The Lieberman-Lamont showdown was characterized, far and wide, as the political showdown of the year. It was an “inquisition” from the far-left against an incumbent who “occasionally” broke party ranks. The party establishment rallied behind the senator, but the party’s base — portrayed as “radicals” in the media — embraced the challenger. After Lamont’s victory, the most common phrase bandied about was “ideological purge” — rank-and-file Democrats had the nerve to vote for a candidate who was more in line with their beliefs and values.
But if Connecticut’s primary was a “fight for the soul of the Democratic Party,” why is it the Rhode Island Senate primary is barely a blip on the political radar?
For a while, I assumed it was because the race wasn’t particularly competitive. Sen. Linc [tag]Chafee[/tag] (R), with establishment support and a flush bank account, appeared to be well on his way to beating primary rival Stephen [tag]Laffey[/tag] (R). That’s no longer an applicable excuse.
If the September 12 primary were held today, 51 percent say they will vote for Steve Laffey, 34 percent support Senator Chafee, and 15 percent are undecided. A BGRS survey of Republican voters conducted in June had Laffey at 39 percent and Chafee at 36 percent. Chafee’s base is virtually unchanged since the June survey, while the number of Laffey supporters has grown 12 percentage points.
Lieberman drew the ire of the left; Chafee draws the ire of the right. Lamont had MoveOn.org; Laffey has the Club for Growth. The Dems’ establishment rallied to help Lieberman; the GOP establishment is rallying to help Chafee.
There is, in other words, no reason for one race to be the center of the political world’s attention and the other to be largely ignored. Well, actually, there may be one.
For whatever reason, the media seems really interested in what the blogs are up to — and while far-right bloggers routinely express their disgust for Chafee’s often-liberal voting record, their work on Laffey’s behalf is practically nothing compared to the work progressive bloggers did for Lamont. It was the “netroots” that made Connecticut different.
But the flipside of this argument is that the Rhode Island race, unlike Connecticut, may actually have an effect on whether Dems take back the Senate in 2006. As long as Lieberman stays committed to caucusing with the Dems (which, I’ll grant you, is hardly a lock), we’re looking at a seat that will stay in the “blue” column when the new Congress begins work in January.
In Rhode Island, however, the seat is very much up for grabs. If Laffey wins, the race goes from “leaning Dem,” to “likely Dem” immediately. This makes the primary race nationally significant.
And yet, there are no columns in the major dailies about the Republicans’ desire for ideological purity. There are no magazine covers devoted to the GOP’s purge. There are no DNC talking points mocking the “Laffey wing of the Republican Party.”
If I didn’t know better, I’d say there was some kind of double standard at play….