Skip to comments.McMahon Leads In Connecticut GOP Senate Primary...But Shays Runs Better Against Democrats
Posted on 03/22/2012 3:09:40 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Former wrestling executive Linda McMahon leads former U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays 51 - 42 percent in the Republican primary for Connecticut's U.S. Senate seat, but Shays runs better against possible Democratic candidates, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. This compares to a 50 - 35 percent McMahon lead September 16.
U.S. Rep. Christopher Murphy leads the Democratic primary for Senate with 37 percent, followed by former Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz with 25 percent and State Rep. William Tong with 4 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.
In possible November matchups:
Murphy tops McMahon 52 - 37 percent;
Murphy gets 41 percent to Shays' 40 percent;
Bysiewicz beats McMahon 49 - 39 percent;
Shays gets 43 percent to Bysiewicz' 42 percent;
McMahon leads Tong 43 - 39 percent;
Shays tops Tong 50 - 25 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at quinnipiac.edu ...
This is a touch call. Both of the Republican contenders are pro-abort RINO’s and they’re running in a liberal, pro-Obama state. If Christopher Shays is the nominee, he has about a 50/50 shot at winning the general election. Otherwise, Democrats are sure to hold on here.
I know of Shays’ record in the House and don’t like it. The Democrats running are far, far worse. I hope that Connecticut conservatives buy themselves nose plugs and vote for the RINO, as it could give us control of the U.S. Senate.
Because he is a Rat. The Lib voters there don't know the difference.
Shays voted against Clinton’s impeachment.
End of story.
Shays is a RINO and nothing else.
Yeah, this is a real turd sandwich. The CT GOP has no real bench of which to speak (hopefully we’ll elect a conservative, or at least a moderate-to-conservative, Republican in CT-05 and CT-04 so this doesn’t happen to us again in 2016 or 2018), so our only candidates are moderate RINO Linda McMahon (who has baggage, no pertinent experience, and proved that she’s a lousy candidate when she got trounced by Blumenthal in 2010) and liberal RINO Chris Shays (who is undistinguishable from a Democrat on most issues). The way I see it, McMahon has a 10% chance of winning and would vote our way 60% of the time, while Shays has a 40% chance of winning and would vote our way 35% of the time; whichever Democrat wins will vote with us maybe 5% of the time. So, if we’re trying to optimize the number of conservative votes that the next Senator from CT will cast, I guess we’re better off nominating Chris Shays and hoping he beats the (formal) Democrat. But I wouldn’t spend a dime or expend an ounce of energy to help Shays win.
“Shays is a RINO and nothing else.”
Absolutely true. So is Linda MacMahon and she’s unelectable.
Oh good grief, we’re not really going to run Linda McMahon again are we? Did people learn nothing from 2010. We don’t need any more silly Senate nominee’s. No more obviously ridiculous candidates like Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle. Shays is a bloody awful RINO whiner, but McMahon gives us no shot to win at all. There has got to be someone better up there.
So nothing will change with either one of them.
If one of them wins, could change the U.S. Senate as a whole.
I have seen Shays in action. You are just kidding yourself.
Shays will be no worse than Joe Lieberman and much better than any of the DemocRATS who are running.
Here’s another race which may flip.
Social conservatives are solidly behind Linda vs. Shays and this poll, though interesting, doesn’t change that.
Shays is full of pro-gay & NARAL rhetoric. Somebody should grill him on how he would vote on GOP SCOTUS nominees. We don’t need any GOP ‘no’ votes on the next Scalia. Reminder that some GOP senators voted ‘no’ on Bork.
chris shays should not expect pro-lifers to get him elected. Give me a break.
I’m as pro-life as it gets, and am wel aware that Shays is 100% pro-abortion, as is Rob Simmons. But McMahon is pro-abortion as well, and unlike Shays (or Simmons in 2010) she has almost no chance of winning. Obviously I would prefer a pro-life conservative who can win the general, but no one remotely close to that description is running (and, sadly, there might not be anyone who fits the bill in the entire state, which is why it’s so important that someone like Bernier wins in CT-05 and someday be able to run for the Senate), and McMahon doesn’t meet either criterion.
Linda MacMahon is a social conservative? I didn’t know that. What I noticed is how poorly she ran in 2010, even though she had everything going for her. I can only conclude that MacMahon’s margin of defeat was a personal rejection of her and there’s no reason to believe that she’ll do any better this year.
I see no compelling reason to hand this race to the Democrats.
the consensus in CT is that Linda would vote with the GOP on abortion roll calls. And on marriage.
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime.
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.
Voted NO on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info.
Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.
Shays co-sponsored for emergency contraception for rape victim
Shays is NARAL and was vocal about opposition to DADT.
Pro-lifers never help NARAL candidates.
shays after his loss in 2008 blamed “religious conservatives” and said he wants them and pro-lifers out of the Republican Party.
