Chafee's done. Stick a fork in him. This ad sounds like it was put together by high school kids who are running for class president.

The momentum is building.
The people are being motivated.
All the stars and planets are aligning.
KR is grimacing.
Linc is out of his league.

When Laffey beats Chafee on September 12th the poll numbers will flip. Darrell West will be admitted to BPA (Bad Pollers Anonymous), Dole, Mellman, and Rove will wince in excruciating pain, and the taxpayers will rejoice because good government is coming whether you like it or not.

I will be at Laffey HQ when Laffey beats Chafee, cheering with everyone else who wants good government.

But I have to admit I would love to be in close proximity to Casablanca and see the look on his face when he realizes for the first time that he is in a real horse race.

J Mahn

I just saw the new ad about 10 minutes ago or so and thought that it was pretty funny, even being "negative," as I recognize nearly everyone in it. They're mostly members of the RIGOP state central committee. Don't think for a moment any of them are randomly selected "average" Rhode Islanders. Jack Kendrick did a nice job as usual. It's amazing how so many people can say
something without really saying anything at all -- definitely a Chafee trademark. If that's the best they can do, this race is already over.

I'm sure Laffey will handle this the same way he has handled himself throughout the campaign; he will talk about the issues and what he wants to do for Rhode Islanders when he gets to Washington.

The irony of this campaign is how it is exactly opposite what everybody forecast it to be: Laffey is Senatorial and Chafee is the irrational punk resorting to dirty gutter politics. Even funnier is this ad - which attempts to question Laffey's personality!? You tell me who is the scumbag in this race.

Marc: You left out the most important part:

Chafee: "I approve this message."

This is no NRSC schlock ad that embarrasses an entire party. This is an all out NEGATIVE ad by the candidate.

Greg's right. The man is toast.

Negative ads have been known to work, but sometimes they backfire big time. A lot depends on the candidate. If the candidate has a lot of baggage, perhaps. But Laffey is a fresh face to RI'ers. I am sure the average voter will be affronted by this ad. Bye bye Linc. Canada is calling for horse shoers.

Momentum is building, but it's on Chafee's end from what I'm hearing.

"Momentum is building, but it's on Chafee's end from what I'm hearing."

Good. I hope your sources keep telling each other that.

Dear Anthony,

By definition, the candidate reaching outside the party into the unaffiliated pool, especially at the level Chaffee needs help, cannot be building momentum since momentum needs to see itself in order to build. Since Chaffee cannot track his voting universe, he therefore must rely on other things besides momentum. That's what happens when you run a continually negative campaign where the leadership is out of touch with the rank and file. Trust me, I've been through a few.

Bobby,
Your comments that say "Chafee can not track his voting universe" isn't completely accurate. If you make person-to-person contact, ascertain whether the voter is for you/against you and ensure they get to the polls you can have a good idea of whether or not a candidate is in decent shape. While not everyone will give you an honest response, voting history and past margins of error sheds light on the matter.

As far as momentum, if you see a candidate picking up percentage points across voting groups when a sample is surveyed in a consistent manner, you can make a legitimate assumption that a candidate is picking up momentum.

Once again, no one has released full poll numbers and I still believe that this comes down to turnout. But it may explain why the NRSC keeps that anti-immigration ad on the air when everyone in the world is criticizing it.

The other contest is figuring out which pollster will be the most accurate. The choices are:

1. Joe Fleming
2. Jon Lerner
3. Scott Rasmussen
4. Darrell West

Votes?

The last time Chafee won this seat came on the heels of the death of his father, a man many had great respect for. However, much time has passed and Lincoln Chafee is now being viewed on his own. As if that weren't enough to do him in, this ad is the clincher -and John Chafee must be rolling in his grave right now.
Linc Chafee is a goner.

Dear Anthony,

In order to observe the data you described, you would have to do real honest of goodness canvassing in battleground neighborhoods. I live in one. No Chaffee folks so far. Maybe the "draft" will change some of that.

I have seen 3 sets of poll numbers that I think I can trust. At the end of the day, they all tell the same story: No one has any idea who is showing up and that's what matters.

I have reviewed two of the "changeover lists", Tiverton and Newport (grew up in one, live in the other), can't make heads or tails out of 85% of the info.

I have talked to close to a 100 Middle School kids. None of them have mentioned Chaffee's name which means the parents probably aren't talking about him.

My guess is the NRSC ad is designed to deflate Cranston turnout. This was the original premise in strong arming Avedesian to run for Mayor again.

As far as the closest poll goes, Rasmussen seems to have the best methodology. (Both Fleming and West have trackable internal skews.)

Bobby,

You may be a Democrat, but at least we can say of you, that you are an honest one. Excellent observations.

