« Opinion Roundup: Who Gets Credit, Rahm Or Netroots? | Home | Exit Polls: Americans Strongly Favor Withdrawal From Iraq »
RI-SEN: Lincoln Chafee Lost Re-Election — Despite 63% Approval Rating!
Lincoln Chafee may be the most popular Senator ever to not win re-election, exit polls suggest. The exits showed that despite the fact that voters elected Dem Sheldon Whitehouse to replace Chafee, some 63% of those same Rhode Island voters actually approved of Chafee's performance in office. So how did he manage to lose? The exits also show that 63% of voters wanted Democrats to control the Senate. Bottom line: Senator-elect Whitehouse's argument — that a vote for Chafee was a vote to keep the GOP in control of the Senate — worked.
Advertisement
Of course he was. Rhode Island Democrats voted to ensure a new Democratic control of the Senate. Sorry Linc. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
November 10, 2006 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. So this suggests that people will vote strategically when necessary. That certainly is a refreshing thought.
Pity Lamont didn't use that tactic as well.
I have heard that it is a first that the Republicans didn't pick up a single seat, is there any truth to that? It would be interesting to see a list of "firsts" out of this election.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
November 10, 2006 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps a new motto for RI...
The Little State that thinks Big
At least we like to think so!
November 10, 2006 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure that I am a huge of fan of 'strategic' voting. Don't get me wrong, I like this result but have qualms with the general idea. It opens the door to electing some real snakes to public office (not saying Whitehouse is one). It was this particular mindset that gave us the 'electable' John Kerry over the true leader - Howard Dean. Kerry like many other Senate Democrats put his finger up to the prevailing winds and voted to authorize the war in Iraq. I would be less inclined to believe this had he not voted against the first gulf war! I digress. My point is that strategic voting can sometimes cost us the leader the country truly needs (even though it isn't apparent to the electorate at the time). That didn't happen in Rhode Island, but it did cost the Senate one of the few people with the political courage to vote against going to war.
November 10, 2006 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chaffee had a chance of joining Connecticut for Lieberman party, but he declined.
Remember that Lieberman actually kind of promised that he will re-join Democratic Caucus, and he will. And CT Republicans joyfully voted for him! Chaffee could do the same, even without joining Lieberman ticket (although they could rename it, collect several more senators from both parties, Rhino and Dino party? Inordinate Party -- for both -inos --- media would love them, and voters in several states could like them).
November 10, 2006 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Dems hold on in GA-12 the Republicans will be shut out. That is the only seat currently in doubt that belonged to a Dem this election.
November 10, 2006 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't feel bad for him at all. He went into this with eyes open.
Chafee had a chance to jump parties or die and he chose to die.
(Politically speaking)
November 10, 2006 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with MNpundit that Chaffee could have jumped parties and didn't. Maybe he felt some loyalty to his father the late John Chaffee who held that same Senate seat for many years.
New England Republicans have always been closer to Democrats than the right wing Republican rabble that has controlled Congress. NE Republicans have been a distinguished group but are probably a dying breed in this politically charged era.
November 10, 2006 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with pacc. As well liked as Chaffee was, and as many times as he voted 'reasonably' on issues of importance to Democrats, at the end of the day, he still had an 'R' after his name on the roster, and that's what counted when Senate majority was determined. Majority controls the committee system, it controls the committee chairs.... it controls the agenda. If we had majority, we would not have been looking at Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court for the next generation, and also the faceless clack of right wing jurists put on the lower Federal Courts by Bush.
November 10, 2006 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
+
I agree, Navin. We need to be careful about strategic voting. I have to confess that I was a Kerry supporter in the primaries leading up to 2004 for just the reason you describe. I now regret it, but it's a lesson learned. There are still things I like about Kerry, but he disappointed me in several ways, during the campaign and after.
Having said that, I'm not sure that voting out Chafee was the same kind of "strategic" voting. It's more like voting on principle, in my view.
I grew up an independent. But after 1994, and then with the ridiculous abuse of the Constitution during impeachment in 1998, I became "polarized". I'm not so much a Democrat as an Anti-Republican. I won't vote for a Republican at any level of government for a good long time -- perhaps for the rest of my life.
And my rationale? Given what the Republicans in power now stand for, anyone who is willing to associate themselves with that party can't be trusted, period.
And that's pretty much the same thing as saying that I don't support any Republican precisely because he/she supports the party leadership. To me, that's not so much strategic as it is basic.
Different people have different thresholds. I came to realize that neocon Republicans were truly evil in 1998. I think a lot of others just figured that out in 2006.
-- ARG
November 11, 2006 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do find it startling that his positives were so high and he still lost. Voters wanted change...they liked him, it wasn't personal. He is young enough that I think we might hear from him again before his career is finally over. Let's see...no way he is gonna beat Jack Reed...there is a popular (R) governor in RI so that is out...hey, how 'bout throwing his hat in the ring for the '08 GOP presidential nomination. That might be a crowded field though with all the recently unemployed repug politicos. ;-)
November 11, 2006 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Dean did go on record of authorizing the president to go to war.
It was only a few weeks after the resolution was passed that he completely flip-flopped and used the issue as a cudgel against his Democratic rivals. Some observers suspect that he looked at the polls, saw that the primary voters weren't too happy about how the vote went down, and grabbed only an issue that would give life to his campaign that wasn't going anywhere.
Do a web search on "Howard Dean" "Biden Lugar," and you'll see loads of stuff on this. This is well documented and has been repeated many times.
November 12, 2006 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chafee is a very very good man.
As someone who would have liked to see Dem take control of the Senate, Linc Chafee wasn't someone I would have liked to see taken to the altar.
He is a good man. An exceptional good man who I can say proudly was someone who put his conscience over ideology.
When 1/3rd of F'ing Democracts voted for the US-Iraq invasion on behalf of the pro-Israeli neocons and their powerful lobbies (AIPAC, ZOA, CPMJO, Heritage Foundation), Linc Chafee as a REPUBLICAN STOOD UP to Bush to oppose it.
Now there is a man of principle who unlike ideological Dems went against war. I BET ANYTHING if history repeats itself with the pro-Israeli, pro-war, big-business lobby wanting to attack Iran, Sheldon Whitehouse and 1/5th of Dems would pray Amen to that.
November 12, 2006 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you. What you are advocating is similar to what Mark Twain did with his "anti-doughnut" party.
That would be a solution, as indeed it would have been then, but I think the problem we faced in this go-round was that of a lack of checks and balance, and it needed to be corrected in the worst way.
Some strategic voting was indeed in order, and I don't think the electorate need limit itself to one or the other.
<>We are the last and ultimate check on the balance of power.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
November 12, 2006 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't see any comment by pacc, could someone quote it for me?
Thanks.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
November 12, 2006 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim Barrow did win GA-12, didn't he? Do you know if the shutout is historic?
Thanks.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
November 12, 2006 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is what was said...
Of course he was. Rhode Island Democrats voted to ensure a new Democratic control of the Senate. Sorry Linc. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
November 12, 2006 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
?
So why can't I, or workerbee, see that original post? This is frustrating. Seems to be happening to me on a handful of threads. In most cases, I can see everything. But on several threads, it's clear that a number of posts are invisible to me for some reason.
-- ARG
November 12, 2006 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink