UConn Professor Predicts Blumenthal, Malloy Victories
by Hugh McQuaid | Oct 17, 2010 3:11pm
(11) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Election 2010
With barely two weeks left before the mid-term elections, a political scientist at the University of Connecticut predicted comfortable victories for the Democratic candidates in the state’s senate and gubernatorial races.
Vin Moscardelli, a UConn professor of political science, said Friday that he expects Democrats Richard Blumenthal and Dan Malloy to easily win their bids for their respective offices albeit for different reasons.
In the U.S. Senate race, Moscardelli said the relatively safe campaign that Blumenthal has run against his more aggressive opponent, Linda McMahon, will pay off on Nov 2.
“I think that the way this is trending [Blumenthal] is going to coast to victory,” he said.
Moscardelli said that due to the state’s historically liberal bent, McMahon has been fighting an uphill battle from the onset.
“[In the senate race] there are short-term trends favoring Republicans bumping up against more secular trends as Connecticut continues to become a bluer state,” he said.
The most recent Quinnipiac University poll released last week put Blumenthal up 11 points over McMahon. A previous poll, two weeks earlier, had McMahon closing the gap to within the three-point margin of error. A Rasmussen Reports poll released Friday puts Blumenthal in the lead by five points.
While McMahon has closed a significant gap in the polls since the beginning of the race, when Blumenthal was considered a shoe-in for the seat, Moscardelli noted that gains coincided with national trends.
“She did gain ground but the rate of gain wasn’t that much greater than that of Republican candidates around the country,” he said.
In the end both candidates did a poor job of defining their opponent in the eyes of the public, who have known Blumenthal for the last 20 years as Attorney General, Moscardelli said.
Even McMahon’s numerous attack ads condemning Blumenthal for misrepresenting his military service in Vietnam, probably had relatively little effect on the public’s opinion because of his past efforts on behalf of veterans, Moscardelli said.
“His record on veteran’s issues has been extraordinary,” he said.
As for the chance of an October surprise? While admitting it’s always possible, Moscardelli thought it was unlikely.
“I think that the voters know these candidates at this point,” he said. “I have a hard time believing that anything that breaks within the next two or three weeks would change people’s attitudes toward these candidates.
“I think it would take a blockbuster revelation at this point,” he said.
The Oct. 14 Quinnipiac University poll found only three percent of voters are undecided and seven percent that named a candidate say they could change their mind by Election Day.
In the gubernatorial race Moscardelli is also predicting a democratic victory but for different reasons.
“The two races are driven by different dynamics,” he said. “In national politics, Connecticut’s blueness is a big factor but the people of this state have proven they aren’t afraid to elect a republican governor.”
A Rasmussen Reports poll of the governor’s race released Saturday, shows Malloy with 49 percent of the vote and Republican Tom Foley with 45 percent. The poll of 750 likely voters has a 4 percent margin or error.
“The race has tightened since late September when Malloy held a 10-point lead,” Rasmussen’s press release on the poll says. “Earlier this month, he held a narrower 49 percent to 44 percent edge over Foley. In surveys dating back to May, Malloy has consistently been the front-runner, with support ranging from 38 percent to 50 percent. Foley, in those same surveys, has earned 33 percent to 45 percent of the vote.”
Despite being outspent in the primary campaign and so far in the general campaign, Moscardelli said he expects Malloy to win because of great ground campaign.
“It’s flabbergasting how much money Malloy has had to run against,” he said.
According to forms each candidate has filed with the State Elections Enforcement Commission, Foley has indeed outspent Malloy, but has less money going into the final few weeks of the campaign.
So far Foley has spent about $6.5 million on the campaign while Malloy, who is publicly financed has spent around $4.2 million of the $8.7 million he was given by the state to spend. As the two enter the last leg of this campaign, Malloy has far more money still on hand. According to the same SEEC forms, Malloy still has $4.5 million while Foley had just under $200,000 in his Oct. 10 filing.
In the August Democratic primary Malloy was outspent almost four to one by Ned Lamont, but was still able to sail to victory proving that money doesn’t always talk.
In both races Moscardelli’s predictions are supported by models generated by New York Times statistician, Nate Silver. Silver’s models, based on 100,000 simulations, predict comfortable democratic victories for both positions.
In the governor’s race Silver gives Malloy an 83.5 percent chance of victory. While the same model applied to the senate race predicts an overwhelming 99.4 percent chance of victory for Blumenthal.
Tags: Linda McMahon, Richard Blumenthal, Dan Malloy, Tom Foley, poll, U.S. Senate, governor's race
(11) Comments
posted by: hawkeye | October 17, 2010 5:06pm
Vin Moscardelli compares with a professional gambling player, with the odds in his favor!
posted by: wmwallace | October 17, 2010 6:38pm
Not surprised to read that a Vin Moscardelli a professor at UConn predicts easy wins for both Malloy and Blumenthal in November. Not that I discount him but still curious who gets out the vote better. So far it looks like independents are breaking for republicans from all the polls I have read. Will the democratic base come out in force. That is not a given by any stretch. Yes unions will come out but will the seniors just vote for the democrats. Not sure about that especially those who feel like this administration is taking benefits away from them.
Should be interesting but I expect close races on both counts.
posted by: and 1 | October 18, 2010 9:27am
Personally, I have determined the best thing to do is to attend the October 30th rally to restore sanity. I am sick of negative ads- although I found the ads from the textile plant interesting because of the real people speaking- the rest is just way toooooooo negative. May not even vote.
posted by: Paul G. Littlefield | October 18, 2010 11:28am
College professors’ opinions and predictions are even less reliable than columnists
posted by: wmwallace | October 18, 2010 5:07pm
I am curious what The Restore Sanity Rally ends up becoming. So far Ms. Huffington, and Oprah is sending audience members. It will be interesting if this is just a way to promote Stewart and Colbert or a serious political rally. I would think the latter but who knows.
What it does mean is that many people won’t be on the ground campaigning for their candidates that weekend.
posted by: and 1 | October 19, 2010 10:32am
WM- That is the point- to tell the politicians- all of them- that we want some sanity here. The issues are not just about corporations or bailouts. It is about the refusal on the part of our elected leaders, to listen to the needs of the people who elect them. Good example is the governor’s race here- You have Foley who really did run the Bibb Company into bankruptcy which really did result in it’s closing. Foley then took a non-voting seat on the Board of Directors for that same company: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18655691.html “Foley, formerly the company’s majority stockholder, will take a reduced stake in Bibb and a non-voting seat on the company’s board of directors as part of a plan to bring the company out of Chapter 11.” And while Malloy was the mayor when the city attempted to make improvements for business and as a part of that, they did try to close down Curley’s Diner (while I supported Curley’s I also understood that the city thus the mayor was in fact trying to upgrade that area). Now they are both taking what appears to be legitimate jabs at each other but they are not telling us what they are putting in place for the people. That is why my time is better spent in D.C. Running for office should not be about egos or taking multiple shots at the person running against you- it should be a desire to serve the people in what you believe is the best way to do so and presenting that plan so that the people can make a real choice. And while I will personally continue to contribute by driving for the candidates, making phone calls or just talking to my neighbors about them- on October 30th I am going to a rally in D.C. to say I want to restore sanity in our society.
posted by: wmwallace | October 20, 2010 3:25am
and 1 So you agree with Malloy and the city in trying to close a business to improve the area. Didn’t that happen in New London CT where the leaders decided to throw people out of their homes and businesses to improve the area. That’s something to be proud of.
You have shown zero prove about the Bibb being taken down by Foley. Sorry your site you link is questionable to say the least.
But we do know that Malloy raised taxes every year while he was mayor.
Good luck with the other Colbert and Stewart followers in accomplishing Restore Sanity. Though I believe it will be nothing but trashing the Tea Party and other conservatives.
posted by: and 1 | October 20, 2010 9:38am
WM- You really do not have the right to put words in my mouth (or in this case in my posting). I did not say I supported either position. I in fact stated that they were trying to upgrade the area (most of which they have done with the exception of the diner) but that I supported Curley’s. The whole issue is very complicated and it continues to be my firm belief that the city and the diner each had a position that I can relate to. THE PUBLICATION I sent the link to is a TRADE PUBLICATION and NOT POLITICAL. It is one of those industry publications which act to inform others in the industry and in the case of Bibb regarded textile manufacturing. As far as the rally goes - seems to me the talk is about middle class Americans not having a voice and the desire to change that.
posted by: wmwallace | October 20, 2010 4:50pm
and 1
I am middle class and don’t see The Restore Sanity as anything but more as pushing an agenda of John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and those who enjoy their left leaning views. That is not my view and many others who are middle class.
We want to keep more of our money as we know best of how to spend it. Not those in Hartford nor Washington. We have seen how they spend and borrow and put us all in a hole.
We need sanity in our government to spend less and shirk government and not to continue to grow it.
posted by: and 1 | October 20, 2010 7:08pm
WM- since you feel this way- where were you when Bush went into Iraq? And where were you when the first bailouts were given (again during Bush)? I keep hearing about the left but please help me to understand- what horrible things have the Left and Democrats done to you lately? So far- our president has gotten troops out of Iraq, provided a means for us to keep our children on our health plans until they are 26 and made certain our children with pre-existing conditions have health care. To me this rally to restore sanity is to make certain that not only our political leaders know we exist as middle class Americans but to also let the president know. Now you started out telling me that Foley did not drive his company into bankruptcy- so do you want to stick with that train of thought or do you want to move on to the rally? We are in a hole and it is really hard to climb out of it but unless we give each other substantial proof then we are just talking (or posting if you will) to hear and see ourselves communicate. How about a real intellectual communication with facts? I think you have a lot to offer and your voice should be heard but I really wish you would give me proof and not just the angry blows that are handed out on a day to day basis. We need facts not just anger and if you want to be angry that is fine but at least have the facts to back that up.
posted by: wmwallace | October 21, 2010 12:32am
Let’s talk Health Care. Who pays for it. The taxpayer though higher insurance rates which we are already seeing.
I do agree that reforms are needed in Health Care but not what we were given in that 2300+ page disaster.
Things like Tort reform. Which is not part of this, because they have to keep Trail Lawyers happy.
How about letting people and businesses to buy Health Insurance against state lines. Competition always lowers cost.
The only things I like from Obama care is insuring those with pre-existing conditions. Otherwise all I see it as a government power grab.
They have not extended the Bush Tax cuts. Who does that hurt. Us the Middle Class. So why wasn’t that done before congress adjourned till after the elections. That was the democratic party that did that.
They also tried to stick Cap and Tax down our throats. Thankfully that never came up for a vote.
I have not even brought up the bailouts to the Banks, Auto industry, Frannie and Freddie and Wall Street. That cost us 89 billion dollars to taxpayers.
That is more than enough to be upset about.