Money Didn’t Talk In U.S. Senate Race
by Christine Stuart and Hugh McQuaid | Nov 7, 2012 12:21am
(19) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Congress, Election 2012
Connecticut voters again proved money didn’t talk when they elected Democratic Congressman Chris Murphy to the U.S. Senate on Tuesday.
Murphy knocked out Republican Linda McMahon by large margins according to the Associated Press’ exit polls, roughly 55 to 43 percent.
The former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, McMahon spent close to $100 million on back-to-back U.S. Senate campaigns. But it wasn’t enough to win the support of voters, especially among women.
“Tonight we proved that what matters most in life is the measure of your ideas, the measure of your determination, the measure of your friends, not the measure of your wallet,” Murphy said as he took the stage at the Hartford Hilton shortly before 10 p.m.
Polls showed the race was neck-and-neck shortly after the August primary. McMahon had begun to make in-roads with women and independent voters, but things boomeranged on her as November approached. Still, Murphy was cautious in his optimism Tuesday before the polls closed.
McMahon’s millions had defined Murphy early in the race and polls had them within one percentage point of each other up until mid-October.
Murphy raised just over $9 million and was outspent almost 5-to-1 by McMahon. There was evidence the message McMahon was promoting may have gotten through to voters, but Murphy’s friends in the Democratic Party were able to boost his media buys by about $11 million in PAC money. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee also lent Murphy a few staff members.
“It shows that money can’t buy votes,” Beverly Brakeman, political director for the United Auto Workers, said as she waited for Murphy to take the stage at the Hartford Hilton.
John Olsen, president of the AFL-CIO, also was on hand to congratulate Murphy. He was one of many union members in attendance.
Olsen said McMahon’s urban strategy backfired because Connecticut voters are too smart for that.
McMahon hired lawyers and dozens of people in urban areas to reassure voters it was okay to split their ticket between her and President Barack Obama. McMahon employees were even wearing purple T-shirts on Tuesday encouraging voters in Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport to split their ticket. The colors matched those of SEIU, a union that’s been highly visible in Connecticut.
No one seemed happier about Murphy’s victory than U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal who defeated McMahon by about 12 points in 2010.
“I think I can say I am the second happiest guy,” Blumenthal joked. “I am so proud of Chris Murphy and his family for withstanding, again, a $50 million attack machine.”
He said it proves that in Connecticut “we have elections, not auctions.”
The enthusiastic crowd at the Hartford Hilton proved a stark comparison to the mood at the Stamford Hilton where McMahon’s supporters were gathered.
When Fox News broadcast that McMahon had lost the race at around 8:40 p.m. hundreds of supporters were milling about the room, most of them were seated. They barely appeared to react to the news.
Tyler Shubert, a Greenwich McMahon supporter who works in finance, credited McMahon’s operation for running a strong campaign.
“It’s always an uphill battle in a state like Connecticut,” he said.
Shubert said he felt that McMahon had done a good job getting her message out to voters. She also succeeded in dispatching some of the things that had been a distraction during her first campaign and was able to run a race based on her policies.
“I think she got past some of the more surface stuff in terms of people’s distaste for the WWE and things like that,” he said. “. . . On balance the people of Connecticut wanted to go in a different direction if the results stand.”
At the time Shubert made his comments, The AP was calling the race for Murphy with only 7 percent of the results in. He said he’d been thinking about McMahon’s future if the election didn’t go in her favor. He said he would like to see her run for another office, but said it’s hard to consider running for a less prominent office after running for U.S. Senate.
“It’s hard to step back. The Senate is the pinnacle in terms of statewide elected office,” Shubert said. “Whatever she decides to do, she would be of great value to the state of Connecticut.”
Shubert said that after four years of campaigning and running TV ads, McMahon already has established her name recognition if she chooses to run for something else.
In her concession speech, McMahon told supporters she had called Murphy to congratulate him and to urge him to make responsible decisions as a senator. She told the somewhat rowdy crowd to quiet down and listen to her as she urged them to hold the people recently elected to Congress accountable for their actions. They work for us, she said.
“And if we let them forget that, shame on us,” McMahon said. “I look forward to being helpful in that regard.”
But speaking to reporters as she shook hands with supporters, McMahon would not say whether she plans to seek elected office in the future. She said she would take a day or two to think about and maybe take a vacation.
“I’m going to give it some thought as to what I’m going to be doing. I haven’t made any decisions yet,” she said.
McMahon suggested she would likely continue doing philanthropic work. And despite a few “McMahon for governor!” calls from the crowd, McMahon said a gubernatorial run wasn’t likely in her future.
“I’m not considering running for governor,” she said. “I looked at that and, well we have a really good candidate to run for governor who’s not in office.”
And though she concluded her remarks to supporters with a “see you soon,” in a small exchange with an enthusiastic supporter she gave an indication she may not be looking to run for office again. As McMahon was talking to reporters one woman made her way through the throng of media to tell McMahon to run for office again.
“I want to help,” the woman said.
“You help the next person as hard as you helped for me,” McMahon answered.
