Why does the media spend so much time on CT primary and not RI?

[WI_DEM]

Arguably Sen. Chafee has a better chance of being defeated in the GOP primary in CT than Lieberman does in CT. A recent poll has Chafee leading in his primary by only one-point (39-38 percent)while in CT Lamont is coming on strong but polling indicates that Lieberman still has a double digit lead. Yet, according to the media, you'd think the only state where a sitting senator is in trouble in his parties primary would be CT.

Is this just more of the media bias that it's only among Democrats where there is a tough primary or is it because, unlike Chafee, Lieberman will run as an Independent if he loses--which makes it a bigger story?

[napi21]

1. Well, Lieberman WAS the Dem VP candidate 5 years ago,

and the Dems at least SEEM to be making more of a deal about being unhappy with Joe than the Pubs do with Chafee.

They're also making quite a deal about Casey/Samtorum!

Actually, I have a much stronger wish for a Santorum loss than I do with Lieberman. I'm disgusted with Joe, but I DETEST Santorum!

[NewJeffCT]

2. I think with Lieberman, it is some of both

Some of it is media bias to frame Democrats as not inclusive - like how Tweety falsely had said that anti-choice Dems were not allowed to speak at conventions.

However, the story went to another level when Traitor Joe first would not rule out running as an independent, and then still another level when Lieberman started actually gathering signatures for an independent run.

It also doesn't hurt that a lot of Lieberman money has come from the "Gold Coast" of Connecticut, where many work in the media capital of the world, New York City.

[Scribe]

3. The only bias exhibited is toward viewer's interests .. aka ratings

People are more interested in the CT Primary because of Lieberman. Recognizing what interests viewers is part of the job. Viewers know Lieberman but not Chafee.