Outside of Hartford, her efforts have paid off. She's popular in lots of small towns where she makes a point to visit often. And even though she's a Democrat, she comes off on the conservative side and appeals to some Republicans and independents - something that could serve her well in a general election.
"I like her very much, I would vote for her personally," says Paul Coutu, a radio-host in North East corner of the state, adding that he does not make endorsements. "Support in this area is pretty good...people do not speak badly of her." Noting that she is less popular in Hartford, he added, "[Murphy] has the insiders' endorsements but I'm not sure why. I'm not an insider."
...
"It was a rough election season for her last year, she just pivoted multiple times on what she was running for," said state senator Beth Bye, who endorsed Murphy and stresses how impressive Murphy is as a candidate. "It was really hard for me not being with the woman candidate. I think we really need more women."
QUESTION: Do you think what Thomas has done is as serious as what forced [disgraced former Supreme Court Justice Abe] Fortas off the bench?
MURPHY: I think our problem is we don't know the full extent of Justice Thomas' connections to [leading GOP donor] Harlan Crow, or, frankly, to a further network of right-wing funders. What he's done is incredibly serious. I think, at the very least, his actions should disqualify him from sitting on any cases in which Crow-affiliated organizations are parties to or have attempted to influence [the Court]. But this is starting to rise to the level where there should start to be some real investigations as to whether Clarence Thomas can continue to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court.
Apologies if this has been already mentioned here.
The Supreme Court possesses the incredible power to interpret or even strike down laws they deem inconsistent with the Constitution. America trusts them with this power because justices must come to each case without a personal or financial stake in the outcome. Recent revelations about Justice Thomas accepting tens of thousands of dollars' worth of gifts from individuals and organizations who often have an interest in matters before the courts calls into question the Court's impartiality. Canon 4D of the Code of Conduct incorporates regulations providing that "[a] judicial officer or employee shall not accept a gift from anyone who is seeking official action from or doing business with the court." Yet Justice Thomas received a gift valued at $15,000 from an organization that had a brief pending before his Court at the very moment they gave him the gift. Incidents such as these undermine the integrity of the entire judiciary, and they should not be allowed to continue.
The Supreme Court Transparency and Disclosure Act was introduced to shine a light on these issues. First, it would apply the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct, which applies to all other federal judges, to Supreme Court Justices. Currently, the justices only look to this standard as "guidance". Second, the bill would require Supreme Court justices to publicly disclose their reasoning behind a recusal when they withdraw from a case and when they refuse to recuse themselves after a motion is made for them to do so. Lastly, it would require the Judicial Conference to develop a process to review decisions by justices who have refused to step aside from a case.
As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants". It is time that we apply that same ideal to the Supreme Court. Again, we urge you to schedule a hearing on HR 862, to help restore the public's faith in our judicial system and to guarantee the integrity of our country's highest court.
Connecticut Democratic Senate nominations have been the preserve of white men since 1976. Establishment Democrats like U.S. Representatives Larson, Courtney, DeLauro, and Himes want one of their own and do nothing to encourage a rigorous race for the nomination with their early endorsement.
Kevin, as John McEnroe would say: "You CANNOT BE SERIOUS!"
Let's look at the Republican Senators from CT. Whaddya know? A bunch of white guys! Not a woman among them or person of color among them. I bet you anything that if Linda McMahon hadn't been backed by her 50 million white men named George,she wouldn't have been the GOP candidate in 2010 either. What do you think?
Shall we look at the State Delegations for a hint at GOP diversity?
Let's have a look at CT's Senate Republicans. OMG! what a diverse bunch of white men! Oh, sorry, forget Toni Boucher. White men and woman.
During the taping of an interview for this week's "Face the State with Dennis House," I asked the 5 term independent if he thinks he could win re-election. The answer: "yes," while admitting it will be a difficult race.
Lieberman told me if he does run, it will likely be as an independent, although he said some of his Democratic colleagues in the senate have been encouraging him to run as a Democrat. He also told me he is open to endorsing President Obama for re-election.
SNIP
Flip-flopper Lieberman now says he'll run for re-election as an Independent. Did the Ghosts of Winter Solstice Past, Present and Future show him the folly of running for the CT Democratic nomination?
If Lieberman can find a source of campaign funds, he'll most likely run for re-election. Yes, he's got corporate contacts, but they may be reading the polls better than he and they would not want to invest in a sure loser.
Lieberman said he had a brief conversation with the new chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) earlier Wednesday.
"She said, 'I want to sit down and talk with you soon,' " Lieberman said. "We just had that exchange earlier today."
