My final blog post prior to Election Day 2010 is mainly focusing on polling data and why I believe the numbers are where they are. Also, I will discuss the story grabbing National headlines about whether or not WWE merchandise is considered campaigning at the polls.
To Begin with, the state of the race is looking quite favorable for Mr. Blumenthal who is experiencing leads from 7 to 18 points in 4 separate polls; 3 of which are double digit and outside the margin of error. With leads like this many may think that this race is all but over, and I may be slightly guilty of that myself. However, the key to a come from behind victory for Linda McMahon lies in the fact of whether she can Get Out The Vote better than Blumenthal can. She does have the financial excess to mount a surge of paid canvassers, direct mailers, and T.V. ads to mount a surge, but with deficits in the polls like she is facing, it will be hard to rally support from the Republican base. As I mentioned early on in the race, being the underdog can help for some candidates because it sparks a sense of urgency in their supporters. However, it can also have the reverse affect and disenfranchise potential volunteers who do not want to dedicate their free time to a lost cause. As far as an analysis of how the polls have shifted throughout the past 2 months, the closest McMahon has ever come to Blumenthal is being down by 4 points and within the margin of error. Yet, that occurred at the same time the "Vietnam Service Scandal" broke into the news. I understand that they keyed in on the faux pas not too long after it happened, but it seems that they used up this game changing gaffe far to soon in the race. Instead of sling-shotting into the front and building momentum the final month (which I'm sure was the McMahon strategy) they used their "October Surprise" far too early and left her campaign flat for the final stretch. I believe that if she could have found a better way to frame herself as a fresh face politician, she may have been able to sustain momentum and compete more heavily in this election.
I hate to bring up issues that infuriate me this campaign cycle like: "Aqua Buddha," "I'm not a witch, I'm you," or "second amendment remedies," but the new notion that if someone wears a WWE shirt to the polls, it is the same as wearing a political t-shirt. To me, this is simply ridiculous. If anything, it will help Mr. Blumenthal because everyone will realize the circus that McMahon cites as her greatest achievement and best political attribute. These types of stories make me sick because instead of talking about the issues that really matter to people like the economy, environment, and education, we find ourselves discussing the latest political controversy that has nothing to do with politics or benefiting ourselves as a collective people. I truly hope that at some point Americans wake up and refuse to listen to, or promote this type of garbage as politics. However, as long as Reality T.V. reigns supreme and the uneducated grow in numbers, these meaningless arguments and attacks are going to be the basis of decision making in our representative government. Thank you for your time and have a great day.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Past ties between McMahon and Blumenthal: A Deregulation Love Story
In my last post I discussed how a corporate titan like Linda McMahon is the root of the problem we see in our economy and that deregulation has tended to lead to abuses by corporations. Dick Blumenthal has attacked Mrs. McMahon on this same fact and brought up her corporate abuses as CEO of the WWE. However, the McMahon campaign has fought back by citing a deregulation bill that Blumenthal voted for while in the Connecticut House of Representatives that allowed for the WWE to go unregulated because it was a "show" and did not require regulation. This vote was cast in 1985 and since then, the WWE has committed several acts seen as unethical such as rampant steroid abuse, lack of health insurance for employees, and the shipping of jobs overseas.
It should be noted that at the time that the vote was cast the WWE was far from the mainstream giant in entertainment that it is today. It was understood that the deregulation was only fair because pro-wrestling is not a sport and purely entertainment. However, since then the WWE has become ravaged with steroid abuse which has led to the death of many professional wrestlers as well as shipping thousands of middle-class jobs overseas in an attempt to cut costs. When steroids became an issue in the 1990's, the WWE enacted mandatory steroid testing, but in an attempt to again cut costs, the WWE suspended this testing until the mid-2000's. Theses are perfect examples of not only how a business, once deregulated, can commit broad abuses of its power to exploit its employees, but also speaks to the character of Mrs. McMahon as a businesswoman who places profit over compassion.
