McCain Leads Poll in 2008 CT Presidential Primary

Well we knew it wouldn't be Bill Frist topping the list, but the support among Independents reveals something about how Connecticut voters are far more conservative than liberal. 61% is strong support. See the detailed results by American Research Group, Inc. here. McCain won the CT 2000 presidential primary 48% to George Bush's 46%. What is interesting in that presidential primary is the total turnout for both parties, Dems 177,301, Republicans 178,985.

Lieberman-Lamont Debate in the Cards

The Lieberman campaign has accepted Lamont's request for a debate, according to a recent release:

The Lieberman Campaign announced today that they have accepted an invitation, on Sen. Joe Lieberman’s behalf, to debate Ned Lamont. The debate will take place on July 6th, during the Senate’s Fourth of July recess, and air on WVIT – the NBC affiliate.

“We look forward to seeing the Greenwich Multi-Millionaire take a break from his attack politics to address some real issues,” said Sean Smith, Lieberman’s Campaign Manager. “Voters want to know where the candidates stand on the issues that matter to them and we believe that they deserve that.” ("Lieberman")

So mark your calendars.

Source

"Lieberman Campaign Challenges Lamont: Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is." Friends of Joe Lieberman. Press Release, 16 June, 2006.

Lieberman on the Attack

Bear Ad Returns

Joe Lieberman has dragged out the bear ad again. Remember the bear ad from 1988? In it, Sen. Lowell Weicker was portrayed as a sleeping bear who had missed too many votes. Now, apparently, the bear has a cub. You can watch the ad here on Lieberman's website.

The same DC consultant hit man, Carter Askew, designed both ads. The new one shows Weicker coming out of his cave, still angry 18 years later that Joe Lieberman beat him. But he's too lazy to run again. "Instead of coming out of hibernation," the narrator informs us, "he sent his bear cub instead." (In fact, Weicker had nothing to do with Lamont choosing to run for Senate.) It portrays Lamont as a whining, hop-about baby who doesn't want to run against Lieberman because he previously gave Lieberman a campaign contribution. "But I agree with the Republicans 80 percent of the time!" cartoon Lamont protests in a shrill toddler's voice. But as a "cub" he has to listen to the big bear.

The new ad brings another modern Beltway campaign attack mode to Connecticut: Bush adviser Karl Rove's strategy of taking your own weakness and turning it into your opponent's weakness instead, through relentless misrepresentation of facts. (Bass)

The evidence does in fact suggest that Weicker didn't have a hand in urging Lamont to run. Yes, there are Weicker/Lamont connections (Lamont was a Weicker appointee in the 1990s, there are several high-profile Weicker people working for or around the Lamont campaign, and Weicker is holding a fundraiser for Lamont this weekend), but the idea of Weicker forcing Lamont to run is nuts.

While the Lamont ads have at times attacked Lieberman (the dog ad, for example), the attacks from Lieberman's camp have been much more vicious, more personal, and prone to focusing on small details that are either old, taken out of context, or entirely made up.

The bear ad worked in 1988 because it capitalized on voters' long-simmering dislike of Weicker, who had been in the Senate for eighteen years. But now, most people have only dim memories of Weicker as a senator or even as governor. An attack ad primarily featuring Weicker the Bear seems out of place and odd, and the depiction of Lamont as a hyper bear cub with a squeaky voice in a pink shirt (was that deliberate? I have to think so) is the worst sort of personal attack.

It's pathetic. Joe Lieberman should be better than this. The image he's crafted for himself of a noble, conscience-driven statesman demands that he be better than this. People support Lieberman because they believe he's a good man. If he keeps slinging this kind of toxic mud, they may change their minds.

Ironically, so far the Lieberman ads have had little effect on polls. Lamont continues to gain. What if Joe Lieberman just sacrificed his credibility and his noble image for nothing?

Source

Bass, Paul. "The Bear Is Back." New Haven Independent 16 June, 2006.