Tags: Linda McMahon, Chris Murphy, U.S. Senate, 2012, money, millions, Hartford, Stamford, dh
(19) Comments
posted by: Noteworthy | November 7, 2012 7:18am
This election shows the measure of your ideas? With all due respect, what ideas? An increase in our social security taxes? Ouch. With all the outside groups spending money on behalf of Murphy - the money disparity is overstated and frankly, overrated.
posted by: rankandfile | November 7, 2012 10:52am
Ideas? Other than more spending and higher taxes, what would those ideas be?
posted by: robn | November 7, 2012 11:35am
If you don’t court the $50m Linda spent in the last election ( why would you?) she spent $40m. Twice as much as he $9m Chris raised plus $11m of PAC money. Still sounds like 2x unless you count the value of AFLCIO foot soldiers. In the end Linda still probably had more resources but 5x is way overstated.
posted by: justsayin | November 7, 2012 12:04pm
The money crying needs to stop. These guys still blame people even when they win. He needs a clue first then he can try to form an idea.
posted by: stellathecat | November 7, 2012 1:16pm
McMahon wasted far too much of her money on ill advised negative ads. Aside from not doing well in the debates, nothing hurt her more than the deluge of negativity.50M of positive ads might have produced a better result.
posted by: tin turnip | November 7, 2012 2:16pm
There were PLENTY of Super Pac ads running on McMahon’s behalf as well, and no one is talking about those costs and adding them to her totals. So just go by what the candidates themselves raised and spent. And that is a 5-1 margin.
Way to go, Chris, and congratulations. Proud to have you representing me. I know how hard you work.
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | November 7, 2012 2:30pm
Almost $100M of her own money over 2 elections. Her own money….....what does that tell you?
The republican establishment saved a boatload of $$$ these past few years. Phew!
HST
posted by: NoNonsense2012 | November 7, 2012 3:21pm
I disagree. Money did talk, we just didn’t like what it was saying.
posted by: Reasonable | November 7, 2012 5:07pm
It’s obvious that Linda McMahon’s money didn’t talk—“but Chris Murphy’s money sure talked!” The Democratic National Committee and other helpers spent “a ton of money” to make sure that Pres. Barack Obama’s “sure vote” won the election. “Money talks—and B.S. walks” made Murphy a winner. Noteworthy
already addressed this disparity in financing Murphy’s campaign.
posted by: Noteworthy | November 7, 2012 5:43pm
The other noteworthy impact - the near mindless Vote Line B Democrat - mentality. Straight party voting gives away the power of your vote - and reduces you to a pulse whose value is gone in an instant until the next time the well heeled need you to mindlessly show up.
posted by: MGKW | November 7, 2012 7:24pm
A little bitter Noteworthy?
but oh well Murphy-hating is more fun isn’t it?
posted by: Reasonable | November 7, 2012 9:13pm
Noteworthy: Former Congressman
Chris Shays “took a dim view” of Linda McMahon’s use of two lines in her GOP primary bid against him. “Her vote line B with Pres. Barack Obama was a no brainer—that doomed her—to lose the election—which she did.”
posted by: JamesBronsdon | November 8, 2012 12:10pm
The money was and is irrelevant, and we seem to waste a lot of breath/ink talking about it. She was just a bad candidate, with an unfortunate business background, for those of us looking for a conservative voice in the U.S. Senate. Too many negatives for me to vote for her. Of course, putting another reflexively liberal Democrat into the Senate isn’t a happy result, but hopefully the Conn. Republican Party will get the point that we also vote when we don’t vote.
posted by: ramonesfan | November 8, 2012 2:26pm
I knew she would lose, and she deserved to lose given the cynical campaign tactics of Corry Bliss. What an awful woman. If she wants to hold office so badly, why not run for mayor of Greenwich? Those would be constituents who at least understand Linda.
posted by: LongJohn47 | November 9, 2012 5:31pm
Five self-funded campaigns by business(wo)man millionaires have failed in the last six years (Lamont twice, McMahon twice, Foley once). All of them lost to veteran politicians who had real world government experience. It’s possible that voters know the difference and prefer the latter.
posted by: Reasonable | November 9, 2012 10:22pm
Fred: You say Linda McMahon was a bad candidate, but she didn’t cost U. S. taxpayers a dime, but paid a ton of money in federal income taxes, instead. You cover up the fact that after Murphy took $1 million dollars from the U. S. Treasury for a void of performance. He only served Pres. Barack Obama bury this country with $5.2 trillion dollars of masssive deficit budget spending —and was rewarded by voters by being reelected by the Connecticut Obama landslide. Realistically, If you ran a business, you couldn’t keep an incompetent like Murphy on your payroll Fred. At least Linda McMahon never cost you any money as a taxpayer. So why are you knocking Linda—when your proven taxpayer liability is Chris Murphy?
posted by: JamesBronsdon | November 11, 2012 11:07pm
Um, Reasonable, what are you talking about? I didn’t say any of the things you say I said other than she was a bad candidate. I think you’re inferring too much.
posted by: MGKW | November 12, 2012 11:32am
Reasonable can’t accept that Murphy won….btw, he won in the 5th in a down year (2010) for Democrats against a died in the wool conservative(Caliguiri)who thought it would be walk over…Murphy won by 9 points so please try harder on saying the Murphy won on Obama’s coat tails. He is articulate and intellectually capable—- that showed up in the debates. The voters of the state knew Linda McMahon was an embarrassment on both a moral (WWE) and intellectual level.You lost, get over it!
posted by: Reasonable | November 12, 2012 2:26pm
Fred: You display strong suggestive powers that you apparently are not aware of. “Too many negatives” is not exactly a voice of confidence in Linda McMahon. Chris Murphy had plenty of negatives—“but the power of the Obama sword” kept him on the federal payroll.