Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

Connecticut Consumers to Begin Receiving E-Book Settlement Refunds
Mar 25, 2014 4:09 pm
Connecticut residents will start receiving refund checks or credits this week for e-books purchased between April 1,...more »
Like New Jersey, Direct Retail Sales of Tesla Automobiles Not Allowed in Connecticut
Mar 19, 2014 12:24 pm
The Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection is co-sponsoring a contest for the auto dealership...more »

Our Partners

˜

Senate Race Still Deadlocked

by Christine Stuart | Oct 4, 2012 7:04am
(8) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Congress, Election 2012, Poll

Hugh McQuaid Photo

Quinnipiac Poll Director Doug Schwartz

(Updated 12:37 p.m.)A new Quinnipiac University poll on the U.S. Senate race shows Republican Linda McMahon and Democrat Chris Murphy are still deadlocked in the race for retiring U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s seat.

The poll found 48 percent of 1,696 likely voters support McMahon while 47 percent back Murphy. The poll has a 2.4 percent margin of error.

“It looks like a real nailbiter we’re going to have here in Connecticut,” Quinnipiac Poll Director Doug Schwartz said.

Both have been successful over the past month in damaging their opponents image with a barrage of negative TV ads.

Murphy’s negatives are up 10 points and McMahon’s negatives are up 6 points.

McMahon has hammered her opponent on his attendance record and for defaulting on his mortgage, but Murphy has countered with a video of McMahon saying she would consider a “sunset provision” for Social Security.

“McMahon has done a good job defining Murphy, who was not well known statewide, in a negative way,” Schwartz said.

There are few undecided voters in the race. Only 14 percent of voters surveyed said their mind isn’t made up. That also doesn’t bode well for Murphy or his supporters who will be outspent by McMahon.

McMahon supporters also seem to be more enthusiastic about their candidate than Murphy supporters, the poll found. Fifty percent are “very enthusiastic” about McMahon, while 27 percent are “very enthusiastic” about Murphy.

“McMahon voters are much more likely to say they are very enthusiastic about their choice than Murphy voters, by about 2-1,” Schwartz said.  “While the horserace has barely changed, the images of both candidates have declined since August, as the campaign attacks have increased.”

Despite, Murphy’s ability to begin to turn the tables on McMahon over the past week, he still maintains a negative approval rating, while McMahon’s approval rating remains in positive territory.

By a 45 – 41 percent margin, Connecticut voters have a favorable opinion of McMahon, compared to 47 – 35 percent in August. Murphy gets a negative 36 – 40 percent favorability rating, down from a 38 – 30 percent positive score in August.

“Connecticut voters like Linda McMahon more than U.S. Rep. Christopher Murphy,” Schwartz said. “But the Democrat seems to be holding his own against the onslaught of negative advertising.”

The poll found a total of 84 percent of voters have seen McMahon campaign ads “very often” or “somewhat often,” compared to 64 percent for Murphy.  McMahon’s ads are “very effective” or “somewhat effective,” 66 percent of voters say, compared to 51 percent for Murphy.

“McMahon’s blanketing the airwaves with TV ads appears to be working.  More voters have seen her ads than Murphy’s and more voters think they are effective,” Schwartz said.

The two candidates will have their first of four debates this Sunday and only 22 percent of voters say the candidates could say something that would change their mind, and 72 percent say there’s nothing the candidates will say to change their minds. Also regardless of how they will vote, 41 percent of voters said McMahon will win the debates, while 35 percent believe Murphy will emerge victorious.

Schwartz said 70 percent of people polled said they intend on watching the debate, which could have an effect on the outcome of the election because they’re so close to Election Day. One thing he said may sway voters is if one candidate is able to come across as being able to relate to people’s economic problems.

“I could turn the election,” he said.

The issue of each candidates’ personal finances have also played a big role in the campaign. Murphy defaulted on his mortgage in 2007 and his rent in 2003, while McMahon declared bankruptcy back in 1976.

Voters were asked if each candidate has handled their personal finances appropriately. Thirty percent believe Murphy handled his situation appropriately, while 49 percent say McMahon handled her situation appropriately.

“People thought that he’s handled his personal finances inappropriately and it does affect their view of him, and again, their view of him will affect their vote,” Schwartz said.

Schwartz said McMahon is still being indirectly negatively impacted by people’s perception of the WWE, but it may not help Murphy much considering people aren’t fond of Congress either.

“We wanted to compare what the effects of both their backgrounds. Her background is in wrestling, his background is in Congress and what we found was people have a very low opinion of both. It doesn’t help either candidate,” he said. 