I agree with you that much of the Chafee campaign's and the NRSC's strategy seems aimed at exactly one thing: reducing Republican turnout in a Rhode Island Republican Primary, because Laffey is going to wipe the floor with Chafee, if they don't. I'm sure internal polling that they've done largely shows the same information as those done for Laffey -- that this race will be won or lost based on Republican participation in the party primary, because Laffey is far ahead when it comes to support from core Republican/conservative voters.

They are bringing up "core Republican" issues, and trying to make Laffey look weak on them, but making no effort to make Chafee look good. I will predict right now, that this strategy will backfire badly, because it undercuts Sen. Chafee's one and only remaining strength, that he (Chafee) is a "nice guy." Sorry, nice guys don't resort to "anything it takes to win" -- they have minimal standards.

Bobby,
I think we're both in agreement on most points, although not all. Assuming that you're a registered Democrat (which is a safe assumption, right?) you probably wouldn't have been canvassed by an organization attempting to track Republican primary voters (registered Republicans and unaffiliateds).

As for your comments on turnout, I agree. My point on posting was to show that the polls I've heard about show different results depending upon the sample.

I was responding to Joe Mahn's comment suggesting that Laffey's momentum was builidng and I pointed out that I haven't heard of any poll showing any recent gains by Laffey. I have heard of a poll that shows recent gains for Chafee. I don't have a clue as to the extent to which any polling in the race is accurate, but I'm sharing the information.

I think I was one of the first people to suggest that polling this race is difficult. I also was one of the first to suggest that that this race could be very close as expected or that we may have a lopsided, validating either Laffey's or Chafee's campaign strategy.

Be that as it may, there are still pollsters conducting polls and they are still producing projected results. Interestingly, some of those primary numbers are being produced by Red Sea on behalf of Steve Laffey, so I'm not sure that Laffey has totally dismissed the idea primary polling. If you're willing to pay thousands of dollar for it, you must believe in it somewhat, even if th rest of us don't.

Chuck: I thought I that "Chafee feels he has to directly go negative (vice via his NRSC surrogates)" was clear enough, perhaps not.

Anthony, you wrote: "I also was one of the first to suggest that that this race could be very close as expected or that we may have a lopsided, validating either Laffey's or Chafee's campaign strategy."

You've brought a lot to the table hereabouts, but I can't help but ping you on this prediction--doesn't that basically say that you predicted the race would be close....or not?!! (I'll give you the props on the polling one though).

Dear Anthony,

Where I am a registered Democrat, in the neighborhood I live in, I am a distinct monority. By the way, we're a pretty social bunch so even the guy washing his Bentley down the street would have let me know had he been canvassed.

With regards to polling, the Club for Growth has a policy requiring that either the Club or the candidate do "regular polling".

I would go one step further on your point about polling: it's impossible. Since the universe cannot be identified in meaningful way, who do you decide what a percentage point is? (It should be noted, this is also playing havoc with some Democratic Primary races at the local level.)

I think it's time to hit the old Farmer's Almanac and see what the weather is for September 12th.

Marc,
My point was to share information.

My own personal belief is that no one really knows who is winning and that even if one candidate is legitimately ahead in the GOP primary polls, the other candidate may still end up winning if their particular campaign's tactics turn out to be more effective than the others.

If I were to make a prediction, I would stick with the of Chafee winning in a tight race. But this is really more of a guess and nothing would really surprise me. That's what I'm trying to express, although I understand it may come across as "this race may be close ...or not". Maybe I should become an economist...

Anthony, you've proven time and again on these blogs that, like anyone else in the Chafee camp, you don't understand economics. So, I would forget about that vocation and get ready to fill out the papers for that new apprenticeship under Blacksmith Chafee.

On your polling comment: "I think I was one of the first people to suggest that polling this race is difficult."

Come on! Since last fall, you have always viewed any poll showing any edge to Chafee as reasonable and fair and any showing Laffey gaining or ahead as flawed. You've devoted tens of thousands of words to spinning every statistic toward Chafee's favor. Now that all indications are that Chafee will lose, you're going to say that this one's tough to poll?

The spin stops Sept 12!

Stretch:
1. You obviously haven't been reading my posts.

2. Let's get things straight on the polling issue--

Virtually every poll has shown Chafee leading the race or in a dead heat. There have only been two polls that I know of that showed Laffey with any type of advantage. The first was a CFG poll conducted by the same individual who is Laffey's paid campaign consultant. That poll showed Laffey slightly ahead, but within the margin of error, and used a heavy sampling of Republican voters. At the time that poll was released, I indicated that I thought more than about 20% of the primary electorate would be unaffilated so I suggested the thought that "Laffey is winning" may not really be accurate. I also questioned the poll because the questions weren't released. Now if you think 80% of the GOP electorate will be registered Republicans, then you could believe Laffey had a slight lead.

