Posted on 08/31/2006 11:46:13 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee may lose his seat to challenger Steve Laffey, according to a new statewide Republican primary voter poll released today by the Bureau of Government Research and Services at Rhode Island College.
The survey was conducted August 28-30, 2006, at Rhode Island College by Victor L. Profughi, director of the Bureau of Government Research and Services. It is based on a statewide random sample of 363 likely Republican primary voters in Rhode Island. The sample was proportioned among the state’s geographic regions to reflect the likely voter contribution from each portion of the state. Overall, the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.1 percentage points.
If the September 12 primary were held today, 51 percent say they will vote for Steve Laffey, 34 percent support Senator Chafee, and 15 percent are undecided. A BGRS survey of Republican voters conducted in June had Laffey at 39 percent and Chafee at 36 percent. Chafee’s base is virtually unchanged since the June survey, while the number of Laffey supporters has grown 12 percentage points.
In the current poll, Laffey buries Chafee among male voters by nearly a 2 to 1 margin, 58 percent to 32 percent, with only 9 percent undecided. This gap has widened from 10 percent in June to 26 percent today. Among women, Chafee’s support has remained stagnant, while Laffey’s has increased. In June, 37 percent favored Chafee, compared with the current 36 percent. Laffey’s support among women has gone up from 35 percent in June to 45 percent.
Regionally, Laffey leads Chafee in Newport County (58 percent to 25 percent), in the Providence Suburbs (56 percent to 33 percent), Blackstone Valley (49 percent to 32 percent), Washington County (48 percent to 39 percent), and Western Rhode Island (42 percent to 37). Chafee is ahead only in the city of Providence (53 percent to 40 percent) and the East Bay (40 percent to 36 percent). Among unaffiliated voters, Chafee’s support has slipped from 49 percent in June to 43 percent now, while Laffey’s strength has gone up 10 percentage points (31 percent to 41 percent).
“Since early summer, Senator Chafee has been unable to expand his base of support from roughly one third of the likely Republican primary voters. The Lieberman phenomenon, where a partisan base closes ranks around the ‘true partisan’ candidate, seems to be at work in Rhode Island, as it was on the Democratic side in Connecticut. Laffey’s efforts to link Chafee with the extremely unpopular President Bush also appear to be paying off,” said Profughi.
Respondents polled were also asked who they would vote for in the Republican Primary race for Lieutenant Governor between Reginald Centracchio and Kerry King. Nearly half of those surveyed are either undecided or will not vote on this race (51 percent). Among voters, Centracchio has a 2 to 1 lead over King (31 percent to 18 percent).
The survey was conducted at a centralized telephone bank on the RIC campus on Monday, August 28 through Wednesday, August 30, between 5:00 and 9:00 p. m. The sample of 363 voters consisted of persons who identified themselves as likely Republican primary voters. Those interviewed were randomly chosen from most recent updated voting lists provided by the Office of the Secretary of State and were limited to registered Republicans and unaffiliated voters who said they planned to vote in the Republican primary.
The sample was controlled to reflect likely voter contribution by geographic region. Survey design, implementation, and administration were supervised by Profughi, who has nearly 40 years of experience conducting public opinion surveys in Rhode Island. He and members of his supervisory and computer analysis team have conducted more than 1,000 surveys in the state since 1970.
Overall, the current poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
No, sadly we're not. We're moving in the opposite direction. One reason is that our people, with rare exceptions, are either amateurs, or pros who have lost the ability to think and talk like ordinary, righteously angry citizens in our base. Frankly, our guys and gals are outmatched by the liberal politicians, on both counts.
You persist in thinking that RINOs are our own. They are not. They are liberals in Republican clothing. Their world view is not the same as ours. They don't vote for our values. RINOs are often just Dems who couldn't find an open ballot position.
Doesn't matter who wins the primary, the seat is gone.
"You persist in thinking that RINOs are our own. They are not. They are liberals in Republican clothing. Their world view is not the same as ours. They don't vote for our values. RINOs are often just Dems who couldn't find an open ballot position."
I wouldn't be surprised to see Chaffee decide to switch to the Dem Party (where he belongs) after his defeat, and try later to run for the Senate again. Now, isn't there at least one more RINO up for re-election that needs to be crushed in the primary?
