McMahon Leads In Connecticut GOP Senate Primary...But Shays Runs Better Against Democrats

Quinnipiac University Polling Institute ^ | March 22, 2012

[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.

[9YearLurker]

This one will.

I believe there’s also some sort of tea party candidate running, though presumably without a chance.

[campaignPete R-CT]

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.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“Linda is a weak ally. possibly better.”

---

She’s pro-abortion, and has been for years. How would she be an ally to pro-lifers? Besides, she’s a *terrible* candidate, and even if she did a 180 on abortion and became pro-life it won’t help us any when she loses to the Democrat by an even bigger margin than she lost to Blumenthal in 2010. If you want to call upon my commitment to the right to life to convince me to vote for a candidate, she should be pro-life, or electable, or (preferably) both, but McMahon is neither.

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.

[Clintonfatigued]

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.

[campaignPete R-CT]

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.

[Impy]

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.

[Clintonfatigued]

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.

[BillyBoy]

Neither uber-RINO Chris Shays or squishy moderate Linda McMahon is worth a warm bucket of spit for conservatives. It's foolish for social conservatives to donate money to the pro-abortion McMahon because Shays is even more liberal.

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.

[campaignPete R-CT]

i didnt vote for leeberman. but in retrospect it looked like it worked out for the best. lamont mighta been there for 30 years.

[BillyBoy]

>> 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.

[GOPsterinMA]

“Shays is a piece of crap’s 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.

[fieldmarshaldj]

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.

[GOPsterinMA]

“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.

[AuH2ORepublican]

You are absolutely right, had Lamont won in 2006 he'd have spent 30+ years in the Senate like Chris Dodd did. And guess what will happen if Chris Murphy (who is only 38 years years old) is elected to the Senate this year? We may not be able to get rid of him for over 40 years. If Linda McMahon wins the GOP Senate nomination, the Democrat nominee (likely Murphy) is all but elected, and he'll stay there for decades. So as despicable as Shays is, his nomination could stop Murphy, and we can get rid of Shays in the GOP primary in 2018 when the GOP has an actual stable of conservatives with an adequate résumé for a Senate election. And if Shays switches to the Dems before 2018, he'll be 73-years-old by then and could be vulnerable in both the RAT primary and the general, so we could pick up the seat that year.

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.

[Impy]

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.

[campaignPete R-CT]

SCREW SHAYS!!!
he can kiss my fat italian arse.

[BillyBoy]

>> 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. <<

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::

[GOPsterinMA]

“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.”

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.

[BillyBoy]

This composite of posts sums up my feelings on the candidate's nicely:

--------------------------------------------------

Shays after his loss in 2008 blamed “religious conservatives” and said he wants them and pro-lifers out of the Republican Party. 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. 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. 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, she’s a *terrible* candidate, and even if she did a 180 on abortion and became pro-life it won’t help us any when she loses to the Democrat by an even bigger margin than she lost to Blumenthal in 2010. Oh good grief, we’re 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