With control of the upper chamber on the line in 2012, Lieberman's reelection plans are the subject of intense speculation. He caucuses with Democrats, but there have been reports the GOP would be interested in having Lieberman run under its banner.
Should the four-term senator opt to seek another term as an independent, he'll have to regain his spot on the ballot. That would mean the creation of another party banner to officially run under - not an overwhelming task, given the state's ballot-access laws. (Lieberman ran under the Connecticut for Lieberman party in 2006.)
SNIP
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) told a Connecticut newspaper that he's weighing a Lieberman challenge and will make a decision at the end of the lame-duck session.
SNIP
I think Sen. Patty Murray should visit Connecticut before making a deal with Lieberman.
What party name will Lieberman devise should he run for re-election? A Lieberman Party? And will the CT for Lieberman party cross endorse the Democratic nominee?
Lamont Says Lieberman Beatable, but Won't Challenge him in '12 In the past quarter century only four people have won Democratic senate primaries in Connecticut: Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman, Dick Blumenthal and Ned Lamont. Despite his inclusion in this elite club, it is highly unlikely Lamont will run for the senate in 2012.
During a taping of "Face the State with Dennis House," Lamont told me he has been "through the meat grinder" a couple of times, and wants someone else to run, calling the Democratic party bench, "impressive." It is an unlikely scenario, but I asked Lamont if no one else were to run, and the party encouraged him to jump in, what would he say? "I don't think so," Lamont told me. He also believes Senator Joe Lieberman is beatable.
SNIP
And Himes also told Dennis House that he would not challenge Lieberman in 2012....
The New York Times' intrepid boy reporter saw his dream of becoming the next Woodward-Bernstein evaporate with Richard Blumenthal's decisive victory over Hernandez's patron, sex and violence purveyor Linda McMahon.
Sorry Ray. It turns out (surprise, surprise) that a handful of verbal slips in the course of a distinguished 20-year career of service to the people of Connecticut does not equal Watergate.
I guess your campaign has been looking at the poll crosstabs and realized that you have a problem with women. A BIG problem. Women don't approve of you. And they could lose you this $50 million dollar bet you've placed.
So you've just come out with this really sweet ad featuring your daughter, Stephanie:
Aw. It's that so...heartwarming. Really. I'm sure you and Stephanie have a wonderful mother daughter relationship and you are a fantastic grandmother. Mazel Tov to you and Vince on your lovely family.
But seriously Linda - you must not understand women, or you must think we're stupid. Very, very, very stupid. And I'll tell you something that all your high priced political consultants have neglected to tell you, and what's more, I'm going to give you this info for FREE! Yes, you don't have to give me any money, because I know you're getting close to your budget of $50 million, and being a budget conscious woman myself I'm sure you don't want to go over your limit.
So here's my insight, free of charge. Women don't like people who treat us like we're stupid.
'Cause here's the thing. I'm a mom myself, Linda.I have a 14 year-old daughter, who has been one of the lights of my life since the day she was born. And one of the most important things I try to do for my daughter is to be a good role model of a strong, independent woman, and to protect her and fight so that she doesn't ever have to suffer from sexual abuse or sexual harassment, so that she gets equal pay for doing the same job as a man.
One thing I would NEVER do with my daughter Linda, is to put her in a wrestling ring with a guy rubbing his ass in her face or ripping her shirt off for my profit, even if it is only "scripted entertainment".
And while I appreciate that the WWE has tried to clean up its act in recent years (did you know you were thinking of running for Senate?) your past record is a vile stream of misogynistic content including simulated necrophilia and rape.
While you call this "scripted entertainment", I say that creating a culture like this has consequences. Real consequences that affect women in the real world. Women like me. Women like my daughter. Women like my neighbors and their daughters, and my friends and their daughters. Maybe you should read my recent column about the events that took place recently at Yale
And here's the other thing, Linda. You say you want to cut taxes, balance the budget and cut spending. You're very detailed about cutting taxes, but don't want to talk about where you're going to cut spending until after the election. We're not stupid. We know exactly where you're going to cut. From the programs that matter to us most. The reason you don't want to articulate this before the election is because you're afraid we won't vote for you.
Apparently the McMahon campaign isn't spending enough on ads in the New York Times. Consider this evidence from, of all people, Ray Hernandez:
Every time Dolores Meehan turns on her television, there she is: Linda E. McMahon, attacking her opponent, in yet another political advertisement.
"She's bothering people," said Ms. Meehan, a retired telephone company worker from Norwalk. "There are about 10 to 12 ads in an hour. If you're watching a show, it's too much."