The fact that the McMahon campaign is now circulating this vote is a sign of their desperation to gain ground at this point in the race. The polls are now unanimously in favor of Blumenthal and the only poll that showed her within the margin of error (Quinnipac University poll) now shows the Secretary of State running away with the contest. The reason for this new shift could be attested to an attribute that McMahon thought would be her key advantage: her money. However, this money has led to her ads being broadcast far more than Blumenthal's and voters may be growing tired of constantly seeing her on their T.V. Furthermore, as voters begin to contemplate if a corporate titan is the best person to fix an economy shattered by corporate greed, they are finding that she may not be the answer. At any rate, the fact remains that McMahon's record is one that is highlighted by amassing personal wealth, while Blumenthal's is one of public service. The choices are distinct and I believe the voters of Connecticut will realize that public service is a better attribute that corporate success.
It should be noted that at the time that the vote was cast the WWE was far from the mainstream giant in entertainment that it is today. It was understood that the deregulation was only fair because pro-wrestling is not a sport and purely entertainment. However, since then the WWE has become ravaged with steroid abuse which has led to the death of many professional wrestlers as well as shipping thousands of middle-class jobs overseas in an attempt to cut costs. When steroids became an issue in the 1990's, the WWE enacted mandatory steroid testing, but in an attempt to again cut costs, the WWE suspended this testing until the mid-2000's. Theses are perfect examples of not only how a business, once deregulated, can commit broad abuses of its power to exploit its employees, but also speaks to the character of Mrs. McMahon as a businesswoman who places profit over compassion.
The fact that the McMahon campaign is now circulating this vote is a sign of their desperation to gain ground at this point in the race. The polls are now unanimously in favor of Blumenthal and the only poll that showed her within the margin of error (Quinnipac University poll) now shows the Secretary of State running away with the contest. The reason for this new shift could be attested to an attribute that McMahon thought would be her key advantage: her money. However, this money has led to her ads being broadcast far more than Blumenthal's and voters may be growing tired of constantly seeing her on their T.V. Furthermore, as voters begin to contemplate if a corporate titan is the best person to fix an economy shattered by corporate greed, they are finding that she may not be the answer. At any rate, the fact remains that McMahon's record is one that is highlighted by amassing personal wealth, while Blumenthal's is one of public service. The choices are distinct and I believe the voters of Connecticut will realize that public service is a better attribute that corporate success.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
My personal thoughts on this race...
Until today, my blog posts have been basically a dissection of poll numbers and policy issues that have highlighted the Connecticut Senate race between Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and former WWE CEO Linda McMahon. Today, I want to share how I feel about this race because after all this is a blog and blogs are not actually news even though so many think that they are. So, I hope that this is not viewed as a diversion from my usual posts, but an assertion of what I think is the true state of this race.
I first want to start off by noting that this election is one that is highlighted by voters who are rightfully upset with the economy and the high unemployment rate in America. So, many people think that because the Democrats haven't changed the economy in two years when it took 8 years to topple, that the Republicans probably have the answer to our economic quagmire. Let us not forget that the reason we are in this predicament is because for 8 years of Republican rule, we saw the priorities of big business favored over those in the middle class. The notion that if we let big corporations run amok and the money will "trickle down" to the masses has proven to not work. Corporate profits for the top officials have risen while the middle class has diminished because we have allowed businesses to ship manufacturing jobs that were the heart of our middle class to foreign countries in the name of corporate profit. There must be some government interference in business if we are to restore an economy that doesn't reward corporate greed, but punishes it. An economy that has big corporations, but doesn't allow their monetary advantages to drown out all other small businesses from competing. So who do we want to protect our interests in this next election?
Linda McMahon is running on her name recognition as the former CEO of the WWE and how as a savvy businesswoman she took the WWE from a faltering business to one of the largest corporations in America. I applaud Mrs. McMahon for her perseverance and success in this nature, but she wants to say that she is just an average American and knows how to create jobs for the middle class. Yet, if you were to purchase any WWE merchandise I'd be quite sure you wouldn't find the words "Made in America" on the label. So, for someone who complains of such a high tax bracket that forces her to ship jobs (that could support American families) to places like China and Indonesia and then spends $20 million on her campaign and is willing to spend more, Linda McMahon presents a peculiar juxtaposition of who she is. Is she the average Jane who supports the middle class or is she the corporate titan that can spend $20-30 million dollars out of pocket to fund her campaign for the United States Senate? This makes me furious because a man like Dick Blumenthal has dedicated his life to serving the interests of the middle class and is still being challenged on the legitimacy of his proven track record of middle class support. While at the same time, Linda McMahon has millions of dollars to play fast and loose with and is now a viable candidate. Change takes time and it will still be a while before our economy is in full recovery, but if we elect people like Linda McMahon to the Senate we will see a fast return to the policies that put our economy in this position. Thank you for listening to my ramble, but I felt it needed to be said.
