CT News Junkie | Poll Puts U.S. Senate Race Within Margin of Error

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

Poll Puts U.S. Senate Race Within Margin of Error

by | Sep 28, 2010 6:50am
() Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Election 2010

(Updated 11:30 a.m.) Today’s Quinnipiac University poll shows Republican U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon closing the gap to within three points of Democrat Richard Blumenthal.

The poll shows McMahon trailing Blumenthal 49 to 46 percent, which is three points closer than a Sept. 14 poll of likely voters. The poll has a three point margin of error.

“With five weeks to go, the Connecticut Senate race is very close. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is ahead by only a statistically insignificant three points,“ Quinnipiac University Poll Director Doug Schwartz said. “ Blumenthal has to be concerned about Linda McMahon’s momentum. He can hear her footsteps as she closes in on him.”

Christine Stuart file photo

Linda McMahon

  Blumenthal’s internal polling puts him up by 12 points and a recent Rasmussen Reports poll showed Blumenthal up by five points.

Tuesday’s Quinnipiac University poll found only four percent of voters are undecided and nine percent say they may still change their mind by Election Day.

Independent voters flipped their support in this latest poll to McMahon. On Sept. 14 they favored Blumenthal 47 to 46 percent, but now they favor McMahon 49 to 44 percent.

However, women still favor Blumenthal 59 to 39 percent, while men favor McMahon 52 to 44 percent.

“There continues to be a big gender gap, as we’ve seen in other states such a New York and Pennsylvania. Women are going with the Democrat and men are siding with the Republican,” Schwartz said. “Usually debates don’t make much of a difference, but in a race this close next month’s debates could be a game changer.”

The poll also found McMahon gets the angry vote.

The 33 percent of likely voters who say they are “angry” with the federal government support McMahon 78 – 20 percent. 

“McMahon clearly is capitalizing on the anger that one-third of voters are feeling toward the federal government,” Schwartz said.

But what about the impact of media on the campaign. McMahon has spent millions of dollars on mailers and television commercials, while Blumenthal is just beginning to hit the airwaves.

The poll found of the 95 percent who have seen McMahon’s television ads, 56 percent find them annoying and 40 percent find them informative. Among all voters, 54 percent say McMahon’s advertising is excessive, while 37 percent say it is about right.

Blumenthal’s advertising has been about right, 49 percent say, while 33 percent say he hasn’t advertised enough and 11 percent call it excessive.

“Linda McMahon has spent about $22 million on her campaign, but is it overkill? A majority of voters say that it has been excessive. In contrast, many Democrats feel that Blumenthal hasn’t been doing enough on the advertising front,” Schwartz said.

Blumenthal’s campaign manager Mindy Myers said they always knew it would be a close race.

“Linda McMahon’s spending $50 million to whitewash her record and tear down Dick Blumenthal. But the people of Connecticut know Linda McMahon puts profits ahead of people and Dick Blumenthal stands up to the special interests and puts people first. That difference will make the difference on Election day,” Myers said.

McMahon’s campaign continued to use the poll results to paint Blumenthal as a career politician.

“After nearly four decades in government, Dick Blumenthal just doesn’t understand the impact his job-killing policies will have on Connecticut,” Ed Patru, McMahon’s campaign communications director, said. “It’s becoming clearer by the day that Connecticut voters recognize we cannot change the trajectory of Washington’s misguided policies by electing another tax-and-spend career politician.”

This story will be updated later this morning with a livestream of the 11 a.m. Capitol press conference.

Tags: , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |


(17) Archived Comments

posted by: hawkeye | September 28, 2010  8:20am

The predominent, polled Independents, are starting to pull away from Richard Blumenthal, and voting for Linda McMahon, instead.

Good news. for the election of Linda McMahon, to Congress!

posted by: GoatBoyPHD | September 28, 2010  9:29am


It’s really starting to get that Martha Coakley feel to it doesn’t it?

