Iraq Dominates Senate Races in Connecticut and Rhode Island

With only a few weeks left until the midterm elections, the war in Iraq is still the most dominant issue nationwide. The fact that the Bush administration has chosen to stay the course on a highly unpopular war bodes well for Democrats, who need only six seats to control the Senate. Control of the upper house for the Dems, however, won't come easy.

The Republicans have thrown their weight behind two key Senate races in New England by supporting a moderate Republican and a conservative Democrat in states that, in the past few elections cycles, have been as blue as they come. While Joe Lieberman is running as a third-party candidate after losing the primary to Ned Lamont, Lieberman's hawkish support of the war and President Bush has given him a boost from the GOP.

Meanwhile, in Rhode Island, Democratic challenger Sheldon Whitehouse currently leads in the polls over one-term incumbent Lincoln Chafee. Yet, Whitehouse is attempting to unseat the only Republican senator who voted against the war. During an era of extreme partisanship, it seems counterintuitive for the GOP to support a left-leaning Republican, much less a Democrat. Obviously, Republicans realize just how crucial an issue the war has become, and how narrow the gap is between a senate majority for the other side.

Connecticut counts

Anti-war fervor reached a fever pitch nationwide this past August when Lamont defeated Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. Turnout was double the norm for a primary, with 99 percent of precincts reporting. The story instantly became national news. Here was a three-term incumbent, who six years ago had been the Democratic hopeful for vice president, losing to a businessman whose political background was limited to serving as a selectman in Greenwich. Then, Lieberman defied his own party's wishes by running for the Senate as an independent.

What was so remarkable about the Connecticut primary, however, wasn't merely that a senior senator was unseated by a political neophyte. Rather, it was Lamont's anti-war stance that commanded national attention. Lamont, along with the slew of liberal bloggers who championed him, were sending a clear message across the country that Lieberman's unwavering support of the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act was unacceptable. A Quinnipiac Poll from early August revealed that 36 percent of voters backed Lamont simply because Lieberman supported the war; another 54 percent said the war was only one reason for choosing Lamont.

At the time of the primary, pollster John Zogby said, "This was a small state election, but the ramifications could impact races across the country this fall. One thing is clear -- the Lamont win was an important development on the road to the midterm elections this November." Immediately following the primary, however, polls indicated that Lamont, like Democratic candidates nationwide, might have more difficulty running on an anti-war platform alone.

As soon as Lieberman decided to run as a third-party candidate, a Rasmussen Poll gave him a five-point lead over Lamont. Since then, Zogby, Rasmussen and Quinnipiac have all indicated that Lieberman's lead has widened to 10 points. (In this race, Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger has been a virtual non-factor in the polls because GOP support has largely gone to Lieberman.) Why then, was there so much ado about the possibility of an anti-war challenger defeating a hawkish Democrat in the primary? According to Doug Schwartz, director of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute, "The Connecticut primary became the focal point for anti-war voters because the summer is a slow political time." While the midterm elections were not yet in full swing, opponents of the war were able to grab the national spotlight by unseating a high-profile Democrat whose views have become alarmingly conservative in recent years.