With 67% of precincts reporting, Chafee is leading Laffee, 53-47%.

See here: http://wpri.conversent.net/election.html

Laffee would have to win nearly 60% of the remaining vote to win. Looks like Chafee lives to fight another day.

78% in and Chafee ahead by 8. I'm calling this for the old RINO.

I know people keep saying we "need" Chaffee since well he'll vote for us controlling the Senate. If it's close what is to prevent this guy from pulling a Jeffords?

I can understand playing politics and trying to be practical but I couldn't help but sense some bloggers pulling for Chaffee were thinking those of us who opposed him were somehow "disloyal" and foolish, etc. What is foolish about fighting in a primary to get across someone who more strongly represents your views (the weird Laffey Bush remark of the last days of the campaign notwithstanding).

I'm not going to speak ill of our GOP candidate, but I guess I wonder about the "principled" stand everyone took against us opposing him - exactly what principles with this guy were we upholding? What in the GOP does he exactly represent?

Look at it this way. Chafee knows that the NRSC saved his rump (can we say "rump" on here?) and I imagine that money came with a quid pro quo attached, i.e., the GOP saves Chafee as long as he doesn't pull a Jeffords. This means that Chafee is good for one thing and one thing only: to vote to organize the Senate under a Republican majority leader, without which we lose control over every single Senate committee.

If both Laffey and Chafee were running even with the Democrat, then sure, go with Laffey, more power to him. But Laffey was running 30 pts behind and Chafee was polling even. It was the choice between throwing a seat away or maintaining a fighting chance at it. Unlike the Democrats, we don't let the inmates run the asylum. They let the Nutroots throw away CT; we didn't do the same for RI.

Dave,

I take your point, I know that is the argument for him. But at a certain point it seems we create a self-fufilling prophecy. The party rallies around the repugnant incumbent - and then look the challenger has no support. If I was a Laffey supporter in RI and could vote - I'm stuck with knowing the NRSC is going to abandon him if he wins.

And just out of curiosity where did you fall on Pat Toomey?

I think Dave makes the point. Hey, I'd rather have anyone else, too - but the reality of it is, when you go to McDonald's, filet mignon isn't going to be on the menu. This is Rhode-freakin'-Island, and it's Chaffee or a worse Democrat.

Jeffords never had to depend on the national party the way Chaffee has, so he didn't have the psychological obligation Linc carries. He's a Republican by birth, too - even though he didn't vote for GWB, he didn't vote for Kerry either, he wrote in GHWB, who was still eligible.

I don't mind a liberal guy from a liberal state. What bugs me is liberal guys like Baucus and Dorgan and Bill Nelson from more conservative states.

BTW ~ I would have supported Toomey. He would have had a chance in the general election, although he would have been starting from a much weaker position than Specter.

Laffey has no chance at all.

Obviously the rodents flooded the Republican primary to support their own liberal stooge. Surprise, surprise, and what a shame. Now RI has 2 Democrats for the general. Might as well vote for the real one in November, since at least he has the courage to identify himself as one.

Well, if we throw out the RINOs . . . we hold 55 Senate seats. I count Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, Specter, and Voinovich as RINOs, with DeWine, Graham, and Warner as borderline.

If we get rid of the five sure ones, and one of the other three, that equals a Democratic majority. Would that be better or worse than what we have now?

Otto von Bismarck said, "Politics is the art of the possible." Your choice isn't between the worst and the best of all possible worlds; it is only between the two in front of you.

I hope he loses the general election.

But that's only because I don't buy into the theory that it is better to have a majority.

The majority is critical in the Senate. Committee chairmen are very powerful, and the Majority Leader sets the agenda for votes.

As an example, with Democrats in the majority, you can guarantee that no conservative judicial nominee will be seated in the last two years of Bush's term. Not for the Supreme Court, or for the Circuit Courts of Appeal. They might let a few through as District Judges - or, they might not.

As carl Cameron pointed out last night, there are less than 60,000 Republicans living in Rhode Island. That means liberals are going to win no matter what party they are in. He also reported that Laffey isn't really conservative either. I guess he just looks like it standing next to all the other liberals up there.

I can understand the sentiment to get rid of Chaffe, but I don't want to do it if it means the National Security of this country is harmed. And believe me, that is EXACTLY what will happen if the GOP lost this seat and the majority in the Senate.

Do we really want people like Patrick Leahy or Joe Biden running comittees in the Senate? That's a scary thought.

I understand the points everyone is making - I don't really have a dog in this fight. Ask me on different days and I'd go back and forth "Laffey or Chafee". Guess I just hate we do these things for these annoying RINOs and they never seem as grateful as I feel they should. Always seem to diss the majority on key votes with this smug sense of "aren't I an independent thinker". Maybe I'm wrong with Chaffee - I'm just remembering our dear friend from PA who had Spector/Kerry signs up ::rolling eyes::

Well, if we throw out the RINOs . . . we hold 55 Senate seats. I count Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, Specter, and Voinovich as RINOs, with DeWine, Graham, and Warner as borderline.

If we get rid of the five sure ones, and one of the other three, that equals a Democratic majority. Would that be better or worse than what we have now?
--------------------------------------
Not sure that is the option. What if we got rid of one (Chafee) and put fear into the others to not go TOO far to the left (as Chafee did) - thus diminishing their RINO actions.

It DID work with Specter by the way - who worked very hard for both Alito and Roberts, if you compare him to the days of Bork.

With the exception of Maine - those other Senators on your list hail from states where a GOP Senator would still have an excellent shot at winning, even if not the incumbent - Lindsey Graham and others will be a real pain if they do not fear the primary process.

And I share the concern of Dems running the committees. Let me ask you this though, Chafee's loss alone does not lose the Senate (as I said, the stuff above is a false choice)

So given a GOP majority - how do you feel about Chafee heading up the committee on Foreign Affairs, given the state of our world today - as opposed to a real Republican - for he is next in line for that position.

By the way - it is foolish to call some of those Senators (Voinovich, Warner etc.) RINOs. Look at their voting records. Especially the lifetime records.

The REASON you did of course, is (like me) they have infuriated you on a couple key votes LATELY - with their desire to play the 'maverick'

A Chafee defeat would have lessened that risk for the future.

For what it's worth, there is at least one high-profile primary (though in the house) which went the opposite way. By voting for Randy Graf in Arizona, they have selected the more conservative candidate at the risk of losing in the general election.

I lived in Cochise County up until about two months ago, and the feeling among my cohorts was that Kolbe was a RINO (with Huffman as his RINO successor), and we supported Graf for the same kinds of reasons that I have heard regarding Laffey.

The key difference is that I see Graf as having a reasonable chance of victory, where I didn't see that as applying to Laffey.