Now he wants pro-lifers to help him get the GOP nomination? that is a bizarre political technique. It’s a free country and if Shays is determined to be successful while telling pro-lifers to oppose him ... well, I am glad to oblige him.
1Did you read what I wrote? “So, if were trying to optimize the number of conservative votes that the next Senator from CT will cast, I guess were better off nominating Chris Shays and hoping he beats the (formal) Democrat. But I wouldnt spend a dime or expend an ounce of energy to help Shays win.” I’m not going to “help him,” but neither will I pretend that helping a social liberal who has donated to pro-abortion causes for years (check out Linda McMahon’s donation record) get the nomination and hand the election to the Democrats (if she couldn’t win in 2010 with the wind in her back despite all the money she spent, she’ll get blown out this time) is going to save a single baby. At least if we nominated a pro-life candidate we could say that we voted based on principle, but McMahon is a pro-abortion moderate, just a tad better than the pro-abortion liberal Shays, and her odds of winning the general election are insignificant (I said 10%, and that may have been a generous assessment).
In 2010, CT Republicans had a choice between two unpleasant options (Peter Schiff never stood a chance, and was a social liberal anyhow): a pro-abortion, liberal-to-moderate Republican in Rob Simmons who could actually win the general election (not because “it takes a liberal to win, but because it takes someone with at least some pertinent experience and record of achievement to win) and a pro-abortion, moderate Republican in Linda McMahon whose electability was at best uncertain and at worst nil (and it proved to be the latter). In 2012, the choice is similar. Instead of Simmons the even more liberal Chris Shays is running, but McMahon’s potential upside has been proven to be nonexistent. I thought that Simmons was the smart choice in 2010 (although I didn’t send him a dime), and have come to the unhappy conclusion that the detestable Chris Shays is the better choice in 2012 (although, again, I won’t support him).
I base this on logic and simple mathematics: Shays will vote with us around 35% of the time, and has a 40% chance of being elected, while McMahon will vote with us around 65% of the time (giving her the benefit of the doubt; she may prove to be even more liberal, and I suspect that she’d be no better than Scott Brown), but only has a 10% chance of being elected; in both cases, if the Democrat gets elected he or she will vote with us around 5% of the time. If we nominate Shays, the expected result will be a Senator who will vote with us 17% of the time (Shays’s odds of winning are 40%, and the Dem’s are 60%, and Shays will vote with us 35% of the time while the Dem would vote with us 5% of the time). If we nominate McMahon, the expected result will be a Senator who will vote with us 11% of the time (McMahon’s odds of winning are 10%, and the Dem’s are 90%, and McMahon will vote with us 65% of the time while the Dem would vote with us 5% of the time). It’s not my fault that the GOP has absolutely no bench in CT, and that one of the very few moderate (as opposed to liberal) Republicans who had the ability to be competitive in the Senate race (Tom Foley) passed on the chance to run (for the record, I think that Foley’s odds of winning would be about as high as Shays’s, and his voting record would be far better than Shays’s (and probably better than McMahon’s).
The two choices are McMahon and Shays, and we don’t get to choose an 11-term Congressman Thomas Scott, a former three-term Governor with a clean arrest sheet John Rowland, or an 11-term Congressman Gary Franks. It’s high time that CT Republicans start building a bench so that we can run conservatives (or at least moderates, for Pete’s sake) for the Senate and the governorship who have the résumé and profile that CT voters expect from candidates for those positions (and don’t tell me that “the Democrats elected so-and-so who had a shady background and no experience”; it is a fact of life that Democrats have no standards and that in CT it’s difficult for a liberal Democrat *not* to get elected). That’s why I’m leaning towards supporting Justin Bernier, a 36-year-old conservative with a military and public-service background over his older Republican challengers in the eminently winnable, open CT-05 (my brother’s home district): http://www.bernierforcongress.org/index.php
In CT-04, I’m not sure about the candidates’ positions, but Steve Obsitnik appears to have a good background and could be a statewide candidate some day: http://www.obsitnik.com/index.html
And while the CT-02 is more Democrat than the other two CDs and will be more difficult for us to win, it sounds like Chris Coutu is a terrific candidate: http://www.christophercoutu.com/about
I hope that CT Republicans have more pleasant choices in the 2016 and 2018 Senate elections; who we elect to Congress in 2012 could be vital to that end.
I've come to the conclusion that Connecticut is hopeless. We're surrounded by a clueless electorate who love democRATs. Their beloved 'RAT politicians could commit murder, and they'll still vote for them.
The only answer is to leave the state and find greener pastures in a red state, like so many other CT residents are/have been doing. I hope that someday soon we can join the mass exodus.