All the GOP has to do is get a wave of momentum going starting October 12th and build it to a crescendo the last 3 weeks.

posted by: CT Jim | September 28, 2010  10:42am

First off her negatives are horrible 43% so it looks like she’s peaked and Hawky you did know she’s running for senate???

posted by: James D | September 28, 2010  10:49am

You can’t fool all of the people all of the time, but, with enough money, you sure can completely bamboozle 46% of them.

posted by: thebpp | September 28, 2010  11:39am


posted by: Jude | September 29, 2010  10:17am

That people could even CONSIDER electing Linda McMahon tells me this Country is in worse shape than I thought . . . a Country OWNED by the rich, a Country FOR the rich.

posted by: OutOfOutrage | September 29, 2010  12:40pm


Yeah, I think we should elect a millionare like Blummy who has fewer millions than the other millionares and who has the luxury of having millions without actually having to earn them.  Awesome.

posted by: Walt | September 29, 2010  5:11pm

CT Jim

For your info,  Senators are really Members of Congress as much as Representatives are .

Congress is made up of 2 parts—-the Senate and the House of Representives,

What is your gripe?

posted by: lothar | September 29, 2010  6:54pm

@matt w

Yup, Blumenthal and family are wealthy. No question about it. But to be fair, Blumenthal has a very specific record of helping people in his role as AG. There’s no question about that. It’s an obvious difference between the two candidates.

posted by: Walt | September 29, 2010  8:09pm


As one who asked for help from Blumenthal when he was getting a hosing from the freecredit.com folk,  and never got even a reply from Blumy,  I’d differ with you.

I plan to vote for the Wrestling Queen or more accurately,  against Blumenthal,  who in my opinion is mostly a blowhard who shirks his duty unless news coverage is involved..

posted by: lothar | September 29, 2010  8:59pm

Well Walt, as someone whom the AG’s office has been responsive to on several occasions, I’m afraid I can’t agree with you. You have to call the office and get one of the AG’s staff lawyers on the phone to discuss your issue. Each is assigned to an area of expertise. You can’t just call and ask for Blumenthal. It’s not his job to sit at the front desk answering cold calls from the public, nor is it his job to personally return every phone call from the public. If one his staff lawyers didn’t call you back, I’m sad to say that it likely was because your complaint didn’t have merit.

Nevertheless, Blumenthal’s been a great AG for me and everyone else in CT whose been trying to operate a business within the letter of the law. Frankly I’m sorry he’s leaving the AG job. But he’s going to Washington and he may be able to take on some of the problems there just like he’s done here.

posted by: Walt | September 29, 2010  10:15pm


Re points in your response

1, Untrue.  Was told by Blumenthal office to send written complaint.  Did so, No response or aid ensued.

2, Untrue.  Blumenthal is responsible for operation of the whole AG office. Courtesy demands reply to taxpayer/ complainant and explanation whether or not complaint is justified

3, Untrue.  Complaint was justified.  Back up proof is that VISA forced return to us of the monies which had been scammed whereas Blumy’s office did nothing

Don’t doubt that Blumy was helpful to you with your problems as you state,  but was completely worthless for us.

Just a waste of time and effort.

4,Your analysis was just guess -work trying to put a good light on Blumenthal and was not at all factual

posted by: lothar | September 29, 2010  11:25pm

OK Walt, I wasn’t there when you filed your complaint in writing. In my experience with the AG’s office, they’ve answered the phone on every occasion and I’ve been able to discuss my issues with a lawyer each time. At length.

Based on the info you’re providing here, it’s pretty clear that it was up to VISA to return the money, not Blumenthal’s office. And you can rest assured that the lawyers who work for the AG have an excellent understanding of the process through which VISA and other lenders are required to return funds. Likely they also know the timetable for the same, and therefore opted not to get involved.

And as to your idea that Blumenthal himself is required to return your call… that’s absolutely unrealistic in any gov’t agency in any state, any country. Ridiculous. Did you get a personal call from President Obama recently regarding a problem with your Social Security information?