I first want to start off by noting that this election is one that is highlighted by voters who are rightfully upset with the economy and the high unemployment rate in America. So, many people think that because the Democrats haven't changed the economy in two years when it took 8 years to topple, that the Republicans probably have the answer to our economic quagmire. Let us not forget that the reason we are in this predicament is because for 8 years of Republican rule, we saw the priorities of big business favored over those in the middle class. The notion that if we let big corporations run amok and the money will "trickle down" to the masses has proven to not work. Corporate profits for the top officials have risen while the middle class has diminished because we have allowed businesses to ship manufacturing jobs that were the heart of our middle class to foreign countries in the name of corporate profit. There must be some government interference in business if we are to restore an economy that doesn't reward corporate greed, but punishes it. An economy that has big corporations, but doesn't allow their monetary advantages to drown out all other small businesses from competing. So who do we want to protect our interests in this next election?
Linda McMahon is running on her name recognition as the former CEO of the WWE and how as a savvy businesswoman she took the WWE from a faltering business to one of the largest corporations in America. I applaud Mrs. McMahon for her perseverance and success in this nature, but she wants to say that she is just an average American and knows how to create jobs for the middle class. Yet, if you were to purchase any WWE merchandise I'd be quite sure you wouldn't find the words "Made in America" on the label. So, for someone who complains of such a high tax bracket that forces her to ship jobs (that could support American families) to places like China and Indonesia and then spends $20 million on her campaign and is willing to spend more, Linda McMahon presents a peculiar juxtaposition of who she is. Is she the average Jane who supports the middle class or is she the corporate titan that can spend $20-30 million dollars out of pocket to fund her campaign for the United States Senate? This makes me furious because a man like Dick Blumenthal has dedicated his life to serving the interests of the middle class and is still being challenged on the legitimacy of his proven track record of middle class support. While at the same time, Linda McMahon has millions of dollars to play fast and loose with and is now a viable candidate. Change takes time and it will still be a while before our economy is in full recovery, but if we elect people like Linda McMahon to the Senate we will see a fast return to the policies that put our economy in this position. Thank you for listening to my ramble, but I felt it needed to be said.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Blumenthal-McMahon Debate: Battle lines are drawn
On Monday October 4, the two candidates for the Senate seat in Connecticut left open by the retirement of Democrat Chris Dodd squared off in a televised debate. The two candidates discussed a litany of important issues and defended their stances as better than that of their opponent. Among the topics discussed were: bailouts, ability to work across the aisle, buying American products, health care, jobs, campaign finance, and even the Tea Party. Many note that McMahon won the debate, but on the whole I believe that the message put across by Mr. Blumenthal will resonate far more with the average Connecticut voter than Mrs. McMahon's message will.
First, when discussing bailouts and the stimulus McMahon said that the stimulus is a failure (not mentioning how she would've voted) and that she would have supported the Auto bailout while "holding her nose." Blumenthal said that he would have regulated stimulus spending more stringently and that he wouldn't have supported the bailouts because they did not benefit the average American, but did benefit Wall Street. However, in saying that the stimulus was a failure, McMahon failed to note that it has successfully saved or created 3 million jobs and that most all of the money for the bailouts will be recovered and possibly with a profit. When discussing their ability to work across the aisle, Blumenthal noted when he worked with other Attorney Generals to fight the influence of tobacco companies, while McMahon noted she had worked with many different people to make deals as CEO of WWE. On this matter it should be noted that Blumenthal was working within the sphere of politics to achieve a goal, whereas Mrs. McMahon was working in the best interest of her company. For someone who wants to represent the average American, this gap in experience favors the experience of Mr. Blumenthal. When the subject of buying American products came up, Blumenthal slammed McMahon for buying products made overseas and also sending jobs overseas as a means of saving money. In McMahon's defense, she cited that the tax bracket the WWE falls in and high labor costs force them to send jobs to and buy products from foreign countries. At any rate, the bottom line is that Linda McMahon was in charge of such decisions and chose the profit margin of her company over the betterment of the American worker.