Greens Mounting a Challenge

Thornton on his Rival Candidates: "They're Insane."

The Hartford Advocate has a story out today about Green Party gubernatorial candidate Cliff Thornton, whose major difference with his rivals revolves around the war on drugs:

...Hartford native and Glastonbury resident Thornton, a long-time drug legalization advocate and first-time political candidate, saw a clear distinction between his campaign and the campaigns of DeStefano and Malloy.

¨I´m not insane. They´re insane,¨ Thornton said. Their insanity, he said, stems from support of drug prohibition.

¨DeStefano and Malloy are applying the same tactics that have been employed for almost a century, in and around drug prohibition. We have had almost a century of the war on drugs,¨ Thornton said. ¨Yet there are more drugs selling for cheaper prices on our streets than ever before. Would you say it´s time to look at something different than what we´ve been doing?¨ (Bulger)

The crazy thing here is that Thornton actually has a point. What we're doing about drugs isn't working. Maybe legalization isn't the answer, but so far no one else is even addressing the problem. Too bad no one's paying attention.

Such is the fate of the Green Party: to be forever ahead of the curve, then forgotten or shoved aside when everyone else catches up. Case in point: Iraq. A lot of Americans are upset with the way the war is being handled. Greens were out protesting it long ago. Another example is campaign finance reform and public financing, which were Green ideas long before Democrats and Jodi Rell discovered them.

So why can't the Greens get their message out? Funding is one issue: they don't have any. Members are notoriously cheap, and the party won't take corporate donations (not that any corporations would give to them). Another issue is the party members themselves: there aren't enough of them, and they don't get along. For example:

¨We´re a party that´s in the process of rebuilding, quite frankly. We´ve had an office we haven´t had a chance to fully staff,¨ Tim McKee, Thornton´s campaign manager, said. In order to get Thornton on the ballot, the Greens need 15,000 signatures by Aug. 9. McKee said they currently have just under 1,000.

Meanwhile, the party is still reeling from defections and from a divisive 2004 election.

¨I think people know that the 2004 presidential race split us quite a bit. Locally, people like [New Haven alderwoman] Joyce Chen switched and became a Democrat. [Hartford City Council member] Elizabeth Horton-Sheff left because she thought we were talking too much about international issues like the war. Quite frankly, this is the first time we´ve had to talk about statewide issues,¨ McKee said. (Bulger)

Worse, the Greens that I remember from my short time with them in 2002-3 were divided into factions, each vying for control of an essentially powerless organization. Infighting in small organizations can be deadly. Some of those fault lines may still remain.

In addition to all this, the Greens still have to struggle with lingering anger over the 2000 election. Paradoxically, some of the anger Democrats and other liberals feel towards the Bush Administration gets aimed squarely in their direction, when people remember that they're there at all.

The future of the Greens as a party seems pretty bleak, right now. They'll be stomped in the election like always, after which they may either revert to trying to win the odd municipal race or two or perhaps disappear entirely.

But their ideas, like radical new directions in drug policy, will stick around, and maybe edge into the political mainstream over the next couple of years. Not that they'll get any credit for them. By then, they'll be way beyond that old chestnut anyway, and on to something even crazier.

Source

Bulger, Adam. "Green Thumbs Up." Hartford Advocate 15 June, 2006.

Open Forum

CEA endorses Lamont.

AP article: Lieberman has to decide soon whether or not to run as an independent.

It's been a lousy week for Lieberman, and a very, very good one for Ned Lamont.

There are other campaigns out there. But it's like everyone is holding their breath, waiting to see what will happen next.

(While we're waiting, go contribute to the wiki!)

Joe Independent

The Prospect of an Independent Lieberman Becoming More Likely

Political Wire has a story up today that Lieberman "allies" are planning for an independent Lieberman run. This could mean a any number of things from a bunch of guys thinking up a contingency plan to Lieberman supporters, friends and advisors actually laying the groundwork for an independent Joe.