The second poll that I criticized was a poll that did not indicate who took it, what questions were asked or what the numbers looked like. Forgive me for being critical of the "stealth" poll, but it seemed to be designed more to generate buzz within the political media than anything else. And to that end, it was succesful for Laffey as he got some free press out of it.

Now I didn't criticize the ACCURACY of Fleming's, Rasmussen's or West's numbers because they released their entire polls. I did question the EFFICACY of polling in the primary because even if you have an accurate poll, you still have to pin-point likely voters which is difficult if this race has 50,000 or more voters.

In my most recent post, I merely stated that the most recent poll I've heard about showed Chafee improving. This can't be a shock. Look at the recent Channel 12 general election poll. Whitehouse remained stable, Chafee picked up ground against Whitehouse and Laffey lost ground to Whitehouse as compared to results in other polls. The analysis may not be able to be proven scientifically, but it does make sense logically.

Does this mean that Chafee will win? Of course not. What it says is that if Chafee has a good get out the vote effort, he SHOULD win. But I'm sure that Laffey has been able to meet alot of people while Chafee was working in Washington, so if those people come out in strength, Laffey COULD win.

3. Finally Stretch, I've read some of your posts and something makes me think I've got a better grasp of economics than you do.

Anthony, to which of my comments on the subject of Economics are you refering?

What is your rebuttal?

Anthony,
I hate to piss in your cheerios, but read this from Evans & Novak:
Rhode Island: Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey (R) now has an excellent chance of ending the career of Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) in two weeks. The Sept. 12 primary is extremely unpredictable because of the large number of independents who can vote in Republican primaries, but it is clear that Republican voters will support Laffey overwhelmingly. Laffey has effectively made his name known throughout the small state, and the expected high turnout will work to his advantage. He has bested Chafee in debate, and has kept close enough in cash-on-hand.

Unlike the Lieberman-Lamont race in neighboring Connecticut, this primary is genuinely an ideological battle, and it will bring many committed conservatives out to vote. Laffey, however, likes to downplay his conservatism and campaign on issues such as government waste and high gas prices. Leaning Laffey.

I like these quotes from Ann COulter's latest column:

"The only reason Chafee calls himself a Republican is that he believes that everyone above a certain income level is required by law to do so."

"...the only person who hasn't figured out that Lincoln Chafee is a Democrat is Lincoln Chafee. As the expression goes, if Chafee switched parties, the average IQ on both sides of the aisle would go up."

"Chafee is everything the Democrats like to claim Republicans are, which we are not and they are: silver-spoon morons who get ahead on the basis of family connections (for example, Ned the Red Lamont in Connecticut)."

"Republicans are always told we're supposed to vote for Fidel Dumbo if he has an "R" after his name so Republican nominees will be confirmed to the Supreme Court. That is true: Save terrorism, there is no more important issue than a president's Supreme Court nominees. But Bush had two Supreme Court nominees and Chafee voted against 50 percent of them, so Chafee doesn't even have that argument going for him."

Good call Greg,
Here is the article for all to read.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16796

Is this what Anthony refers to as the "momentum" for Chafee??

Jim,
Don't worry about pissing in my Cheerios.

Wow, Ann Coulter wants Laffey to win. NEWSFLASH! She shows how much she knows about RI politics when she says "the chance of any Republican winning the Rhode Island general election is slim." Ann Coulter couldn't get elected to the General Assembly in RI, so why should I be worried about her prediction?

As far as Novak, he has a history of supporting CFG-backed candidates and I'm sure he'd like to see Laffey win, too. Novak's suggestion that says high turnout works to Laffey advantage is well, laughable.

Here are a couple of other NEWSFLASHES. Rush Limbaugh wants Laffey to win. So does G. Gordon Liddy. Have they said so? I don't know, but I can assume and virtually be 100% correct.

I've got enough information to develop my own opinion. I don't need to blindly believe a couple of out-of-state talking heads who are so knowledgeable about RI that they think their plane lands in Providence when they come to RI. That's Ann Coulter. I don't recall ever hearing about Novak ever visting RI.

The reality is that only Rhode Islanders are able to vote in this election. You may not agree with Chafee, but far more Rhode Island voters support Chafee than Laffey.

Other realities:

1. Chafee can win the general election, Laffey can't.

2. Chafee is showing upward movement in the polls, Laffey is showing downward movement in the polls. Are the polls going to predict the outcome? Who knows. But don't get upset with me just because the numbers aren't showing what you'd like them to show.