On the issue of job creation, Linda McMahon explained that Blumenthal and Democrats expect government to have the answer but that entrepreneurs are the ones who will create jobs. However, I want to note that in our current state, it is hard for any small business to compete with large corporations such as WWE and therefore it is imperative that the government regulate abuses by these companies to level the playing field for emerging entrepreneurs. Both candidates noted that the Tea Party were good for politics because they are taking part in the process of government, but McMahon said she is in "lockstep" with them on issues like lowering taxes and reducing the size of government. When health care was discussed, McMahon said she would support repealing the Helthcare Reform that now ensures that no one can be refused for pre-existing conditions as well as allows students the luxury of staying on their parents plan until they are 26 or find full time employment. To say that these two issues are out of line with the will of Americans is absurd and when she explains that tort reform that allows interstate insurance exchanges is the key to health care reform, she is simply broadcasting that she is out of touch with the average American who will surely benefit from clauses such as the ones I mentioned. The last issue I will discuss is campaign finance. In an earlier post I noted that the spending power of McMahon far exceeds that of Blumenthal and that for it to be overcome, Blumenthal must focus on his grassroots campaign. This is exactly the argument made by Blumenthal and one that shows voters he is working from the ground up as opposed to the top down when it comes to the function of his campaign.
On a different note, I want to address the attack ad produced by the McMahon campaign that highlights Mr. Blumenthal embellishing his military career by inferring he served in Vietnam, but in reality was a Marine Corps Reserve. This happened as well in the Illinois Senatorial race when Republican Mark Kirk embellished his military record and the result was his numbers in the polls dropped. It is yet to be known whether this new revelation questioning the integrity of Blumenthal to be honest with his constituents will negatively affect him in the polls, but I believe that the voters of Connecticut will weigh this option and realize that his other stances on key issues in support of the middle-class far outweigh a faux pas in explaining his past. Between October 2 and October 5 four polls have emerged and all of them favor Blumenthal with 3 being double digit leads (+13 is the highest) and the fourth with a seven point lead. So whether or not the debate helped McMahon will be known when the next set of polls emerge. As for now, the ball lies in Blumenthal's court and if he continues to distance himself from McMahon and corporate interest she supports, he will be on his way to becoming the Junior Senator from Connecticut on November 2, 2010.
First, when discussing bailouts and the stimulus McMahon said that the stimulus is a failure (not mentioning how she would've voted) and that she would have supported the Auto bailout while "holding her nose." Blumenthal said that he would have regulated stimulus spending more stringently and that he wouldn't have supported the bailouts because they did not benefit the average American, but did benefit Wall Street. However, in saying that the stimulus was a failure, McMahon failed to note that it has successfully saved or created 3 million jobs and that most all of the money for the bailouts will be recovered and possibly with a profit. When discussing their ability to work across the aisle, Blumenthal noted when he worked with other Attorney Generals to fight the influence of tobacco companies, while McMahon noted she had worked with many different people to make deals as CEO of WWE. On this matter it should be noted that Blumenthal was working within the sphere of politics to achieve a goal, whereas Mrs. McMahon was working in the best interest of her company. For someone who wants to represent the average American, this gap in experience favors the experience of Mr. Blumenthal. When the subject of buying American products came up, Blumenthal slammed McMahon for buying products made overseas and also sending jobs overseas as a means of saving money. In McMahon's defense, she cited that the tax bracket the WWE falls in and high labor costs force them to send jobs to and buy products from foreign countries. At any rate, the bottom line is that Linda McMahon was in charge of such decisions and chose the profit margin of her company over the betterment of the American worker.