Even more interestingly, one report in the previous post (hat tip to CTObserver) suggests that Lamont may be as little as six points behind Lieberman (40%-46%), according to a Rasmussen poll. (Update: That poll number now confirmed. Lamont is actually within the margin of error.)

So maybe it'll happen after all. And if it does, what then?

First, despite the polls, there's no real guarantee that Lieberman will actually win in November if he's an independent. He'll have to battle Lamont for Democrats and independents (who seem to be trending towards the Democrats this year), and conservatives will have their own candidate in Alan Schlesinger. Lieberman, as the primary race is starting to show, can't necessarily count on Democratic votes to carry him. If Democrats see him actually leave their party, it could turn a significant number who might have voted his way against him. A Lamont victory, or even a Schlesinger victory, over an independent Lieberman, is possible. Niether are likely, mind you, but the possibility is there.

But what if Lieberman does win? Polls suggest he will. Then what?

Connecticut will essentially have a Jim Jeffords. If Lieberman leaves the party, will he continue to caucus with Democrats? Or will he cross the aisle? What if it's up to Lieberman to decide which way the Senate will go for the next two years? Jeffords swung the Senate. Lieberman could do it, too. If that's the case, he'll be in a great position, and will probably be one of the most powerful and influential men in Washington. For a while.

If not, he'll be a man without a party, which means he'll either be the kind of guy who can easily go back and forth between the camps, or someone nobody will ever talk to.

It will almost certainly mean that this will be his last Senate term.

Now that an independent Lieberman is seeming more and more likely, these sorts of questions are going to come up. If the Rasmussen Poll is right, and Lamont is within easy striking distance, we can expect to start asking them to him very soon.

Farrell Hits Shays Where It Hurts... In The Ear...Mark!

From a Farrell Press Release titled, "SHAYS SHORTCHANGES CONNECTICUT AGAIN WITH FOCUS ON IRAQ SECURITY INSTEAD OF OUR OWN" (Release is not yet online, but the press release page is here):

Farrell, standing at the Bridgeport ferry terminal in the shadow of I-95, the Amtrak and Metro North rail lines, and the international shipping terminal, pointed to the critical confluence of these transportation systems and said they all stood as testament to what hasn't happened – implementation of the 9-11 recommendations for homeland security – something she called "unconscionable."

"I hold Chris responsible," Farrell said. "He, the Republican leadership he supports and President Bush, who he has backed so ferociously, profess to be concerned about terrorist threats. But Chris took his eye off the ball, and on his watch Connecticut's homeland security funding has dropped from $46 million to $13.5 million in the space of three years and we are as vulnerable now as we've ever been."

The release goes on to list the security policies that she backs:

Farrell also backs these homeland security policies:

* A port security plan similar to the one in operation in Hong Kong that ultimately will screen every container that comes into U.S. ports.
* A border security plan that hires agents dedicated to that task and that task alone, not the deployment of the National Guard which is already stretched to the breaking point and better suited for other functions. Inclusion of the 5,525 mile Canadian border as well as the 1,989 Mexican border in any such plan.
* Task force investigation of the gaps in rail service security in the nation, and rapid implementation of real and effective remedies.
* Further closing of gaps in aviation security especially on commuter and cargo aircraft.
* Better communications equipment for all levels of first responders, with special attention to effective communication among federal, state and local agencies.
* A top to bottom review of all nuclear safety issues with an emphasis on evacuation plans for those of us in the shadow of nuclear facilities.
* Development of an integrated justice information system which will prevent potential terrorists from slipping through law enforcement cracks as some of the 9/11 hijackers did.
* Adequate funding for all homeland security priorities.