And yes, I have been involved in local elections, been spit on, shoved and had my ears blown out by loud whistles by union thugs during CT political rallies. I've done my part in "fighting back".
Connecticut is hopeless.
This one will.
I believe there’s also some sort of tea party candidate running, though presumably without a chance.
Linda is a weak ally. possibly better.
Shays is a strong opponent of pro-lifers.
I saw Bernier and his campaign guy today at the Pro-life rally in Hartford with Joe Scheidler speaking. They put the squeeze on my good to get me to switch from Greenberg. ya never know.
“Linda is a weak ally. possibly better.”
And I reiterate, the problem with the CT GOP is that there is no stable of conservatives with adequate résumés for Senate or gubernatorial runs. We need to start building from the ground up, and in 2012 we have an excellent chance of electing a Republican in CT-05, a fairly decent chance of electing one in CT-04, and an outside (but not insignificant) chance of doing so in CT-02. Electing youngish conservative (or moderate-to-conservative) Republicans in those congressional districts will give us the bench we need for the 2016 and 2018 Senate elections.
That’s why, unless you think that Greenberg is *much* better than Bernier on the issues (which I have no reason to think is the case), or that Greenberg has a *much* better chance of getting elected (which I don’t think is the case, either; if anything, I would think Bernier would have better odds), you should support the thirty-something Bernier over the middle-aged Greenberg. While I’m not saying by any stretch that Greenberg is too old to run for office, electing him to Congress would not provide the CT GOP with as much in terms of later dividends than would the election of Bernier, who is young enough that he can build up his résumé and profile over several terms in the House so that he can get elected to the Senate in his early 40s and serve for 30-40 years. You don’t build up a farm system by signing veteran players.
I concur with auh2orepublican. Linda MacMahon had everything going for her in 2010, and not only did she not win, but she didn’t even come close. And Richard Blumenthal was a candidate with serious flaws. So it’s clear that MacMahon is unacceptable to the voters. What floors me is that she’s running again. Is there any reason to expect her to win?
I don’t blame you for disliking Chris Shays. He’s not one of my favorites at all. But he’s running in a state which would otherwise elect a liberal Democrat and he has a pretty good chance of winning. So what’s there to lose? Someone of our viewpoint is not going to win this race, so the logical thing to do is hold our noses and cut our losses. A little bit of something is better than a lot of nothing.
to clear up the confusion, see post #15. Helps explain why NARAL ran attack ads vs Linda and NRLC ran ads in Linda’s favor. And why NARAL loves Shays.
Now, I realize not everybody is interested in the details of NRLC legislative scorecards. But it explains why Linda is an ally if she would be expected to have a very good voting record on life issues.
has the Shays’ campaign issued a statement requesting support from pro-lifers? When they do, i would find it interesting and perhaps amusing. Has he said anything about SCOTUS nominees?
I also did not attempt to become a delegate to the state convention and got the list today and I ain’t on it. My involvement in that race will be minimal with a capital M.
I’ll tell Justin that he’s got a friend in PR.
Shays is a piece of crap’s piece of crap. Who’s worse that hasn’t left the party yet? Connie Morella? Shays makes Mark Kirk look like a swell guy.
Unless his vote would be the deciding one we could do without him in the Senate. It would be nice to force the rats to spend money on CT though. Linda would likely get gobsmacked.
Everything you say about Shays is true. But we don’t know which race will decide control of the Senate. This could be the one that does. He’s the only Republican who can force the DemocRATS to spend money in Connecticut.
I'm surprised a bunch of freepers are still fans of McMahon and think she'd be competitive in a general election. She lost by around 12+ points last time, running for an open seat in a BIG Republican year against a severely damaged RAT nominee: Richard "I served in Vietnam" Blumenthal. Bottom line is that she's not a conservative and not a good candidate.
I'd probably cast a token vote in the primary for whichever Senate candidate is an actual conserative (my guess is Brian Hill ), but conservatives have virtually no shot at getting anyone decent in CT, at least this around.
Shays might actually be an improvement over the 95% liberal Joe LIEberman that a bunch of useful idiot conservatives backed last time (closet Democrat Shays will caucus with the GOP and vote "only" 60-70% liberal), though I doubt I could bring myself to vote for either LIEberman or Shays if I lived in CT.
Best to focus money and resources elsewhere, and I could care less if Shays beats the useless McMahon in the primary.
i didnt vote for leeberman. but in retrospect it looked like it worked out for the best. lamont mighta been there for 30 years.
A bunch of conservatives volunteered time and money to LIEberman that could have been better spent on helping conservative GOP senators in tight races. A number of FReepers openly boosted of sending money to that socialist. LIEberman won and was literally the deciding vote that gave the Senate to the RATs in 2007. (the RATs officially won 49 seats, but he and fellow "independent" Bernie Sanders gave them a majority). Senators Jim Talent, George Allen, and Conrad Burns all lost their seats by 1% of the vote or less. Had conservatives focused on them instead of LIEberman, the results would have been very different. I'd much prefer a 52-48 GOP controlled Senate with Lamont than a RAT controlled Senate with LIEberman.