Liz Costas, 51, owner of Katie's Gourmet in downtown Stamford, is also tired of the relentlessness of Ms. McMahon's campaign.
"She's got a billboard the size of my car right outside my house," Ms. Costas said.
With Election Day about three weeks away, Ms. McMahon, the Republican nominee for Connecticut's open Senate seat and a former World Wrestling Entertainment executive, faces this major obstacle in her quest for the seat: Many female voters are turned off by her campaign.
It must have been hard for Hernandez to write such a negative piece, but he did get to sip white wine with the well-heeled in Darien, where he recorded this:
Suzanne Griffin, 60, manager of the Helen Ainson boutique, which was hosting the reception, said Ms. McMahon's attacks on Mr. Blumenthal had been needlessly personal and caustic.
"I would've been much happier with McMahon," she said, "if she had just told me about herself as a woman."
A cargo cult is a religious practice that has appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures. The cults focus on obtaining the material wealth (the "cargo") of the advanced culture through magic and religious rituals and practices. Cult members believe that the wealth was intended for them by their deities and ancestors. Cargo cults developed primarily in remote parts of New Guinea and other Melanesian and Micronesian societies in the southwest Pacific Ocean, beginning with the first significant arrivals of Westerners in the 19th century. Similar behaviors have, however, also appeared elsewhere in the world.
Cargo cult activity in the Pacific region increased significantly during and immediately after World War II, when the residents of these regions observed the Japanese and American combatants bringing in large amounts of material. When the war ended, the military bases closed and the flow of goods and materials ceased. In an attempt to attract further deliveries of goods, followers of the cults engaged in ritualistic practices such as building crude imitation landing strips, aircraft and radio equipment, and mimicking the behaviour that they had observed of the military personnel operating them.
For Ray Hernandez and company the cargo they seek is the glory that was "Watergate," the portmanteau term for the epic achievement of investigative reporting that brought down Richard Nixon and that made reporters Woodward and Bernstein movie stars, Pulitzer winners, fabulously wealthy, and no doubt got them laid a lot.
Unfortunately, Ray Hernandez does not possess the advanced technology Woodward and Bernstein used to get their big scoop (i.e. time, hard work, a budget, sound editorial guidance, and a commitment to getting the story right).
So, the primitive tribespeople who now staff the Times and many other newsrooms try to recreate the glory days by constructing crude bamboo replicas of investigative journalism.
And when fabulously wealthy entities like the McMahon campaign show them a shiny object, they leap with joy and wonderment and slap it on the front page.
Linda McMahon is everywhere... but will she be there for you?
She took $10 million from the state to create jobs, but fired ten percent of her workers.
Her business is under investigation for failing to pay Social Security, Medicare or unemployment.
She took home $46 million... and now she's talking about lowering the minimum wage. Linda McMahon - profits before people.
Or at least the people who run his campaign and made this killer ad did. This might might be the best thing that's come from the rather lackluster Blumenthal campaign so far.
Connecticut Senate: A Slow, Steady Move to Toss Up The contest between Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon has been gradually closing over the past few months, and is now in single digits, according to some polls.
A Quinnipiac University poll (September 8-12 of 875 likely voters) gave Blumenthal a six-point lead over McMahon, 51 percent to 45 percent...
Democrats countered the release of the Quinnipiac numbers with a survey conducted by Hamilton Campaigns for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee at the same time the Quinnipiac poll was in the field (September 8-12 of 800 likely voters). This poll gave Blumenthal a 15-point lead over McMahon, 54 percent to 39 percent. Blumenthal's job ratings were 70 percent to 27 percent, and his favorable/unfavorable ratings were 61 percent to 34 percent, which were higher than President Obama's 55-percent to 43 percent ratings. McMahon had a favorable rating of 48 percent and an unfavorable rating of 46 percent. Democratic strategists further argue that they've seen no erosion in Blumenthal's job approval or favorable ratings over the course of the last few months.
We don't doubt the Hamilton Campaigns' numbers; it is a respected firm with a solid track record. At the same time, though, we are aware of Republican polling that has the race in the high single digits, though neither the McMahon campaign, nor the National Republican Senatorial Committee has released a survey. And, when all the polling taken in the race is considered, it is clear that McMahon has made slow but steady and consistent progress against Blumenthal. According to the Pollster.com trend line, McMahon now trails the Attorney General by seven points, 43 percent to 51 percent, in all general election ballots tests conducted in the race.