Coupled with these recent press releases,
DIANE FARRELL AND VETERANS OUTRAGED
BY SHAYS’ LAX OVERSIGHT OF IRAQ WAR
DIANE FARRELL SAYS IT IS EVIDENT CHRIS SHAYS’ PRIORITIES ARE IN IRAQ, NOT IN THE CONGESTED ROADS OF THE 4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS STALLS ON CHRIS SHAYS’ WATCH,

it seems clear that Farrell's '06 strategy is distinct from her ultimately unsuccessful strategy in '04. Instead of running on a steady diet of tying Shays to Tom Delay and Republican corruption, Farrell is attempting to tie the unpopular Iraq war to congressional spending in the district.

It is an interesting strategy that has the potential to sway some voters (remember that she only lost 52-48 in '04) if she can get traction with the issue. Of course, it's June and getting traction right now is easier said than done.

Leading into November, the Democrats have potential for momentum-fueled wins in close districts. The 4th went for Kerry over Bush 52-46 in '04 and the registration breaks down 31D-28R-41I. Given those stats, and the potential of a stronger run by Farrell, the 4th has the potential to be a district for which we are all sitting on pins and needles on Election night.

SOURCES:

Press Release, Farrell for Congress. SHAYS SHORTCHANGES CONNECTICUT AGAIN WITH FOCUS ON IRAQ SECURITY INSTEAD OF OUR OWN. 6/13/06

Press Release, Farrell for Congress. DIANE FARRELL AND VETERANS OUTRAGED
BY SHAYS’ LAX OVERSIGHT OF IRAQ WAR. 6/8/06

Press Release, Farrell for Congress. DIANE FARRELL SAYS IT IS EVIDENT CHRIS SHAYS’ PRIORITIES ARE IN IRAQ, NOT IN THE CONGESTED ROADS OF THE 4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. 6/7/06

Press Release, Farrell for Congress. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS STALLS ON CHRIS SHAYS’ WATCH. 6/6/06

Poll. Quinnipiac Poll--Connecticut. Conducted by Quinnipiac University May 31-June 1.

CNN Election 2004 Results.

CT Secretary of State 2004 Election Results.

CT Secretary of State October 2005 Voter Registration Statistics.

AFT Endorses Lamont

This just in... According to a recent press release, AFT Connecticut, an arm of the AFL-CIO which is mainly a teachers' union, is endorsing Ned Lamont.

AFT Connecticut, the state’s second largest AFL-CIO union representing more than 26,000 professionals, including healthcare, higher education, and public employees, has endorsed Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate in Connecticut.

“This endorsement came down to the issues of education and healthcare and the draining of resources from our state in order to fund the war in Iraq,” said Sharon Palmer, president of AFT Connecticut. “Ned Lamont understands these issues and agrees with our positions.”

Joe Lieberman, of course, has support from some of the heads of organized labor in Connecticut, but this is a pretty decent endorsement. Connecticut AFT has been flirting with the Lamont campaign, as detailed in this article from last month:

Leo Canty, vice president of the American Federation of Teachers Connecticut chapter, echoes Dorman's complaint [about Joe Lieberman].

"When a significant issue comes up in the Senate, we don't have to worry about Chris Dodd being a strong supporter. There's quite a bit of doubt about Joe Lieberman," he says.

Yet Canty's union "opted not to make any endorsement" at its annual convention this month. Its delegate body will gather again in June and could reconsider then.

"There are a lot of individuals who are supporting Ned Lamont," he says. "But many people are waiting to see if he has traction." (Bass)

Apparently he has traction.

Interesting.

Sources

"AFT Connecticut Endorses Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate." AFT Connecticut. Press Release. 12 June, 2006.

Bass, Carole. "Lieberman, Lamont, Labor. Fairfield County Weekly 25 May, 2006.

Open Forum

For all the non-Lamont chatter (which is making us obsolete)!

The Feds have stepped in to run the trash collection agencies which were involved in racketeering and price fixing in the Danbury area.

In a related story, the minor league hockey Danbury Trashers, who have as their logo a mean-looking trash can with a stick, are cancelling their season. The owner, of course, is involved in this whole trashy mess.