“Shays is a piece of craps piece of crap.”
And he’s REALLY creepy looking too.
“Shays makes Mark Kirk look like a swell guy”
Hell, he ALMOST makes Susan Collins look swell (and that’s no easy task).
There’s no winner in this race.
Red Ned Lamont... he was a real hoot. There was some event where he was onstage with some Black political activists and he looked so absurdly out of his element. That was probably the first time he’d ever been around Black folks in his life (not counting those shining his shoes or serving him lunch). Gotta love those privileged Caucasian Stalinists.
Oh. be probably got some court side seats given to him for an NBA game at some point in his life. He's one of those white schmucks that high fives his other honky stiff friends when a player dunks the ball. F-tards, all.
So nominating McMahon will give us a 90% chance of 42 years of a Senator Murphy, while nominating Shays gives us a 40% chance of getting rid of Murphy this year, having for the next 6 years a senator that votes with us 35% of the time, and then getting another bite at the apple in 2018. The fact that McMahon is slightly less enthusiastically pro-abortion than Shays (but pro-abortion nonetheless) is no reason to condemn the American people to 42 years of a liberal Democrat Senator Murphy.
What gets me is we could have won that 3 way race with a candidate not embroiled in gambling scandal. Instead we had prominent Republicans endorse that socialist POS Liarman.
he can kiss my fat italian arse.
My all-time favorite privileged white RAT senate candidate (not counting all the Kennedy's, of course, and perhaps excluding Jon Corzine) was Goldman Sachs/Matlock Capital/ Ketchum Trading, LLC candidate Blair Hull seeking the US Senate nomination from Illinois in 2004. He spent zillions driving his limo around Chicago to denounce the "fiscally irresponsible" Republicans who "represent the rich". To show solidarity with the poor and minorites, he bought off my Congresscritter (Bobby Rush)'s endorsement by hiring Rush's brother to a 6-figure salary as a "campaign consultant". Hull had bottomless pockets to buy the RAT Senate nomination until Obama's camp got ahold of his divorce files and then played the same dirty trick on Jack Ryan in the general election. Look at Blair Hull on the campaign trail...yep... real man of the people you could have a beer with. ::chuckles::
How do the Rats get away with accessing sealed court files? WTF? Isn't that least a misdemeanor offense at a minimum?
“Look at Blair Hull on the campaign trail...yep... real man of the people you could have a beer with. ::chuckles::”
A real man of the people. Judge Smails would be proud that Spaulding grew up, changed his name and ran for the Senate.
Shays after his loss in 2008 blamed religious conservatives and said he wants them and pro-lifers out of the Republican Party. Its a free country and if Shays is determined to be successful while telling pro-lifers to oppose him ... well, I am glad to oblige him. Shays is a piece of craps piece of crap. Whos worse that hasnt left the party yet? Connie Morella? Shays makes Mark Kirk look like a swell guy. SCREW SHAYS!!!he can kiss my fat italian arse.
[McMahon's] pro-abortion, and has been for years. How would she be an ally to pro-lifers? Besides, shes a *terrible* candidate, and even if she did a 180 on abortion and became pro-life it wont help us any when she loses to the Democrat by an even bigger margin than she lost to Blumenthal in 2010. Oh good grief, were not really going to run Linda McMahon again are we? Did people learn nothing from 2010?
So, Chris and Linda, I say to you... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCb7UCZoS1Y
“Blair” was also his middle name, he filed on the ballot as M. Blair Hull. The M. stood for “Marion”.
Dear Lord! :)
Here and I thought it was Michelle.
From their allies in the mainstream media, of course. Here's the story from 8 years ago:
Hull's ex-wife called him violent man in divorce file
By David Mendell, Tribune staff reporter. Tribune staff reporter John Chase contributed to this report
February 28, 2004
The messy divorce, and its sealed records, has consumed Hull's campaign since the Tribune reported on Feb. 15 that his second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during the final stages of their divorce. Hull initially declined to discuss the matter, but he soon faced a storm of media inquiries , as well as calls from rivals to unseal the records ... their 1998 divorce records reveal that she accused him of being "a violent man" who caused her to fear for her safety.
Hull, a multimillionaire former securities trader who is on track to break all spending records for an Illinois political campaign, was leading the field of Democrats in the March 16 primary in a Tribune/WGN-TV poll conducted just before the issue erupted.
Of course in the case of Miss Marion, it couldn't have happened to a nicer RAT.
This douche sounds like a Kennedy.
Amazing what Rats get away with, isn’t it?
Thank you for the information, BB.