C’mon. You’re not being reasonable and I would argue that you are, in fact, attempting to influence people against Blumenthal with your comment.

posted by: Walt | September 30, 2010  6:37am


Surely you know that your ridiculous claim the I expected Blumenthal to personally reply is   be untrue, yet you make that charge again.

Although, as you said, you were not there, and obviouslydo not know the details of the complaint, which in my opinion probably affected many in CT, you, in your infinite wisdom,  saythat the AG   office was correct in not replying in any way to a legitimate complaint from a CT citizen

What a phony!

If what you say were true,  they should have so advised,  not just ignored the complaint.

You make up stuff again excusing poor performance and try to make Blumenthal look good despite poor (no)performance by his office,

Not thrilled by the Wrestling Queen but she appears a better bet than Blumy

posted by: OutOfOutrage | September 30, 2010  11:42am


Lothar, I have no problem with you arguing that Blummy helped people as AG. He probably did. But that’s not the argument of those who preceded my post. 

Their’s is the hypocritical class warfare argument of, “a Country OWNED by the rich, a Country FOR the rich”.

If you think Blummy did a good job then vote for the man but don’t tell me that McMahon is somehow unqualified b/c she’s rich.

posted by: hawkeye | September 30, 2010  12:07pm

Lothar;  you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG, as voters on Nov. 2, are not sending career politicians, like Richard Blumenthal, to Washington.  Voters are VOTING OUT, career politicians, from Washington.

The writing is on the wall. Open your eyes, Lothar! Face the music!

posted by: lothar | September 30, 2010  3:15pm

@walt: So essentially you got your money back from VISA but you’re not happy that Blumenthal’s office didn’t respond to you, and that’s why you’re voting for Linda McMahon. Still ridiculous, and still tainted by obvious partisan politics. If you don’t want to vote for the guy because you’re a Republican, just say so. Don’t pretend that there was a pattern of failure in the guy’s office because you didn’t get an answer. They get thousands of complaints every week. Did you even verify that the AG’s office received your letter? Did you send it certified? Hand deliver? You only get to vote once, Walt, so make sure you know exactly why no one responded to your complaint.

@Matt W: Today McMahon told reporters that she didn’t know the current minimum wage. She is nowhere near qualified for the job. She’s a special interest group who is trying to buy votes through a massive advertising/brainwashing campaign. And if you think the concept of class warfare is inappropriate here, that’s your prerogative. It’s my prerogative to suggest in a civil manner that I don’t agree. There are wealthy people who don’t care about the rest of us, and there are wealthy people who do care about the rest of us. Blumenthal cares. Evidence suggests the opposite for Linda McMahon.

@hawkeye: It appears that you pasted in another one of your previous comments from somewhere else on the site. I don’t know why they allow you to post the same thing over and over here and to attack other people who comment, but the reality is that when you do so, you generate a lot more resentment of your attitude than support. And please, lighten up with the all caps. You can use html commands here to bold the words you want to emphasize. For some reason all caps tends to hurt peoples eyes. Like this, minus the spaces: < strong > bold < /strong >

You also seem to think the tea party and people like Linda McMahon are going to “change” Washington ... and that is obviously nonsense, always has been nonsense, and always will be. There certainly won’t be anything remotely resembling consensus in D.C. after this election or any election. The Democrats walloped the Republicans in 2008 and still couldn’t build a real consensus because of opposition tactics by the not-so-GOP. As a result we have new problems and we’re not fixing the health care system fast enough. No public option, and insurance companies continue to screw us.

You and your coddled, rage-junkie pals are only angry because you’ve been told to be angry by people who are paid by special interest groups - like insurance companies - to tell you to be angry. Hopefully you’ll continue to enjoy that constant fake rage in the comfort of your cushy Connecticut home, but it’s not going to solve any of the real problems.