In other hockey/refuse news, the Carolina Hurricanes are getting closer to winning the Stanley Cup. Not that anyone is bitter about that. Especially not me. No way.

There's also an interesting article in the New Haven Independent about Hispanic support for DeStefano (or lack thereof), and why it may have cost him the convention.

Lastly, don't forget to go check out/contribute to CT Election 2006, the new Connecticut elections wiki! Go add a candidate from your area, or help us flesh out our knowledge of something. Check out the aboutpage for more info.

What else is happening today?

Former Democratic State Chair Advises Lieberman to Run as an Independent

John Droney, a former Democratic state chair, is encouraging Joe Lieberman to run as an independent in August. Surprise.

"I think to be terrorized through the summer by an extremely small group of the Democratic Party, much less the voting population, is total insanity for a person who is a three-term senator," Droney said.
...
"Every single weirdo in the left wing will be there," Droney said. "That's what the Lamont strategy is all about."
...
Droney's suggestion was not welcomed by the Lieberman campaign. The senator's staff has been trying to discourage speculation that Lieberman, who is more popular with Republicans and unaffiliated voters than Democrats, might run as an independent. (Pazniokas)

There's a lot that's interesting in the article, such as the attack ads on Lamont's record that just serve to make the Lieberman campaign look small, and the fact that Nancy DiNardo is a little less than neutral on the subject of the primary.

But maybe the most telling bit comes at the end.

Ken Dautrich, a public policy professor at the University of Connecticut, said the ad [in which Lamont calls on Lieberman to support the Democratic nominee] reinforced Lamont's claim that Lieberman's relationship with the Democratic Party has grown tenuous.

"It's brilliant, because people who vote in the Democratic primary are people who like being Democrats," Dautrich said. "True believers in the party are the ones who actually turn out to vote in the primary."(Pazniokas)

Given that we don't know what turnout is going to be like (probably low), those true believers may swing things Lamont's way. They also won't be thrilled by Lieberman's refusal to answer whether or not he'll run as an independent.

Lieberman could have done this better. He could have run high-minded ads defending his position on various issues, like Iraq, without referring to his challenger at all. He could have stayed away from negative ads altogether. He could have redoubled his efforts to reach out to the left and to activist Democrats, and he could have very easily promised Democrats that he wouldn't desert them if he felt too threatened.

But he didn't. So now he may be sailing right into the perfect storm.

Source

Pazniokas, Mark. "Lieberman Ally Advises: Run As An Independent." Hartford Courant 13 June, 2006.

Lamont Ad Calls for Lieberman to Back Primary Winner

A Lamont radio ad that is beginning today is calling on Sen. Lieberman to back the winner of the August primary--essentially trying to force the senator to either agree to compete as a Democrat and abide by the primary result, or declare himself an independent.

In radio ads that began airing Monday, Lamont said he'll support Lieberman if he wins. He said Lieberman, who has not ruled out running as a candidate unaffiliated with any party in the November election, should back a fellow Democrat.

Campaign officials for Lieberman said they are focusing on winning the Aug. 8 primary and not collecting signatures for an independent run. Still, Lieberman has said he is not ruling out a possible run as an independent candidate. (NBC 30)

Not that Lieberman's going to answer. He's going to wait as long as he possibly can before committing. I have to say, his evasive behavior seems to suggest that he's going to cut his ties with the Democrats at some point during the next month or so.

That wouldn't be a smart move. Connecticut Democrats have invested a lot of time and their own personal reputations in Joe Lieberman. They wouldn't be happy if he abandoned them.

If he does declare his independence, we'll know that this race isn't about policy, issues or values. It's about Joe Lieberman winning another term.

Source

"Lamont Calls On Lieberman To Endorse Him If He Wins Primary." NBC 30 12 June, 2006.

Malloy Proposes $10 million in Arts Funding

Rell hasn't embraced the arts like Rowland once did, and JDS embraced Rowland and his delivery of state funding. So here is Malloy offering a funding plan for the arts. According to the AP article $10 million each year. You'd think that our local press would have covered this, but this showed up in Long Island's Newsday. With the Arts & Ideas Festival running in New Haven you'd think that some local news entity would have picked up on this.

