Endangered species alert: 45% of RINOs vanish in a single year

Data from American Conservative Union ^ | 11/30/06 | Dangus

[dangus]

The 2006 election was tragic for conservatives who did lose several key races. But the losses were downright devestating for RINOs (Republicans In Name Only.)

The following is a list of the RINOs, who scored under 60% as graded by the American Conservative Union, and how they fared in the last election:

SENATE: Linc Chafee, RI: defeated. Olympia Snowe, ME: no contest. Sue Collins, ME: re-elected. Mike DeWine, OH: defeated.

HOUSE Christopher Shays, CT: re-elected. Mike Castle, DE: re-elected. Sherwood Boehlert, NY: defeated. Jim Leach, IA: retired. Mark Kirk, IL: re-elected. Nancy Johnson, CT: defeated. Wayne Gilchrest, MD: re-elected. Scott McInnis, CO: previously retired. Jim Ramstad, MN: re-elected. Robert Simmons, CT: defeated. Tim Johnson, IL: re-elected. Jim Gerlach, PA: re-elected. Tom Davis, VA: re-elected. Schwarz, MI: defeated in primary. Charlie Bass, NH: defeated.

It's worse than that, even. Also ousted were Jeb Bradley (ACU score: 60), Mark Foley (63), Mike Sweeney (72), and Clay Shaw (71).

This is not to say that there weren't some painful conservative losses, such as Northup, Hostettler, Sodrel, Chocola, and Taylor. But the losses to the Republican Party struck largely at the "centrist" wing. Where's the media decrying the loss of so-called centrists, like they did in 1994?

[GregH]

Out of the 6 republicans who lost their senate seats.

4 conservatives - Talent, Burns, Allen, Santorum .

1 centrist - Dewine.

1 RINO - Chaffee.

Conservatives had a major set back as far as the senate is concerned.

[Nancee]

I consider Rick Santorum our single greatest loss, and he is NO RINO!

Nancee

[Ronaldus Magnus]

So did the average score of Republicans in the House and Senate go up or down?

[Miss Marple]

I understand what you are saying, but how do we know ANYONE votes. I can only assume that if people are interested enough to express an opinion, a certain percentage must also vote. As far as my family, I KNOW they vote. There is enough discussion of polling places, types of ballots used, and comments about election officials to make me certain they vote.

Turnout is, of course, a very important part of the equation. Hoever, WHO turns out is more important. And if your educated voters don't turn out while the dim bulbs do, well then, there you have it.

[ElkGroveDan]

And if your educated voters don't turn out while the dim bulbs do, well then, there you have it.

Which was my original point exactly. By the way in most states it is public record whether or not you voted. Election strategists can purchase that data for targeting and planning.

[Miss Marple]

I understand. However, I think we are talking about two different things. You are looking at who voted according to numbers. I am looking at WHY those people vote.

What motivates someone like the hairdresser to go to the polls? What makes an educated businessman skip voting? THAT is the mystery.

Even if my hairdresser only voted 20% of the time, if she is going to vote, what are her criteria for candidates and what motivates her to the polls?

I think it a mistake that voters respond more to positive messages. Hate is a very underestimated motivator, and I think the democrats have understood that and capitalized upon it.

[ElkGroveDan]

No you and I are on the same page. Those are the $64,000 questions.

My issue is with the pundits who have this tidy 1/3-1/3-1/3 model with the same people dutifully pulling the lever each time and everything swings on these high and mighty middle voters who change their minds now and then. The non voting 50%, to them, is the same individuals each year who are totally irrelevant. It just isn't that simple.

[Miss Marple]

I agree. An weird example of this occurred in Indiana. Our governor recently got the legislature to pass Daylight Savings Time. Before this spring we did not change our clocks like the rest of the country did. Quite a few people were upset by this, and it was an issue that the democrat congressional candidates used, even though it had nothing to do with Congress.

A LOT of people went to the polls and voted against Republicans because of this issue, and this was a motivator that got people to the polls.

Yes, they were being petty and stupid, but as I said before, their votes counted just as much as those educated voters.

[Miss Marple]

I would enjoy discussing this more, but I have to get up early tomorrow. Please ping me if you see anything relevant to this topic, and I will do the same for you.

[itsahoot]

No centrists, no majority ever again.

Oxymoron, you can never have a majority with the devil as a partner.

[ElkGroveDan]

ping to #87...this is a perfect example of the "motivation" dynamic I talk about that causes huge swings in turnout. I can see people who have never voted or seldom vote getting mad about this odd issue and turning out in large numbers.

[chemicalman]

They're called moderate dems for now. They'll be jumping sides to the repubs when the repubs get the house and senate back next time.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Libertarian, not liberal. Even most of the nuttier kool-aid drinkers on the left aren't insane enough to propose abolishing the laws on either. I personally won't support any GOP candidate that is anti-WOD.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I'm not going to rehash a pointless debate on drugs in this thread, we've got thousands of them, and you can look up my comments on the subject. The only people who argue in favor of legalization from a personal liberties standpoint are selfish, irresponsible, and stupid, with no concern either for themselves, their families or friends, or their communities.

[nickcarraway]

If she is up in 2012, that would mean she was elected this year.