These polling numbers reiterate what I think has been a theme of this race: a struggle between ideological lockstep or a "big tent" GOP. Admittedly, Lincoln Chafee is no Rick Santorum, but then again, Rhode Island is no Pennsylvania. For no other reason than the vital importance of holding onto the Senate this fall, I feel it's crucial for Rhode Island Republicans to support Chafee in the primary. He may have only a slim chance of winning, but Laffey has no chance.

Where is Fred Sanford? I need him to make sense of all this for me. He is so smart for a junk man.

I'm a lifelong Democrat voting in the Republican primary for Steve Laffey. The polls clearly show Laffey has no chance of beating Sheldon Whitehouse. Therefore, if Laffey wins, Sheldon will cruise to victory. I urge other Democrats to do the same.

I'm a lifelong Democrat voting in the Republican primary for Steve Laffey. The polls clearly show Laffey has no chance of beating Sheldon Whitehouse. Therefore, if Laffey wins, Sheldon will cruise to victory. I urge other Democrats to do the same.

I'm no Fred Sanford, but I do know West polls are notoriously inaccurate. The trend in all other polls I've see show Laffey surpassing Chafee and gaining on Whitehouse.

Darrell West does a poor and lazy job of collecting a reflective statistical sampling (either that or he just likes to stack it his way).

By the time he crushes Chafee, Laffey will have been around the state twice or more and have connected with a huge percentage of the RI voters more than once. Despite what the nay-sayers want us to believe, the more people that meet Laffey, the greater are his chances of victory in November. I'll bet Laffey surpasses Whitehouse by September and debates will give him a comfortable margin of victory.

Silver lining: Maybe West's poll will convince Chafee to stay in the Republican primary!

As a Laffey supporter, I'd rather have Chafee run as an independent instead, since (i) Laffey won't have to spend as much money between now and the primary, and (ii) Laffey has a better chance of winning a 3-man race against Chafee and Whitehouse than a head-to-head race against Whitehouse.

Well, I guess we're well on our way to losing the Senate seat....what a legacy for Mr. Laffey

What difference does it make? With Chafee we have a tax and spend liberal. With Whitehouse, we'd have a tax and spend liberal. Same tune, different singer. I don't see how we could really be all that disappointed if Whitehouse got elected. It certainly won't change our representation in Washington one iota.

Greg --

You're kidding, right?

You want Committee Chairmen named Biden, Kennedy and Kerry?

You want all of President Bush's judicial nominees to be dead on arrival at Senate Judiciary?

Think that would be a change in Washington?

Not one I would support!!!

Chafee has a chance to hold this seat; Laffey has NO CHANCE.

Anthony put it very well . . ."what a legacy for Laffey . . ."

Greg --

You're kidding, right?

You want Committee Chairmen named Biden, Kennedy and Kerry?

You want all of President Bush's judicial nominees to be dead on arrival at Senate Judiciary?

Think that would be a change in Washington?

Not one I would support!!!

Chafee has a chance to hold this seat; Laffey has NO CHANCE.

Anthony put it very well . . ."what a legacy for Laffey . . ."

Brassband -

I'm willing to take the chance. The "lesser of two evils" rationale has gotten stale, and I'm really sick of being threatened by "if you don't vote for liberal Republicans you're gonna have to deal with Chairman Kennedy."

Well, we had to deal with them back in the 1980's, with Ronald Reagan as President. The Republic survived.

Guess what? Back then the Republicans in Congress adhered to Republican principles.

The GOP needs to be purged of "moderates" like Chafee, as the Democrats have purged their party of "moderates." Chafee et als. are killing the Republican party, which has to walk on tippy-toes to avoid alienating the "moderates" lest the Republicans lose their majority.

Better a minority of real Republicans - such as what we had in the Reagan years - than the mish-mash we have now that are essentially "Democrat Lite."

I'll take the great honor of the legacy of someone who stood up for what he truly believes in any day over a bunch of whoosies who are too affraid to fight for a better future in America. Keeping Chafee is a ZERO gain for Rhode Islanders and its a complete loss for Republicans. He's too liberal to be trusted with a committee chairmanship, he only recently started to vote with the party on a few meaninless issues because he's in a Primary fight. If he were a real Republican, he'd vote like a Republican and be ready to fight Whitehouse on the issues. If he were a Republican leader, he'd be able to stand strong for Republican ideals. He'd be able to persuade other Senators to his point of view, instead of being the odd man out all the time. Instead he cowars, ducking the fists of NARAL, the RNC, the Sierra Club, and his opponents.

