve tinkered too much with the system trying to perfect it. The reforms of the 1970s meant to end the threat of filibuster have actually resulted in filibuster being used on every issue. The desire to curtail the power of congressional committee chairs has resulted in a policy vacuum where no leadership exists in Congress in areas such as taxation, foreign affairs and budget policy. Maybe instead of trying to fix the problem with reforms, we should let the system work the way it was intended and see what happens. What do we have to lose?

If the U.S. Supreme Court concludes that text messages sent by public employees on their work phones are considered private, the implications are as follows:

o There will be new questions about the liability of public employers for communications sent by their employees.

o Public employers could choose to disable the texting feature of their employees’ phones to prevent inappropriate messages or disclosure of company information.

o Texting outside the office by nonexempt employees could add time to their workday potentially entitling them to overtime compensation.

Private employers will be watching this decision closely as well. All employers should focus on creating, communicating and consistently following clear electronic monitoring policies. If the company believes that employees should not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, this should be clearly communicated in a formal, written policy.