On the issue of job creation, Linda McMahon explained that Blumenthal and Democrats expect government to have the answer but that entrepreneurs are the ones who will create jobs. However, I want to note that in our current state, it is hard for any small business to compete with large corporations such as WWE and therefore it is imperative that the government regulate abuses by these companies to level the playing field for emerging entrepreneurs. Both candidates noted that the Tea Party were good for politics because they are taking part in the process of government, but McMahon said she is in "lockstep" with them on issues like lowering taxes and reducing the size of government. When health care was discussed, McMahon said she would support repealing the Helthcare Reform that now ensures that no one can be refused for pre-existing conditions as well as allows students the luxury of staying on their parents plan until they are 26 or find full time employment. To say that these two issues are out of line with the will of Americans is absurd and when she explains that tort reform that allows interstate insurance exchanges is the key to health care reform, she is simply broadcasting that she is out of touch with the average American who will surely benefit from clauses such as the ones I mentioned. The last issue I will discuss is campaign finance. In an earlier post I noted that the spending power of McMahon far exceeds that of Blumenthal and that for it to be overcome, Blumenthal must focus on his grassroots campaign. This is exactly the argument made by Blumenthal and one that shows voters he is working from the ground up as opposed to the top down when it comes to the function of his campaign.
On a different note, I want to address the attack ad produced by the McMahon campaign that highlights Mr. Blumenthal embellishing his military career by inferring he served in Vietnam, but in reality was a Marine Corps Reserve. This happened as well in the Illinois Senatorial race when Republican Mark Kirk embellished his military record and the result was his numbers in the polls dropped. It is yet to be known whether this new revelation questioning the integrity of Blumenthal to be honest with his constituents will negatively affect him in the polls, but I believe that the voters of Connecticut will weigh this option and realize that his other stances on key issues in support of the middle-class far outweigh a faux pas in explaining his past. Between October 2 and October 5 four polls have emerged and all of them favor Blumenthal with 3 being double digit leads (+13 is the highest) and the fourth with a seven point lead. So whether or not the debate helped McMahon will be known when the next set of polls emerge. As for now, the ball lies in Blumenthal's court and if he continues to distance himself from McMahon and corporate interest she supports, he will be on his way to becoming the Junior Senator from Connecticut on November 2, 2010.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Key issue: Economic Growth
In this post I am going to break down the differences between Blumenthal and McMahon on the most important issue in this election which is the economy and how we can create jobs in the United States. There are some similarities between the two candidates, but we find that both candidates stances fall along the stereotypical ideology of the party in which they are running for. Furthermore, I will explain why I believe that Mr. Blumenthal has the right answers to fix our economy.
Dick Blumenthal is hoping to stimulate the economy and job growth by focusing on the middle class. He wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for 95% of Americans who are currently making less than $250,000 a year. He wants to also help small businesses by giving them tax incentives that will allow them to have extra money to invest in their business in order to spur growth. Furthermore, he supports the recent legislation passed by the Obama administration that helps to protect consumers from unfair credit card policies. In doing this, small business owners won't have to pay extreme interest rates when they are forced to use personal credit cards for business expenses. The last point made on job growth is to open up loans to businesses so that they aren't in the position just discussed and don't ever have to use their personal credit cards for business purposes. Mr. Blumenthal also supports the Wall Street Reform Bill that holds Wall Street and Investment banks accountable for their actions so that the taxpayers never again have to bail out banks that are "too big to fail." Finally, Blumenthal supports spurring the economy through Green Technology innovation by providing tax breaks and loans to bring about new technology. Also, this will curb the amount of pollution and dependence on foreign oil that has skyrocketed over the past few decades.
Linda McMahon, on the other hand, has an approach to spurring the economy that rests in the hands of the wealthy to take care of the rest of the country, She claims that in order for our economy to grow there needs to be less government interference in the business sector as well as Wall Street. She believes that in regulating business, those corporations will not be able to provide jobs to the middle class. Mrs. McMahon also discusses how she would like to expand drilling for oil in Alaska and ANWR province as a way to help create jobs and produce oil so that we don't have to depend on foreign countries. However, she does discuss investing in renewable energies through tax incentives. She also talks about how President Obama has used Executive Orders through "policy czars" to enact some of the new regulations on some of these industries we have discussed. She cites archives.gov to note that Obama has passed 57 Executive Orders since becoming president and frames it to be an expanse of government interference in the corporate sector. However, she evokes Ronald Reagan at the beginning of her policy page and talks about how Reagan allowed business to take care of itself and because of this, the economy went from stagnant to booming. Yet, she failed to mention that Ronald Reagan passed 117 Executive Orders over the course of his first two years in office.