This poll means nothing at this point in time simply because the two purebreds do not have it in themselves to work as hard as Laffey will; they don't come close in terms of intellect and imagination and their smugness will do them both in, in the long run.

I'm going to do something I rarely ever do, which is to quote myself from a prior post, because I don't know how to elaborate upon it further.

"I'm not sure you quite grasp the lack of a dilemma that most real Republicans are facing in regard to this race. Chafee IS Whitehouse. They walk alike, they dress alike, they act alike, and think alike. If we lose Chafee, we are not losing much at all. Their mindsets, their beliefs about virtually every major issue out there are nearly identical. Right now, it's nothing beyond party label.

Secondly, the Senate is in most probability, not going to be won or lost on a single vote. Frankly, even if it was, we have no guarantee whatsoever that Chafee would even stay with the GOP in that case. He has floated around the idea of switching to the majority party in the past if the GOP lost power, so that's a non-starter.

You're better off voting for the candidate which you think is best in a particular race, and let the dice fall where they may in regards to national political calculus. I'm not worried about which party controls the Senate, because I'm of the belief that we [Republicans] will continue to control it, if we deserve to control it -- not throw our party's principles out the door to do it."

This is a win-win. Of course, I expect Laffey to win. However, if it didn't happen, it'd still be a "great legacy" to finally rid the RI Republican Party of the strangle-hold of the liberal "Republican" elite that have run it into oblivion as a viable entity, and then begin anew. Great wars are often won, regardless of the outcome of minor battles that precede them. This is a battle worth fighting. As my friend Tom might say, "This is the front line in the battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party."

I'm with this guy.

http://www.cafepress.com/rhodeisland2006

"I'm NOT with Stupid". Love that.

Will makes a good point.

Sometimes you need to take a stand and I believe that time is now. The Nationla GOP doesn't think a Steve Laffey can win in this state and I'm not entirely convinced myself. They do need to keep Chafee's seat in Republican hands as their hold on the Senate is tenuous at best. But, we shouldn't allow their primary concern - keeping someone with an R in the Senate seat - obscure our own, which is the revitalization of the Republican party in Rhode Island based upon sound conservative ideals. Laffey isn't necessarily the emodiment of GOP-montra, but he's certainly better on many issues relevant to us and Rhode Island at-large than is Chafee. And regardless of whether he defeats Chafee or Whitehouse, the GOP needs a culture change, an injection of new life, in order to make itself relevant in this most liberal of states.

If we want the status quo, vote for Chafee. If we want to be bullied around and taken for nothing by liberals, vote for Chafee. But, if we desire the ability and efficacy to chart our own course we need to start making the necessary steps to build a new foundation. I believe one of those steps is supporting candidates who embrace the conservative ideal.

Stretch -

What trend have you seen in other polls that show Laffey gaining on Whitehouse? He has consistently been losing ground to Whitehouse in the polls that I have seen. For example, the Rasmussen poll from May 4th had Sheldon up 51%-32% on Laffey. Now, we have the Brown poll that puts Laffey down 55%-25%. I'm fairly certain that going from down 21 points to 30 points down isn't gaining, but I'm sure the Laffey supporters on this site will be able to explain that away to themselves somehow.

Laffey can't win a general election. I don't care how hard he works or how many trips he makes in the Rhody Reformer at 5 am, the people of Rhode Island will simply not elect him to the US Senate.

Saying that reelecting Chafee is necessary in order to prevent a Chairman Biden and a Chairman Kerry is asinine. There is perhaps a 1% chance that the Democrats will be able to win enough seats outside Rhode Island to capture the Senate---they need to pick up *5 NET SEATS* outside Rhode Island, meaning that they have to win *all* of the following Senate races: MN, MI, OH, WV, PA, NJ, MD, MT, WA, MO, NE and TN. And if the Democrats manage to win all 12 of those races, and the Rhode Island election decided whether the GOP would still control the Senate, you're dreaming if you think that Lincoln Chafee could be trusted not to switch to the Democrats at such point. Chafee has said again and again that he would consider switching if it meant giving the Democrats control, and he would do so in a heartbeat in return for a chairmanship. And as I've written before, having Chafee with an R next to his name actually hurts the GOP in the Senate, since it means that every committee and subcommittee on which Chafee sits is evenly split among Democrats and Republicans instead of having the 2-seat GOP advantage to whoch the party is entitled. See http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-to-do-about-insufferable-senator.html

Saying that a Laffey primary win is good because it will ensure a Whitehouse general election win and "purge" the GOP is ridiculous. If every so-called RINO was purged-Chafee, Specter, Snowe, Collins, McCain, etc.-the GOP would be doomed to the minority.