"I believe the time has come to step up our investment in the arts at the local and regional levels so that communities throughout the state _ from our cities to our small towns _ can enjoy the cultural, social and economic benefits of a thriving and vibrant arts community," Malloy said in a written statement.

Malloy's proposed Connecticut Arts and Cultural Enhancement Program would invest in artists, performers, historic sites, landmarks, community theaters and museums. It would be administered by the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism and funded by growth in state hotel tax revenue.

Malloy also wants to set aside up to $10 million to expand local aid for towns in eastern Connecticut most affected by the growth of the tourism industry.

News and notes from the Connecticut campaign trail
AP June 9th, 2006

Net Neutrality: Congress Votes, Shays & DeLauro Get It

Net Neutrality means that every site on the internet, and every service on the internet is reachable at the same speed. The determining factor is how much bandwidth you as the consumer pays for. The Telcos want to change that. They want to sell preferred access on the Internet, kinda like selling express lanes to specific destinations starting at your driveway.

From CNN:

Telecommunication companies already control the pipes that carry the Internet into your home. Now they want control which sites you visit and how you experience them. They would provide privileged access for themselves and their preferred partners while charging other businesses for varying levels of service.

But why change a good thing? Right now, the Internet is a level playing field for everyone. The wonky term for this is "Net neutrality." When the Internet is neutral, everyone can use it, just like everyone can use public roads or airwaves. All businesses on the Internet get an equal shot at success.

Full results here, but our delegation voted this way:

DeLauro -Y
Larson - Y
Shays - Y

Johnson -N
Simmons-N

Good thing Shays and DeLauro are looking our for the consumer, but Johnson and Simmons showed either their ignorance of the issue, or could care less about the small businesses, consumers and fair play in this state.

Keep the Internet neutral, fair and free, By Craig Newmark Special to CNN Saturday, June 10, 2006; Posted: 12:23 p.m. EDT (16:23 GMT)

UPDATED: I inadvertently left off Larson. He gets it too.

Battle Flag

I was reading the Journal-Inquirer this weekend when I ran across this story about a mural painted at Stafford High School which drew fire, and is now being painted over, for being offensive. Most of the images cited as offensive were, in fact, pretty harmless. However, there was one that stuck in my mind: Someone had painted a Confederate battle flag. Underneath was some sort of inscription--I don't have the paper in front of me so I can't tell you exactly what it read--which said something like "This is my culture, respect it."

Stafford is a pretty white place, as are most of the little semi-rural towns in northern Tolland County. Imagine being one of the very, very few black kids at that school. Imagine walking down the hallway and seeing that painted there. What would you think?

And what if that wasn't the first time?

I was a high school teacher for a couple of years in a small town very like Stafford, and there was a certain group of kids who had all kinds of Confederate flag gear. This ranged from stickers on notebooks to decals on their cars to the real deal flying from the flagpole outside their homes. There were a few kids who were obsessed with that flag. They put it everywhere.

Why?

This is Connecticut. We not only have no historical connection to the society that produced that flag, our forerunners actually fought a bloody war to bring that rebellious society to heel. So what was this deep connection these kids felt for that flag? It made no sense to me.

I actually asked a few of them about it, and was told that "it's a redneck thing." That made a little sense. They defined themselves as country boys, and they tended to come from the families who had lived in these little towns forever. The families who moved into the new suburban-like developments from towns like South Windsor, Manchester and Enfield didn't have the same attitude. Still, I had to ask myself--was it a racist thing, too? There was obviously something secret, since the kids sometimes, when they remembered, went to great lengths to hide it, or, when displaying it, cocked a defiant attitude.