Overall, I would just like to note that Mr. Blumenthal is aiming to move the country in a new direction that focuses on the middle class picking themselves back up from this recession. Corporations have grown so large and wield so much power that the only way for them to not monopolize our economy is to regulate them in one form or the other. Mrs. McMahon on the other hand supports the same policies that were pushed by the Reagan and Bush administrations that have lead to a corporate-led economy. Furthermore, to frame President Obama as someone who is abusing his power to grow the size of government through Executive Orders is quite hypocritical being that Regan signed over 2 times the amount of Executive Orders in the same period of time to help build a culture that allowed big business to run wild with America's economy. The time has come to change this atmosphere and put the power of our economy back in the hands of the people who are the life blood of it: the middle-class. Dick Blumenthal understands this and that is why his vision for the economy is far more apt for this juncture in time than the policies supported by Linda McMahon.
Dick Blumenthal is hoping to stimulate the economy and job growth by focusing on the middle class. He wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for 95% of Americans who are currently making less than $250,000 a year. He wants to also help small businesses by giving them tax incentives that will allow them to have extra money to invest in their business in order to spur growth. Furthermore, he supports the recent legislation passed by the Obama administration that helps to protect consumers from unfair credit card policies. In doing this, small business owners won't have to pay extreme interest rates when they are forced to use personal credit cards for business expenses. The last point made on job growth is to open up loans to businesses so that they aren't in the position just discussed and don't ever have to use their personal credit cards for business purposes. Mr. Blumenthal also supports the Wall Street Reform Bill that holds Wall Street and Investment banks accountable for their actions so that the taxpayers never again have to bail out banks that are "too big to fail." Finally, Blumenthal supports spurring the economy through Green Technology innovation by providing tax breaks and loans to bring about new technology. Also, this will curb the amount of pollution and dependence on foreign oil that has skyrocketed over the past few decades.
Linda McMahon, on the other hand, has an approach to spurring the economy that rests in the hands of the wealthy to take care of the rest of the country, She claims that in order for our economy to grow there needs to be less government interference in the business sector as well as Wall Street. She believes that in regulating business, those corporations will not be able to provide jobs to the middle class. Mrs. McMahon also discusses how she would like to expand drilling for oil in Alaska and ANWR province as a way to help create jobs and produce oil so that we don't have to depend on foreign countries. However, she does discuss investing in renewable energies through tax incentives. She also talks about how President Obama has used Executive Orders through "policy czars" to enact some of the new regulations on some of these industries we have discussed. She cites archives.gov to note that Obama has passed 57 Executive Orders since becoming president and frames it to be an expanse of government interference in the corporate sector. However, she evokes Ronald Reagan at the beginning of her policy page and talks about how Reagan allowed business to take care of itself and because of this, the economy went from stagnant to booming. Yet, she failed to mention that Ronald Reagan passed 117 Executive Orders over the course of his first two years in office.
Overall, I would just like to note that Mr. Blumenthal is aiming to move the country in a new direction that focuses on the middle class picking themselves back up from this recession. Corporations have grown so large and wield so much power that the only way for them to not monopolize our economy is to regulate them in one form or the other. Mrs. McMahon on the other hand supports the same policies that were pushed by the Reagan and Bush administrations that have lead to a corporate-led economy. Furthermore, to frame President Obama as someone who is abusing his power to grow the size of government through Executive Orders is quite hypocritical being that Regan signed over 2 times the amount of Executive Orders in the same period of time to help build a culture that allowed big business to run wild with America's economy. The time has come to change this atmosphere and put the power of our economy back in the hands of the people who are the life blood of it: the middle-class. Dick Blumenthal understands this and that is why his vision for the economy is far more apt for this juncture in time than the policies supported by Linda McMahon.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
President Obama stumps for Blumenthal at Connecticut fundraiser
On September 16, President Obama made a stop along the campaign trail in Stamford, Connecticut to help raise money for Blumenthal in his attempt to edge out Linda McMahon. Obama noted that although McMahon has pledged a "smackdown" ( a poke at her major experience as the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment), the choice between the two candidates is a "no brainer." Politico.com reported that the Blumenthal camp raised approximately $400,000 during this event. Money is a key for success in a close race. It allows the campaign to spend more on valuable resources such as field offices and staff to manage voter contact and volunteer recruitment as well as buy air time for commercials during the stretch run of the race. Furthermore, the fact that the president took time to aid the Blumenthal campaign, in a state he won by nearly 30% over John McCain in 2008, leads one to believe that Obama's popularity can only help boost support for Blumenthal who is still leading by 5-10% in the polls. However, it must be noted that in a race to secure money, Linda McMahon has millions of dollars of her own that she can throw in to the race if she so chooses. Because of this extreme advantage in personal funds, it is crucial for the Blumenthal campaign to raise money through events such as the one on the 16th. Yet, if McMahon can easily outspend Blumenthal, it will be crucial for Blumenthal and his campaign to focus on a field program based on voter contact. By making phone calls and more importantly knocking on the doors of potential voters in Connecticut, the Blumenthal camp can counter the advertizing strength of the McMahon cash cow. How this is executed will prove pivotal in deciding the outcome of this close race.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
New polling Data. What does it mean?