We've been fortunate. The Democrats have long excluded their "DINOs" which has led to GOP majorities. I find it sadly ironic that some on the Republican side would seek to follow the Democrats' losing approach to politics.

Tom W.,
What Reagan years are you re-calling? The GOP Senate is far more conservative now than it was during the Reagan years when Bob Dole was majority leader. Be careful of revisionist history.

"The Democrats have long excluded their "DINOs" which has led to GOP majorities."

Not sure I agree, Anthony. The Dems didn't take out their DINOs in primaries (although what's happening in Connecticut right now is the mirror image of R.I.). The newer GOP senators either took them down in November elections, or claimed open seats with guys like Hollings, Graham, Breaux, etc., opting to leave office.

Anthony –

>> If every so-called RINO was purged-Chafee, Specter, Snowe, Collins, McCain, etc.-the GOP would be doomed to the minority.

As it is, Republican principles of individual freedom, limited government (and, hence, limited taxation) are doomed to minority status … thanks to the RINOs.

>> What Reagan years are you re-calling? The GOP Senate is far more conservative now than it was during the Reagan years when Bob Dole was majority leader. Be careful of revisionist history.

No, if the GOP Senate really was far more conservative now it would not be spending like drunken sailors at the “Earmark Bar” and, having learned from the errors of the last big immigration reform, would not be proposing an even larger amnesty program, one that even includes a two-year forgiveness of income taxes due (where can I, as an American citizen, get that deal)?

Rhody,
I was referring to Democrat moves such as nominating John Kerry over guys like John Edwards or Joe Lieberman. Choosing leaders like Howard Dean over people like Evan Bayh. Alienating moderate southern Democrat senators and representatives who changed affiliation and became Republican. Making abortion a litmus test and ostracizing pro-life Democrats. All in the name of purging "DINO's". I hate to see Republicans do the same thing.

"MN, MI, OH, WV, PA, NJ, MD, MT, WA, MO, NE and TN"

I fully expect the D's to hold all thei Senate seats this time out. I expect the R's will hold Tennesee. They are behind in Missouri, Pennsylvania, Montana and Minnesota. Ohio and RI are even. We are looking at a Senate probably either 50-50 or 51-49 either way.
Furthermore, what reason does anyone have to vote for Laugh-ey. He has broken every promise he made, is all out in favor of illegals, has raised taxes again and again and again; hasn't cut spending a dime and sent city property illegally down to Guatamala to court the third world vote! Now he is pro-abortion after looking at the polls. He is a con man and an opprotunist and we in Cranston tell you that here-
NOBODY'S LAFFEYNG NOW!

Mike,

1. If f I’m not going to vote for someone who raised taxes while Mayor, my only choice is Sheldon Whitehouse. Is that your position?

2. What does it mean to be “all in favor of illegals”? Does Senator Chafee’s vote with regards to Social Security and illegal immigrants make the Senator “all in favor of illegals”?

3. You’ve also managed to hit the daily double of being dishonest and incoherent in the same phrase. Even if your statement regarding abortion were true, you would be arguing “don’t vote for the candidate I oppose, because his position is the same as the candidate I favor”.

You know that Laffey is in trouble when the line from Laffey supporters is "vote for Laffey, because it's better to have Whitehouse in office than a RINO like Chafee".

Oh and it looks like Chafee is running as a Republican...can someone let Will and Fred Sandford know that?

Andrew:
1. If f I’m not going to vote for someone who raised taxes while Mayor, my only choice is Sheldon Whitehouse. Is that your position?

2. What does it mean to be “all in favor of illegals”? Does Senator Chafee’s vote with regards to Social Security and illegal immigrants make the Senator “all in favor of illegals”?

Chafee is a useless sleaze. At least he votes his conscience. Laughey is a ruthless back-stabbing sleaze who, most importantly, has NO CHANCE TO WIN. That is why the administation and the RNC are 100% against Laughey.