It's all going to be over soon and if the GOP loses the Senate majority, yes, I'll be disappointed. If Laffey wins the primary and then loses to Whitehouse by 30+ points, than I'll just be embarrassed.

I do give Coulter and Novak credit for one thing. Unlike local media pundits, when they give an opinion, they aren't afraid of who they might offend. Which is part of the job of a political pundit. Many RI pundits would't criticize Cianci until he after he was indicted.

Anthony,
I couldn't agree with Ann more than when she says this:
"True, Rhode Island is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, and the chances of any Republican winning the general election are slim. But that's no reason for the Republican Party to debase itself by running someone dysfunctional and illiterate enough to appeal to Democrats."

Now you go ahead and keep talking. It is going to make September 12th that much sweeter.

Jim,
You sound like someone who opens champagne when your team wins a 1st round wild card game. This is about winning in November. And while I don't think you'll be celebrating in September, you better bring some beer in November, because you'll need it to cry in.

Laffey has about as much chance of becoming a US Senator as Nancy Pelosi has of becoming President.

You guys overestimate Whitehouse. His uncanny ability to insert his foot squarely in his mouth is not included in anyone's equations.

Now see, I thought you guys underestimated Chafee. I think everyone thought that he had alienated so many Republicans that Laffey would just roll over Chafee in the primary. After all, Chafee was so docile he wouldn't put up a fight anyway. And if Chafee were stupid enough to agree to debate the charismatic Laffey, it would be all over then. It hasn't exactly happened that way.

Now we're overestimating Whitehouse who has a 34 point lead over Laffey and alot more money?

Chuck, please give a couple of examples of Whitehouse's ability to insert foot in mouth. Did he write anti-gay columns? Did he call for the death of senior citizens? Seems to me like inserting foot in mouth is something that Laffey has done a good job cornering the market on.

"Did he call for the death of senior citizens?"

Way to intentionally mischaracterize his statement. You've been drinking too much Chafee Kool-Ade.

>>Novak's suggestion that says high turnout works to Laffey advantage is well, laughable.

Really? If I were a Democrat / Independent inclined to make the effort to take time from work to "cross over" and vote in a primary (though thanks to their sycophants in the General Assembly teachers won't have to take time off from work) - why would I waste my precious time doing that just to save Linc Chafee's behind when I know that I can relax that day and still vote in November for a certified ("D" after his name) liberal?

In fact, wouldn't I be more inclined to "cross over" to vote for Laffey, figuring that this might seal the deal for my certified liberal in November?

As for Laffey being unable to win against Whitehouse in a statewide, let's not forget that Whitehouse has already blown a statewide ... and Don Carcieri shows that a "rich Republican businessman" can win a statewide.

negative ads can backfire. be careful chafeeistas

Steve Laffey is no Don Carcieri.

Carcieri is likeable and a consensus-builder with a long career history in business, helping to build Cooksen into a major company.

Steve Laffey is anything but likeable and divisive personality, who made some quick coin in business and then was asked to leave his firm after it was swallowed up by a larger comapny. He spent a near-record short time in senior corporate leadership.

Could you ever imagine Don Carcieri writing and saying some of the things Steve Laffey has written and said? Even when Carcieri was in college?

Carcieri exemplies his religous values by running Catholic Charities in some of the poorest places on earth, but you'll never see him wear his religion on his sleeve.

Laffey tries to convince people of his religous values and then backs off of defending his self-proclaimed religous values when it serves him.

Carcieri exemplifies his family values by the length of his marriage and dedication to his wife. Laffey exemplifies his family values by marrying his kids' babysitter.

There is a word for it. It's called CLASS.

Carcieri has it, Laffey doesn't.

Do you consider Chafee to have class? Someone with class wouldn't have put out that last attack ad or release a number of ads that intentionally mischaracterize his opponent's statements.

Greg,
What ads mischaracterize Laffey's statements? The senior citizen thing? Laffey personlly spoke those words and that ad was specific about indicating that it was seniors who didn't support his campaign, not all seniors in general.

As for the NRSC immigration ad, yes it is a negative ad, but Chafee isn't paying for it. I suppose he could call for it to come down, but I don't equate not calling for the ad to come down as the moral equivalent of what Laffey has said and done.

Keep talking Anthony; keep it up. But first, you just may want to check out this link for the latest on the "big mo" for your boy:
http://www2.ric.edu/news/displayNews.php?id=news-305

We all know that for all the trashing of Karl Rove being done here, if Laffey wins Sept. 12, his first phone call will be to Rove begging for his expertise on slicing and dicing Whitehouse by all means necessary.

Cool site. Thank you!!!

Cool site. Thank you!!!