Since my last post, the two polls that have been following the Connecticut Senate race (Quinnipac University and Rasmussen) have released new polling data pertaining to the current state of the race. In this post, I will present this new data as well as try to explain the significance.
The Rasmussen Poll released its new data on September 9. They conducted a poll of 500 Likely Voters in the state of Connecticut. The results showed Mr. Blumenthal leading the race with 53% of the vote opposed to his opponent Ms. McMahon who garnered 44% in the new poll. This is a 2 point shift in favor of the Democrat who only led by 7% (47-40) in the previous poll conducted by Rasmussen. The shift isn't extremely large, but it does put Blumenthal over the 50% mark for the first time in a couple months which definitely is significant because it is an upward shift, which as I stated in my last post, the shifts are more important than the raw numbers.
The poll that has received the most attention in the media is the Quinnipac University poll that was conducted between September 8 and September 12. The Quinnipac Poll shows Blumenthal leading McMahon by a margin of 51%-45%. This is a shift that is in favor of Ms. McMahon being that she was down 10% in the last poll conducted by the University. However, the most recent poll was conducted among 750 Likely Voters in Connecticut as opposed to their last poll that was conducted amongst Registered Voters.
The change in the sample from Registered voters to Likely voters is one that many would argue favors the Republicans in a year that they are poised to recieve a net gain in both houses of Congress. Therefore, it could be said that the most recent Quinnipac poll may be more accurate come November than Rasmussen's poll, but juxteposed to their previous poll (Blumenthal up 10%) it is irrelevant because of the difference in sample. On the other hand, Rasmussen's poll was conducted among Likely Voters in both cases, therefore it is more reliable to note the shift. The only way we will know if any sort of shift has occurred like Quinnipac suggests is to wait for their next poll conducted among Likely Voters.
The Rasmussen Poll released its new data on September 9. They conducted a poll of 500 Likely Voters in the state of Connecticut. The results showed Mr. Blumenthal leading the race with 53% of the vote opposed to his opponent Ms. McMahon who garnered 44% in the new poll. This is a 2 point shift in favor of the Democrat who only led by 7% (47-40) in the previous poll conducted by Rasmussen. The shift isn't extremely large, but it does put Blumenthal over the 50% mark for the first time in a couple months which definitely is significant because it is an upward shift, which as I stated in my last post, the shifts are more important than the raw numbers.
The poll that has received the most attention in the media is the Quinnipac University poll that was conducted between September 8 and September 12. The Quinnipac Poll shows Blumenthal leading McMahon by a margin of 51%-45%. This is a shift that is in favor of Ms. McMahon being that she was down 10% in the last poll conducted by the University. However, the most recent poll was conducted among 750 Likely Voters in Connecticut as opposed to their last poll that was conducted amongst Registered Voters.
The change in the sample from Registered voters to Likely voters is one that many would argue favors the Republicans in a year that they are poised to recieve a net gain in both houses of Congress. Therefore, it could be said that the most recent Quinnipac poll may be more accurate come November than Rasmussen's poll, but juxteposed to their previous poll (Blumenthal up 10%) it is irrelevant because of the difference in sample. On the other hand, Rasmussen's poll was conducted among Likely Voters in both cases, therefore it is more reliable to note the shift. The only way we will know if any sort of shift has occurred like Quinnipac suggests is to wait for their next poll conducted among Likely Voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)