Good point, but a senatorial election is different than a governor's race. A Gov's race is about local issues, while a senate race is nationalized. Bush lost Rhode Island by 20+ points, so I don't think that a conservative would be a effective candidate in Rhode Island.
I'm going to stop defending Chafee, because I can't stand his politics.....except the fact that he brings one extra R to the senate.
That is the usual conclusion that is made, but I don't necessarily believe it is true regarding a federal candidate. Too often, we run candidates who are so liberal that there is little difference between them and their 'Rat opponents (and add to that, they are often not well funded), and the result is that we usually lose these areas. I think taking the opportunity to run well-funded and strong, unapologetic candidates in these races, and we might be quite surprised that they do far better than expected. One reason why Bush fared so poorly in places like RI is because he didn't much bother to campaign there (it's argued it's not worth the time and effort and money to fight over a miniscule 4 electoral votes). Unfortunately, in places in the NE, they have the added problems of an exclusionary RINO establishment-run state parties and also (as a result) rotten and withered grass-roots. Until we can sack those running the state parties and reinvigorating the grass-roots, it's going to remain a very daunting task in winning these areas.