Just because Democrat Senate candidates can win in Republican states does not mean that the GOP does not have a huge natural advantage. If Senate seats were apportioned by population (so California would get 53 and Wyoming 1) and all Senate seats were elected statewide (as they are in the actual Senate), then neither party would have a natural advantage, since Republicans and Democrats are fairly evenly divided in the Electoral College, especially after subtracting 2 EVs from each state. However, since each state elects 2 Senators, and there are a lot more states where Bush won by over 10% (22 of them) than states where Kerry won by over 10% (7 of them), yes, there is a huge natural advantage for the GOP in Senate races. There just happen to be a lot more small states that vote heavily Republican than small states that vote heavily Democrat---16 states with fewer than ten electoral votes gave Bush a 10%+ margin in 2004, while only 3 states with less than ten EVs gave Kerry a 10%+ margin---and thus the equal representation in the Senate helps the GOP.
...way to go!
From this good news article, you picked out the propaganda portion and you held it up for ridicule.
I understand. We're really playing a word game here. Whatever the size of the natural advantage, it doesn't matter much unless it produces something. Right now, there are 55 Republican senators, several of whom are more like Democrats. And even if all 55 were good Republicans, the difference between 55 and 60 is huge in the Senate. If states voted for senator the same as they vote for president, we would have 60 by now. And we don't, and there is no prospect of it. Would we be much worse off in the Senate if it were proportioned by population? Probably. But that doesn't mean we have a large advantage in practice under the current system. Whether we have a large one theoretically is an interesting topic, but not one with much political significance that I can see. Rats are pretty good at fooling red-state voters, though our people have wised up a bit.
"Would we be much worse off in the Senate if it were proportioned by population? Probably. But that doesn't mean we have a large advantage in practice under the current system. Whether we have a large one theoretically is an interesting topic, but not one with much political significance that I can see. Rats are pretty good at fooling red-state voters, though our people have wised up a bit."
I like Stephen Laffey, he's been a great Mayor. Too bad he's polling so poorly in the general election.
In my opinion, it's open season on RINOs. Bag 'em whenever you can.
There is a big problem with this picture. There are several states which should have 2 GOP senators but have either one or none. Unfortunately, they're nearly all small states. The pool of viable Senate challengers, when an incumbent is running, is small in any state. In a very small state like the Dakotas and Montana, it's tiny. It may be only one person. There is a pattern in recent years of the best possible Republican -- perhaps the only viable Republican -- challenger chickening out.
Partly, this is a problem of state size. But it's also a problem in Republican psychology. My feeling is that Republicans in states distant from Washington don't have much taste for Washington. They don't expect to make much of a difference there with Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy exercising almost complete veto power in the Senate, and they don't like the idea of being in such an alien city, largely run by politically alien people -- bureaucrats and liberal interest groups. Conservatives also don't have the same enjoyment of politics. They don't enjoy it for its own sake as much as the Rats. They are more inhibited by personal friendships (such as the "we're all friends" attitude typical among small-state officeholders, which people like Reid and Tim Johnson exploit very effectively).
They are more devoted to family, and Republican families often aren't very supportive of political careers. I could go on, but you get the point. We're talking about a small number of people in a small number of states. It doesn't appear to be a very impressive pool. Marc Racicot, John Hoeven, Mike Johanns and Jim Gibbons (MT, ND, NE and NV) are just a few of the potentially powerhouse candidates in small red states who have refused to take the plunge. Some of our incumbent senators in these states, like Mark Andrews, Larry Pressler, and Jim Abdnor (ND, SD and SD) have managed to lose races they should have won in recent decades. Conrad Burns is at least an even bet to lose his seat this year. Not a pretty picture. I agree that it could change. But it will need to, and I don't see it yet.
We are up against all these problems. Many of them exist throughout the U.S. I've often thought that it's amazing that we win as many elections as we do.
In order to cut through our disadvantages, we need people who have a keen sense that we are fighting a civil war in this country -- which we are. Who are willing to make big sacrifices, take risks (even of personal destruction) in order to help substantially in that war. Unfortunately, not many of us measure up to the standards bequeathed by the Founding Fathers, who put their necks in a noose by signing the Declaration of Independence.
I don't see a way out of our dilemma. This vast country may not have the human material anymore that's necessary to stay free.
Judging by the spending, lack of common sense on immigration, and Mr. Stevens' blockage of the bill authorizing a searchable database of government spending programs......I don't really see where a Democratic Senate would be much different than what we have now.
Go ahead and let Ginsberg retire, and just don't nominate anyone to fill the position or have a filibuster, thus diluting the liberals even worse on the SC!
The Senate needs a housecleaning worse than my work shop.
What is dangerous to our country are Republicans who act like Democrats. It is time to clean the RINO house and let the chips fall where they may.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.