I also knew those kids. I heard some of the things they said, and saw through some of the code they put in their writings and speech. There was an undercurrent of defensive racism and homophobia, of Connecticut's answer to Good Old Boys feeling threatened by the encroaching suburbs and the modicum of diversity they brought, to their actions, words and deeds. Sometimes it became much more than an undercurrent. There were incidents. Some had to do with race. Many more had to do with sexuality.

Worse, it wasn't just the kids. Their fathers, brothers and uncles were just as bad. I met a few of them. Big guys. Intimidating. Their trucks sported Confederate flag decals, too.

On the whole, it was a pretty stupid thing of that principal to cover up the mural in Stafford. Kids need to express themselves, and they need exposure to art. That Confederate flag, though... that has to go. One way or another.

Source

Soper, Kym. "School officials whitewash murals on high school walls: Students, parents upset over decision; art teacher suspended over assignment." Journal-Inquirer 10 June, 2006.

Weekend Open Forum

Interesting article in the Courant this morning about liberal bloggers and the Lamont campaign. Worth reading, if only to see how blogs can help shape and be shaped by campaigns.

Thanks for everyone who has contributed to the campaigns wiki so far! If you know anything at all about your local state senate or house race, please consider going there and posting it! Even a little bit of information that can be expanded later is extremely helpful.

I do have House and Senate information about the last election cycle, which may be helpful to you. Let me know if you have trouble accessing these Excel files.

What else is happening today?

The 2006 Connecticut Election Wiki

I have been doing my best, with your help, to keep track of Connecticut candidates and local races. However, it's been difficult to do, since so much keeps happening all the time. Therefore, I'm pleased to announce that I've created a wiki for the express purpose of helping voters keep track of candidates in the 2006 Connecticut elections!

The address of the wiki is: http://ctelection2006.pbwiki.com/. I encourage you to go there and look around! I especially encourage you to add as much content as you can manage. You, the committed political observers and activists, are the best resource this blog and this state has for information about the upcoming elections.

The list of candidates for House and Senate races is woefully inadequate. Please help by going to http://ctelection2006.pbwiki.com/, looking around to see what the style and content is like, and adding what you can. The password to edit the wiki is posted on the front page.

I am the administrator of the wiki, so I'd ask that you contact me if you see something that is inaccurate. I would also ask that you make your entries be as factual as possible. For example, the "Ned Lamont" entry could contain a lot of biased information, depending on who is doing the posting.

I'm excited about this, and I look forward to seeing what gets posted. If we succeed, http://ctelection2006.pbwiki.com/ will be one of the premier online sources of information about the upcoming election. I hope you'll at least go and look around!

What's Wrong With The Race For Governor?

Campaigns tend to resemble the battlefields of ideas that only the campaigners seem concerned about. Oh sure, they run focus groups and polls, listen to ardent supporters and activists and distill the cacophony to positive spinology with a side dish of attack the other guy. But in the end, the bullet point driven spiel sounds hollow to most voters because it lacks authenticity.

Take Rell’s elimination of the car tax proposal. On the surface a good idea. Anyone can see that there is something inequitable when the owner of Honda Civic in Bridgeport pays 3x the car property tax than the owner of the Honda Civic in Greenwich. The opposition to the idea formed its battlefield along the “who’s going to pay for it” line and the idea, the part about the inequity and more problematic the inefficiency of the tax got lost in the battlefield.

The interesting thing was that prior to the proposal, there was no groundswell of people clamoring for it’s repeal. Plenty of people don’t like it, or think its to high, but it wasn’t even near the top of the list of what concerns most residents.

Likewise, healthcare. The Malloy and DeStefano campaigns released plans to address and issue that really doesn’t affect most residents. Like the car tax, people don’t like that their health care costs too much, or that they have to wait for doctor appointments, or change primary care physicians with each insurance plan or employment change. But it’s not near the top of the list of what concerns most residents.

