Chaffee with 10 pt lead in recent poll

[zorkpolitics]

In a good news bad news poll, Chafee leads his likely Democratic rival Sheldon Whitehouse by 10pts (good news for Chafee).   But 27% of the voters are still undecided and only 41% support him (bad news for Chafee).

see: http://www.projo.com/news/politicalscene/projo_20050509_polsc9.22daeac.html

Looks like RI will be a likely hold for Republicans, leaving PA as the most at risk Republican seat in 2006.

[Keystone Phil]

One less thing we have to worry about.

Note - I am not concerned about Chafee. Even though he is a RINO, the seat is still officially Republican.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This far out it's best to ignore leads, especially in Congressional races. 41% is not good. Not good at all.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hopefully almost all of the other 59% vote against him.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I can't see the link without some sort of registration...did they poll the primaries?

[zorkpolitics]

I can't see the link without some sort of registration...did they poll the primaries?

The poll was from April 25-28, of 402 likely general-election voters.

[Defarge]

I don't know about Chaffee.  Having a moderate in the Republican Senatorial Caucus is not neccessarily a bad thing.  Is he voting for the nuclear option?

[Erc]

I don't know about Chaffee.  Having a moderate in the Republican Senatorial Caucus is not neccessarily a bad thing.

It's better to have (from your perspective) a Democrat than a Republican...but it's also better to have a Republican who wasn't seriously challenged rather than a Republican who's pissed off at the Democrats for trying to knock him off.

Which is probably why we aren't going after Ben Nelson in Nebraska. 

[ian]

from dailykos.com

RI-Sen: Chafee leads both potential foes
by kos
Mon May 9th, 2005 at 16:39:30 PDT
Fresh off the glorious victories by women groups who pushed Rep. Langevin out of the Senate race in RI, we find that the incumbent Republican isn't looking so bad anymore.

Channel 12 (RI). 4/25-28. MoE 5%.

Chafee (R) 44
Brown (D) 27

Chafee (R) 41
Whitehouse (D) 31
Granted, those aren't exactly stellar numbers for Chafee. But compare to these numbers, from the DSCC:

Chafee (R) 32
Langevin (D) 52
Or these numbers from Brown University:

Chafee (R) 27
Langevin 41
We've gone from a slam-dunk ouster of a Republican in the most Democratic state in the union, to a tough battle to unseat an incumbent senator.

It shouldn't have been this way.

[TheresNoMoney]

This race is far from a lock for Chafee.

[Alcon]

Folks, this is a small sample poll two years before the election.

A 10 point lead can mean anything from a 10 point loss to a 30 point win, really.

[TheresNoMoney]

Whitehouse has very little name recognition. To be only 10 points down on a poll with 5% MOE is not bad.

As he starts campaigning, I expect this to tighten up and be a very close race.

[Alcon]

Whitehouse has very little name recognition. To be only 10 points down on a poll with 5% MOE is not bad.

As he starts campaigning, I expect this to tighten up and be a very close race.

Well, being down 10 points in a 5% MoE poll is only bad if you assume that they aren't actually 15 points behind. But, true, I believe he has a good chance if he currently has neame recognition problems. Does the poll measure his name recognition?

Honestly, I don't want to see Chaffee go. He's one of the few Republicans left in the Senate that isn't pandering to the religious right more than I'd like.

[Moooooo]

Im waiting to see how Chaffee handles the nuclear option.  If he votes in favor of the nuclear option his political career is over, IMO.

[TheresNoMoney]

Im waiting to see how Chaffee handles the nuclear option.  If he votes in favor of the nuclear option his political career is over, IMO.

I believe he's already gone on record opposing the nuclear option. But he has also stated that he will vote to confirm John Bolton.

I agree that Chafee is one of the few non-wingnuts in the Republican Senate, but he usually votes with the Republicans when they need him to. We definitely need to get a Democrat in there to replace him.

[ian]

Honestly, I don't want to see Chaffee go. He's one of the few Republicans left in the Senate that isn't pandering to the religious right more than I'd like.

I feel the same as you do about this.

[TheresNoMoney]

Why would you not want to see him go?

Every seat helps give them the majority and the right to push their extremist views and corporate-pandering legislation on the country.

[A18]

Chafee's no neolibertarian, but he's one of the few non-wingnut liberals in the Senate, and he's smart enough to be part of the party with actual ideas and some economic sense.

[TheresNoMoney]

he's smart enough to be part of the party with actual ideas and some economic sense.

$5 trillion deficit is economic sense? 59% increase in health insurance costs is economic sense? Inflation rising faster than wages is economic sense? Stagflation is economic sense? 15% increase in poverty is economic sense? A stock market that is still down since the President took office in January of 2001 is economic sense?

You've got to be kidding me. You're a joke, kid.

[TheresNoMoney]

he's smart enough to be part of the party with actual ideas and some economic sense.

$5 trillion deficit is economic sense? 59% increase in health insurance costs is economic sense? Inflation rising faster than wages is economic sense? Stagflation is economic sense? 15% increase in poverty is economic sense? A stock market that is still down since the President took office in January of 2001 is economic sense? The highest inflation-adjusted spending of any administration since LBJ is economic sense?

You've got to be kidding me. You're a joke, kid.

[A18]

There is no $5 trillion deficit, and it is absolutely hilarious that you think that. The rest of those things have absolutely nothing to do with our economic policies, which are nothing more than free markets and respect for property rights against economic injustice. These, of course, tend to be far more successful than yours.

As long as you're talking about falling stock prices, you might as well tell the whole story:
NASDAQ Mar-2000 (all-time high): 5,132.52
NASDAQ Jan-2001 (Clinton leaves office): 2,770.42

NASDAQ lost half its value during Clinton's last 9 months in office.

Now, if you wish to continue with this childish delusion that the government is the sole factor in economic development, and ignore the mess Bush inherited from the Clinton administration, and a potentially economically crippling 9/11, feel free to do so, but don't expect anyone with a brain to take you seriously.

[TheresNoMoney]

These, of course, tend to be far more successful than yours.

Bold lie. The stock market has historically done better under Democratic presidents, wages have grown faster under Democratic presidents,  and GDP has grown faster under Democratic presidents.

The economy is a big pile of sh*t under your President, and won't get any better as long as Republicans run this country.

[True Democrat]

Why would you not want to see him go?

Every seat helps give them the majority and the right to push their extremist views and corporate-pandering legislation on the country.

Some people, like me, believe it's wrong to vote for someone just because you want a party to control the Senate.  I think a person should vote for the candidate because they agree of like the candidate, not the party.  For example, I support Specter in 2004, even though Hoeffel was closer to my views.  I simply believed Specter had been a good enough senator to warrant reelection.

[Jake]

Interesting how varied opinions on Specter are. Course, this is the biggest reason he won, Democrats replacing right wing Republicans who voted Clymer.

[TheresNoMoney]

Some people, like me, believe it's wrong to vote for someone just because you want a party to control the Senate. 

Maybe that would be true if the country was in good shape, but it's not.

I would vote Democrat because the Republicans are destroying the country and every time you vote Republican you help further their agenda.