SNIP
Much of McMahon's progress can be attributed to her constant presence on the air with television ads that have been running for months across the state, including in the expensive New York media market. Not only will she remain on the air for the next seven weeks, but the campaign's buys are likely to increase. Blumenthal has run ads intermittently, though they've been more consistent over the past couple of weeks. The ads generally focus on his accomplishments, particularly when they impact average voters, and work to portray him as a fighter for Connecticut who is not afraid to take on big business. He has yet to take on McMahon, but that will undoubtedly change soon. President Obama is headlining a fundraiser for Blumenthal in the Nutmeg State today, which may signal the start of Blumenthal's attacks on the Republican.
Democrats believe that McMahon's saturation media effort and the pile of glossy brochures that have landed in voters' mailboxes will backfire as she suffers from overexposure. They also argue that the normally staid voters of Connecticut will ultimately decide that they can't support a candidate with roots in a colorful industry like wrestling. They say that ultimately voters' concerns about McMahon's record will trump any concerns they have about President Obama's agenda. This, too, might be true to a degree. The larger point, though, is that with seven weeks left to go, McMahon has made this a race and Democrats' best efforts to stall her candidacy have not worked. This, of course, could certainly change as they start airing negative ads against her, but for now McMahon is in the hunt, handing Democrats a race in an expensive blue state that they weren't expecting.
SNIP
It will be interesting to see what happens when and after Obama stumps for Blumenthal.
By analyzing polling from firms that have released both registered voter and likely voter results, we have found a gap between the two of about 4 points, on average, favoring the Republican. Therefore, a registered voter poll that shows an 8-point lead for the Republican is in fact treated by our model as showing the equivalent of a 12-point lead.
Now, let's look again at those two polls in Connecticut. Quinnipiac's August poll gave Mr. Blumenthal a 10-point lead among registered voters; their poll this morning gave him a 6-point lead among likely voters. In other words, we see a 4-point shift in the Republican candidate's favor - exactly what we should have expected based our previous analysis of likely voter polls.
But the shift reflects the change in methodology: it provides no evidence that the race is tightening.
But I failed to make an important distinction: This morning's survey included likely voters, while past Q polls included registered voters. They are, according to Q poll Director Doug Schwartz, apples and oranges.
...
In other words, comparisons to previous polls of registered voters are pointless.
Had she said, apples and Buicks, I would have put it on a t-shirt...
Quinnipiac released a new Senate poll this morning, showing Blumenthal leading McMahon 51-46 among likely voters (the first time a likely voter model has been employed for this race) and the press reaction has been interesting:
CTCapitolReport has a screaming headline that, "MCMAHON CUTS IT TO 6," the CTPost writes that, "Republican Linda McMahon has virtually erased a once-daunting lead held by Democrat Richard Blumenthal, closing to within 6 points in their U.S. Senate race," and the Courant/Fox61 (no link) text alert I got this morning declares, "Q-Poll shows Blumenthal's lead over McMahon shrinking." Even the CTMirror, which has displayed in the past that they actually get it, writes that the race "continues to tighten."
UPDATE: Capitol Watch wades in, "Republican Linda McMahon continues to slice into Democrat Richard Blumenthal's once overwhelming lead in the U.S. Senate race." CW then doubles down, "McMahon has been steadily chipping away at Blumenthal's popularity for months. In the March 17 Q poll, he trounced her by a 2-1 margin; in May, immediately after the controversy over his Vietnam war misstatements, Blumenthal still led by 27 percentage points. By August, McMahon was within 10 and now she has cut his lead to 6." Sigh.
UPDATE: CTNewsJunkie shows how easy it is to report on something like this accurately:
The first Quinnipiac University poll of the general election shows Democrat Richard Blumenthal leading Republican Linda McMahon by six points amongst likely voters in the race for the U.S. Senate.
A Quinnipiac University poll in August showed Blumenthal leading McMahon by 10 points, but Poll Director Doug Schwartz cautioned about comparing the two polls since today's includes likely voters and previous polls screened for registered voters.
See guys? Not that hard!
So does the race continue to tighten? I don't know! But I do know that this poll, despite the media reports to the contrary, doesn't continue to show anything (if this starts to sound familiar, it should).
As Doug Schwartz makes pretty clear in the memo that goes along with this poll, "This is the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe- ack) University's first general election likely voter survey in Connecticut in this election cycle and can not be compared to earlier surveys of registered voters." (emphasis mine)
Just to clarify, I'm not making an argument either way on whether this race is tightening or not tightening. Just that this poll, the first of its kind to switch from a Registered Voter model to a Likely Voter model (hat tip to CTBob for the link), doesn't actually show what the media is trying to say that it shows.
What is interesting about the poll, and that I haven't seen reported yet, is the insight it gives into what Quinnipiac expects the likely voter model to look like.