The poll also found that President Barack Obama is leading former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 12 points. In August, Obama held a 7 point lead over Romney prompting Connecticut Republicans to argue that Romney had a chance of winning the state.

Among women voters Obama leads Romney 22 percent.

Women back the president 59 – 37 percent, while men are divided, with 49 percent for Romney and 47 percent for Obama.  Independent voters also are divided, with 48 percent for Obama and 45 percent for Romney.

“President Barack Obama’s lead has jumped into double digits, where it is expected to be in blue Connecticut,” Schwartz said.

Hugh McQuaid contributed to this report.

Tags: , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(8) Comments

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | October 4, 2012  10:47am

Remarkable. How is this possible? I’m not suggesting that Murphy is the next Chris Dodd or Abe Ribicoff, but macMahon is clearly not the answer and we should all be smart enough to know that, no?

HST

posted by: ALD | October 4, 2012  12:20pm

How is this possible?  I’d guess for many people, the more they come to learn about Chris Murphy, the less there is to like. For me personally I agree, McMahon isn’t perfect.  But after years of Murphy being my rep she does not need to be to get my vote.

posted by: JamesBronsdon | October 4, 2012  1:29pm

Golly, Dr., if the second coming of Chris Dodd is what we’re hoping for, we’re in a heap of trouble.  McMahon is hardly what I look for in a Republican, but we’re doomed if O is re-elected and he gets a Democrat-controlled Congress. A Senator Murphy can only make matters worse.

posted by: RE-Windsor, CT | October 4, 2012  6:02pm

I worked in the collections business too long ago.  However I think I know what Chris Murphy and his fiancée/wife went through years ago and that explains why he can’t come forward with the truth.

My reasonably educated guess and conjecture is that Mr. Murphy at the time being a candidate had poor cash flow. He would’ve gone to the bank, and talked to the people he dealt with as a lawyer for the bank, and asked for help. They probably said sure, you can skip some payments Chris, we won’t do anything until the end of the election, and we can discuss how you can get caught up. This is plausible, it is not right, but it makes sense.

The one problem that the people he spoke to at the bank did not realize or properly adjust for is the automated systems in the bank. Those systems when the account got 90 or 120 days delinquent would’ve automatically caused a letter to be sent to legal counsel requesting a lis pendens which is a filing of “an intent foreclose” creating the public record.  This is not something that he would’ve expected, nor that his friends anticipated.  After the election he most likely got his mortgage up to date and didn’t think twice about it.

A year or two later, he would have requested an additional loan. Whatever it was and his friends would have approved it, providing a beneficial rate something that others would not have received.

You would think that paying your mortgage is the first bill you pay.  You would imagine other credit would be in poor shape also.  However, if he had made such a deal as I outlined with the bank his credit for all intensive purposes would have been okay and only his mortgage being in arrears. The bank having been the lender would’ve known what the deal was, and discounted the poor credit rating.  The loan document approvals that regulators could see would notate a reason to approve this loan.  The regulators would not look for it because Rep. Murphy is their boss in a manner of speaking.

Rep. Murphy is silent on this issue because to admit to what I believe plausibly happened is admitting he got a special deal and that proves what Linda said to be correct.  Also, the admission would create a problem with his voter base that he too received the things that he has publicly railed against.

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | October 4, 2012  8:10pm

easy, Fred. don’t judge Dodd’s career by the home financing issue of his last couple years.  for a very long time he was, along with Byrd, Kennedy, and others, amongst the most dedicated and influential senators of our time.

HST

posted by: ALD | October 4, 2012  10:14pm

RE-Windsor, I suppose all you say is possile, but for me personally I could not care less about his personal financial issues.  All of us hit rough spots in the road.  My problem with Murphy is nothing more than he has proven himself to be incompentent. It’s time he gets at least a few years on the side lines to grow up. Maybe even consider working for a living.

posted by: CitizenCT | October 5, 2012  6:42am

Murphy has accomplished nothing in three terms in the House.  He votes against defense bills needed for jobs in CT that are supported by our other four Democratic congress members.  He voted for the federal Gvt to default on its obligations.  He has demonstrated he’s not worthy of being promoted to senate.  Linda’s a better choice.

posted by: JamesBronsdon | October 5, 2012  9:27am

Dr., yes, unfortunately, Senator Dodd was sufficiently dedicated and influential amongst his peers that he was able to foist upon us the Dodd-Frank Act, which will needlessly slow down the recovery of the economy by creating uncertainty and burdensome regulation for business, all of which gets passed along to the public in increased costs. I’ll grant you he was successful in what he set out to do; unfortunately, it was not what was needed to be done.