Laffey In A Laugher?
It is a small poll with a simple script, but the results are pretty clear
By Gerry Daly Posted in 2006 | Featured Stories — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As I just posted over at Crosstabs, the Rhode Island College Bureau of Government Research and Services has just released a new survey on the Rhode Island Senate GOP primary. (Their writeup is here, and poll details are here.)
Laffey 51%, Chafee 34%. Poll conducted Aug. 28-30 among 363 likely Republican primary voters.
Two caveats. First, the sample size is small, with a MoE of 5 points. Second, "The sample was proportioned among the state’s geographic regions to reflect the likely voter contribution from each portion of the state." Predicting turnout in specific regions of the state can introduce error.
More below the fold
That said, there has been movement. The same poll was conducted in June, presumably with the same methodology, and had found Laffey with a three point lead. Clearly, Laffey has improved his standing in the race.
The poll's script was simple and straightforward. It asks to speak with a registered voter. It asks if they plan to vote in the GOP primary, the Democratic primary, or if they will not vote until November. Only those who said they would vote in the GOP primary were asked the subsequent questions. The calls were only placed to people on the voter rolls, obtained from the state government. No leading questions were asked that would influence subsequent results.
And this is not a case where unaffiliated or crossover voters are causing unpredictability. While the subsample of unaffiliated voters is so small as to make the crosstabs on them nearly completely meaningless, their impact was somewhat helpful to Chafee, or at least less harmful.
And while it is generally a good idea to cast some additional skepticism to polls with such a small sample size, the gap between the two candidates would hold even if Laffey's support was lower by the entire MoE and Chafee's higher by the same. The high margin of error means the poll is fuzzy, but even with the fuzziness, the picture is clear. Unless RIC has completely screwed the pooch on coming up with a reasonable turnout model, Laffey is poised to win the primary.
Typical additional caveats about not reading too much into any one survey apply.
[Disclosure-- I personally believe that it is not in the best interests of the GOP for Laffey to win this race.]
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Rasmussen: Kean up 5 — Comments (7) »
Laffey In A Laugher? 15 Comments (0 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Why is this primary not drawing nearly the national attention that the Lamont-Lieberman did? This is a sincere question, I really can't explain it.
-exits
The national press only pays attention to things that fit their pre-written storyline. Right now the storyline is "Bush is losing his Vietnam, and now the voters are going to make his supporters lose."
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
So when Laffey wins the drive-by-media will cover the story with the spin that:
- This is going to boost the Dem's chances of taking the Senate.
- Another sign of the right-wing nut jobs that are the Republican base.
- Chafee is such a nice guy. How could this happen?
- All of the above plus more idiocy I could never imagine.
1) Running the story would involve giving Laffey(r) free non-negitive press and talk about the issues rather than soundbites.... that violates all that is holy in the MSM.
2) They like Chaffey more than they like most actual Democrats. He gives them an opportunity to run quotes that state "Republican Senator _________ "
"Opposes the War in Iraq"
"Tax Cuts"
"disagrees with GOP"
"says Bush is wrong"
without him... they have to travel to peer past the Appalachians mountains... brrr chill.
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
They like Chaffey more than they like most actual Democrats.
I think that's exactly right. The media loves guys like Chafee, McCain, and Lieberman who occasionally make high-profile defections to the other side. They make for good stories, and anybody in the media trying to get a reputation for moderation and centrism can win easy points by praising them and dissing the straightforward partisans.
As a Democrat, I'd love it if the media covered the Laffey/Chafee race anywere near as much as it covered the Connecticut situation. We got a bunch of "Are crazy liberals taking over the Democratic Party?" spin out of that, and I'd be happy to see you guys face the same thing.
In any case, I wish you luck taking out Chafee, though for my own nefarious purposes.
With Lieberman and McCain, you can say that they both make "occassional" high profile defections from their party. McCain has a penchant for flipping his party off while he's doing it. Lieberman is much more low-profile about his dissent on most issues - although he's definitely been getting bolder.
For Chafee on the other hand, it's more "occassional" that he actually JOINS his party than votes with it.
Ann Coulter's assessment of Lincoln Chafee at HumanEvents.com is spot on.
We'd never honestly get the same coverage as you guys, because we're not talking revolution. We're not claiming to be "crashing the gate" and taking over the party.
We're not trying to put in somebody who will take the party far away from its last two men who were twice elected President.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
And with room to spare!
I think that the GOP will be a lot healthier party without the likes of senators like Lincoln Chafee. It is one thing to be a "big tent" party, but there is such a thing as a tent TOO big.
So when Lamont wins the drive-by-media will cover the story with the spin that:
- This is going to hurt the Dem's chances of taking the Senate.
- Another sign of the left-wing nut jobs that are the Democratic base.
- Lieberman is such a nice guy. How could this happen?
- All of the above plus more idiocy I could never imagine.
First post... I clicked "Reply To This," but it got stuck down at the end somehow. I guess I'm an idiot.
Everybody here knows that Lincoln Chafee is the worst Republican in the Senate, but the problem is that Laffey would get buried by Whitehouse in the general election if he wins the primary. Would we rather have a purple Chafee voting for a GOP majority leader, or a deep-blue Democrat as Senator from Rhode Island?
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
But we'll never sell it if we don't try.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
...we lost the RI seat as soon as Lincoln Chafee assumed it. The only reason he is called "moderate" is because he has an R after his name. If it were a D, he'd be widely recognized for what he is - a liberal.
And he doesn't even vote with us on the important issues. There's no use in keeping him around except to keep the majority. That said, I think the party is stronger without him - and will be better positioned in future elections if we don't have him dragging us down.
I dunno, 363 likely Republican primary voters in Rhode Island - isn't that a quorum?
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill