Quinnipiac (10/7-11, likely voters, 9/21-26 in parens):
Richard Blumenthal (D): 54 (49)
Linda McMahon (R): 43 (46)
Undecided 3 (4)
(MoE: ±2.9%)
Remember back when everyone got all in a tizzy because Quinnipiac suddenly saw the Connecticut Senate race collapse to a 3-point lead for Richard Blumenthal? Of course, that panic lasted about a week before about half a dozen polls in two days showed that it was really a double-digit race. Well, Quinnipiac’s back, and they too find that it’s now a double-digit race, with Blumenthal up 11, and at the 54% mark. Blumenthal’s favorables are 57/38, compared to McMahon’s 46/46. Qpac’s head Douglas Schwartz, in the poll writeup, muses “Linda McMahon may have peaked too soon and her advertising saturation could be causing ‘McMahon fatigue.'” (I suppose that sounds better than saying “Uh, yeah, that was an outlier.”)
OK, that’s not entirely fair to Quinnipiac, because there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence to that effect. In fact, it’s the story on the front page of the New York Times today, focusing on McMahon’s inability to connect with female voters, and the mind-numbing ad overkill (echoes of Meg Whitman here?) is a big part of that. Of course, the more relevant NYT story might be that they also just endorsed Blumenthal, despite their hatchet job on him earlier. They did (correctly, I’m afraid) describe him as “charm-free, though.
Also, despite McMahon’s attempts to steer the discussion toward lunchpail issues, the story seems to be steering back toward her unpleasant tenure as head of the WWE, as seen in a new spate of news stories today, especially from the major in-state newspaper, the Hartford Courant, focusing on steroid and prescription drug abuse in the WWE. The DSCC is also fanning the flames, launching a new TV ad that’s probably their harshest attack yet on the WWE years (maybe they were saving the best for last).
what you’re saying is that Linda McMahon has yet to hulk up and attempt the big boot and leg drop in this race? Seems like a sleeperhold has been applied here.
(/all i’ve got)
.. I watched the WWE as a kid back in the 90s (when it was the WWF; D-X was cool, what can I say?), and I still can’t believe I am hearing the words “Linda McMahon” and “Senate” in the same sentence.
It’s like if Maury Povich ran for Congress.
I can’t help but think a little part of the USA died with the 2003 California recall election.
Charlie Cook keeps telling me that it’s a toss up. He’s told me this 2-3 times now!
He’s also saying odds are better we lose >50 than not.
so can the MSM stop calling this race a “toss-up”? I guess if it tricks conservatives to pour money in this state instead of Nevada or Colorado then that would be ok.
The GOP should be thankful, however, that it’s not Rob Simmons who’s behind by 9 to 11 points. It’s Linda McMahon, who, unlike the dirt-broke Simmons, doesn’t need the national GOP to pump a penny into this thing. Financially, it’s all at her discretion from here on out. At least Meg Whitman, with her tens of millions, is probably within striking distance still.
He’s been relentless promoting McMahon, seemingly out of the quirky desire that he’d like to see her win as a fan of WWE. Alas, she has been quagmired in the low to mid 40s, and Blumenthal has had a stable lead late in the race. New England is the one area of the country unlikely to see significant losses for Democrats, all they’ll end up making some gains.
I get “better safe than sorry”, but there is close races that could use that money.
DSCC only has a handful of races to worry about anymore it seems – all on defense except Kentucky.
Pa, Ky, Nv, Il, and WV.
we should see Q-Poll CT-Gov results – at least, if past patterns persist. This cycle, they’ve been reporting Gov results the day after Senate.
Like Blumenthal, Malloy was up only 3 in Q’s last survey.