Fung, Raimondo to face off in governor’s race

Gina Raimondo claims 42 percent of vote, defeating Angel Taveras in Democratic primary

Senior Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 10, 2014

If elected in November, Rhode Island General Treasurer Gina Raimondo would become the state’s first female governor.

Following a heated summer of campaigning — during which the candidates spent a combined total of more than $10 million — Rhode Island General Treasurer Gina Raimondo beat out Providence Mayor Angel Taveras and Clay Pell for the Democratic nomination for governor. With 42 percent of the vote, Raimondo pulled out ahead of Taveras and Pell — who received 29 percent and 27 percent of the vote, respectively, with 96 percent of precincts reporting as of press time.

Cranston mayor Allan Fung won the Republican nomination over businessman and former Moderate Party leader Ken Block.

Having selected their nominees who will go head-to-head in November’s election for Rhode Island’s next governor, the parties now face the challenge of uniting to raise support for their candidates among divided factions. This year’s general election is scheduled for Nov. 4.

Incumbent Gov. Lincoln Chafee ’75 P’14 P’17 announced his decision not to run in September 2013, opening up the field to other candidates.

Up until the primary, political analysts considered the Democratic race to be close, with Taveras and Raimondo taking turns holding the lead. The latest WPRI poll in early August showed Raimondo leading Taveras by 5 percentage points and Pell by 6 percentage points, but Taveras and Raimondo alternated leading five previous polls conducted over the past year by the Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions and Fleming and Associates. The Republican primary was especially hard to predict, due to the small sample size of Republican voters in Rhode Island.

Following the primary results, Chafee issued a statement of support for Raimondo, the Democratic nominee.

R.I. Lieutenant Governor

Catherine Taylor won the Republican nomination against Kara Young, while Cumberland Mayor Daniel McKee beat out Rhode Island Secretary of State Ralph Mollis and State Rep. Frank Ferri, D-Warwick, for the Democratic nomination. In the race to determine the successor of current Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Roberts — who cannot seek re-election, having served two consecutive terms — Taylor and McKeewill be joined by Libertarian Party nominee Tony Jones and the Moderate Party’s William Gilbert.  Rhode Island’s lieutenant governor is charged with assuming gubernatorial duties if the governor is unable to do so.

To stay up-to-date, subscribe to our daily newsletter.

  1. Javenis Mydaus says:

    I like how the Democratic Party and the media, paid no mention of Todd Geroux. It might not be ballot fixing but it’s damn close.

    • Mr. Giroux was placed on the ballot in Rhode Island and received 2,264 votes at last count, over 32,000 fewer than the 3rd place finisher and over 50,000 fewer than the victor.

      The “Democratic Party and the media” failing to mention any candidate, let alone a candidate who received fewer than 2% of the vote, to a level that satisfies that candidate’s supporters is, I’m sorry, in no way ballot fixing, and in no way close to ballot fixing.

      As an aside, I note that you misspell your (presumably) favored candidate’s name. A minor quibble, but in the context of complaining about a lack of media attention for a candidate, not identifying him properly is a fairly glaring error.

      • Javenis Mydaus says:

        J. Stizzy, Good job on picking out that spelling error. You earn a great big gold star. Maybe you can add it to the vast collection in your Grammar Nazi scrap book.

        Your percentages prove the point I made. Before the primary the media failed to provide the voters with information on ALL the candidates. WPRI even failed to have Mr. GIROUX in the debate. Don’t you think it’s their duty to report on all the candidates, and not just the ones they see fit?

        • As a person of the Jewish faith, and despite the fact that “grammar Nazi” is a relatively common term, I find your use of the term “Nazi” highly offensive. Additionally, I question what pointing out a spelling error has to do with grammar, as spelling and grammar are, I am sure you are aware, two different fields. My point in noting your spelling error was that your complaint is that your favored candidate is not well known, and that as a consequence, accuracy in identifying him is unusually important

          I made no comment whatsoever on the duties of the media to either inform the electorate or provide debate platforms to all candidates. My only contention was that, granting for the purposes of argument your contention that the media should have reported on your favored candidate and included him in the debate, such a failure in no way amounts to “ballot fixing” nor was it “damn close.” I note your failure to address my criticism and your attempt to shift the terms of the debate by responding to a contention that I did not make.

          • Javenis Mydaus says:

            OMG, did I offend, let me get a tissue for you and another gold star for gratuitous use use of the race card.

            I addressed your criticism in that I further explained my original post. It in not important whether you feel fully validated or not. If you are comfortable with dishonest media and elections so be it. I however prefer not to believe what is falling on my back is rain.

          • I first note that Judaism is my religion, as I so identified it. I this fail to see how referencing it constitutes playing “the race card,” let alone “gratuitous use” of it.

            I again note that, despite your belief that you have addressed it, you have, in fact, failed to address in any way what was my only contention, that the media failing to (in your view) adequately report on your favorite candidate amounts to “ballot fixing” or comes “damn close” to it. Again, that you believe the media has a duty to report on all candidates is fine, but you claimed that a failure to do so amounts to “ballot fixing,” and you have failed to support such a contention. Explaining further your view of the inadequacy of media reporting is not support for that proposition.

            I in no way feel that my criticisms must be validated in any way. I simply feel that you have made a spurious and hyperbolic argument that I did not think should go unanswered. I leave it to observers to judge who has the better of the argument.

            Lastly, I note the disingenuousness of replying to a comment 20 days after it was posted. I leave speculation as to the reason for such an action to others.

          • Javenis Mydaus says:

            Fine then put the gold star on your religion card. The difference is duly noted and remembered for future use. However, if you don’t want to be called a grammar (or spelling) Nazi, stop being one. I find it laughable at all the ways people look for to be offended these days.

            I must say I did almost skip responding to you because it was 20 days old. I don’t live on Disqus, and only saw your response yesterday. After I stopped laughing at your choice to be offended by such a thread bare connection I decided to give to give feedback. Whether it’s disingenuous or not is a non-sequiter, but I suppose we can add that to your list of logical fallacies.

          • I reiterate that my only reason for referencing your misspelling of your favored candidate’s name was to comment that when critiquing the media for giving a candidate less attention than others, one may want to be extra careful to correctly identify him.

            I continue to note your failure to provide any support for your initial contention that the media failing to report on a candidate to that candidate’s supporters’ satisfaction constitutes “ballot fixing” or something “damn close” to it.

Comments are closed. If you have corrections to submit, you can email The Herald at