Connecticut Bob is reporting on what appears to be a well-orchestrated campaign to pack the Blumenthal-McMahon debate with Tea Party whackos.
And he's right on the money here:
What isn't acceptable is that the State Democratic Party allowed this debate to be held by a notoriously right-wing news channel, when there are so many much more fair news outlets who could have sponsored it. The very fact that Fox allowed people to grab up to four tickets each (I don't recall ever being allowed more than two tickets for a debate) probably indicates that they knew they only had to have about a dozen people on line at each location to have all the tickets go to Linda McMahon supporters.
WTF is wrong with State Central? Hasn't the time come, at long last, for new leadership?
Ted Mann at The Day caught state Sen. Len Fasano in this curiously bungled hand-off. Hopefully it's a harbinger of things to come for the McMahon campaign. Upped to YouTube for posterity.
"So let me tell you I am honored, truly I really mean honored to introduce the Republican candidate for the United States Senate, and the next U.S. Senator for the great state of New York, Linda McMahon."
The latest Q Poll is out. It reveals (surprise, surprise) that Linda McSteroids millions have bought her a few percentage points in the poll.
But Q Poll honcho Doug Schwartz, PhD (Piled Higher & Deeper) thinks he sees Blumenpocalypse on the horizon.
Still, Schwartz does us a service with this tidbit:
Looking at McMahon and Simmons, Republican voters say:
* 41 - 33 percent that McMahon has the best character and personality to be a U.S. Senator;
* 39 - 33 percent that Simmons is most qualified to be a Senator;
* 42 - 27 percent that they most agree with McMahon on key issues;
* 45 - 25 percent that they most agree with McMahon's positions on the economy and jobs;
* 54 - 25 percent that McMahon is best able to win the general election.
Yikes! There's a flesh-eating bacteria loose on Connecticut's body politic!
And Schwartz, who seems to be lobbying for a future with the WWF, throws in a touch of humor:
"The McMahon-Blumenthal Senate race in Connecticut could be a real smackdown, as the Republican has the money and momentum, cutting into Blumenthal's lead month to month," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, PhD.
Now if only he could only get Linda to campaign in a spandex body suit, she'd have this thing won.
Oh, and if you'd like to contribute to the Blumenthal campaign . . .
Rick Green called Simmons and comes away thinking the zombie campaign is awakening from the dead. Over at HuffPo, Jason Linkins notes:
Simmons's decision to run silent, of course, is a pretty inexpensive way of running against McMahon, thus neutralizing her greatest strength. It doesn't hurt that he's actually gained ground in the polls since he suspended his campaign. If the tactic puts him at a disadvantage, it's that the suspension doesn't help Simmons combat the fact that voters don't know enough about him.
At the same time, Simmons can't be sweating that wide advantage he enjoys in unfavorablility ratings.
McMahon's been keeping a peep over her shoulder ever since Simmons went dark and has long been concerned that he's been running a "stealth campaign" against her. Events of the past 48 hours aren't likely to do much to alleviate these fears.
After Simmons lost to McMahon at the convention he knew it was over. The Republicans turned to a rookie candidate with deep pockets.
A Republican source says Rob Simmons told his staff Monday he will end his campaign for U.S. Senate at a press conference today in New London.
On Monday night, Simmons called a press conference for 9 a.m. in New London to make an "announcement on the future of the campaign for U.S. Senate," immediately prompting speculation he was dropping out [...]
[A] source who declined to be identified said that Simmons' staff was told the campaign was ending, bowing to the difficulties of fighting the best-financed candidate in Connecticut history: McMahon, a co-founder of World Wrestling Entertainment who is seeking office for the first time.
McMahon, who had contributed $16 million to her campaign by May 1, is on pace to break all campaign spending records in the state by the Fourth of July. She says she has budgeted $50 million of her personal fortune in an effort to become the first Connecticut Republican to win a Senate race since Lowell P. Weicker Jr. in 1982.
UPDATE: The Richard Blumenthal campaign issued the following statement regarding GOP senate nominee Linda McSteriods:
The people of Connecticut face a clear, stark choice between Dick Blumenthal, who will continue standing up for them against powerful interests on issues that matter, like their jobs and health care, and Linda McMahon's self interest that's gained her multi-million dollar profits peddling steroid-fueled violence to our kids, exploiting her workers, and obstructing investigations into possible crimes under her watch
CNN's Randi Kaye looks at Linda McMahon's senatorial campaign. She says she'll spend $50 million to win. Of particular note is that CNN seems to have been inspired by this youtube video, I assume from a CT blogger who shall remain nameless.
MLN is powered by