So why aren’t the campaigns talking about what really concerns residents most? Part of the answer, is that they don’t really know. To know what the majority of the state’s residents are concerned about means that you have to listen to concerns expressed by people and companies that don’t vote. Part of the answer is also that they do know, but since there are no clear cut answers to these problems they simply ignore them. Somehow, I don’t think the guys who sat around the oak table plotting the American Revolution thought that way.

So what is the biggest problem facing Connecticut? Simple. Gridlock. Our state, despite its many virtues, is completely and totally hampered by the difficulty in moving people, goods and services efficiently and cost effectively. Our roads and highways are commuter parking lots, our parking lots are overflowing, our train infrastructure has little intrastate capabilities, and we have failed to compete economically with our neighboring states. There are no cheap internet services. There is no investment in optimizing government through regionalization and technology adoption. There is no education strategy for adapting our workforce to new needs.

You can’t expect job growth without addressing the brain drain of this state. When young people can’t afford to live and work in the same town, they move to where they can. When companies can’t attract top shelf talent, they move to where they can. Only a few years ago it was difficult to manage a workforce that was decentralized. Today its not. Tomorrow it will be even easier. Without location based amenities to compete with against other states, Connecticut will creak to a standstill, becoming a larger land-based Nantucket where home renovations and tourism fuel a seasonal economy with imported workers.

With the capital markets in New York City and the intellectual markets in Boston, Connecticut is in the perfect position to grow the next generation of industry leaders. Without the political will to address the ability of people, goods and services to flow freely within the state as well as to New York City and Boston, it won’t happen.

Will any of the candidates for Governor speak to the future of Connecticut in the information age? Somehow I doubt it.

Predictions...

Okay, some of you have asked for this. I've been a little busy with a project (I'll fill you in soon, it should be pretty neat and I'll need everyone's help for it).

So. Make some predictions. Here are mine, just off the top of my head:

DeStefano over Malloy in a squeaker in August. Rell over DeStefano by about 10% in November.

Lamont will come within 10% of Lieberman, maybe closer, over the next month. The television ads will get nastier and nastier. I still don't see him leaving the party, unless Lamont starts getting within that 10%. Other than that? I have no idea what will happen.

Democrats will lose a couple of seats in the General Assembly.

There will be no Republicans elected as constitutional officers. Again.

Of course, I could also be wrong. In fact, I probably am. So what do you think is going to happen over the next few months?

Open Forum

Some bits of news...

Robert Farr is criticizing Richard Blumenthal for using assistant attorneys general to ferry him around while his regular driver is out with an injury. Farr is running against Blumenthal.

If I'm ever elected to anything, I'm driving myself.

Gov. Rell is trying to broker a deal with Fort Trumbull residents which would allow them to remain in their homes.

The DeStefano bloggers will be live-blogging the debate between DeStefano and Malloy today.

What else is happening?

Lamont Gains Ground on Lieberman

Ned Lamont is gaining on Joe Lieberman, according to a Quinnipiac poll released this morning.

There's an awful lot here, but here's what people are going to be talking about today:

19. (If registered democrat) If the 2006 Democratic primary for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Joseph Lieberman and Ned Lamont for whom would you vote? (If undecided q19a) As of today, do you lean more toward Lieberman or Lamont? *Includes voters leaning toward a candidate.

LIKELY VOTERS

Lieberman 55%
Lamont 40
SMONE ELSE(VOL) -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) -
DK/NA 4

This is a likely voters number, which means that it's a good bellwether for the primary. Suddenly, Lamont is much too close for comfort. If Lamont keeps his momentum up, the election on August 8th will be a close one.

Lieberman also leads Lamont 57%-32% among registered Democrats. This is up from Lieberman's lead of 65%-19% among registered Democrats in the May 2nd poll. The convention provided a huge boost for Lamont: gaining 13% in a single month against an entrenched incumbent is no mean feat.

Remarkably, 76% of respondants still have no idea who Lamont is.

The negative advertisements released by the Lieberman campaign in recent weeks have obviously not had the desired effect.

To sum up: good news for Lamont, terrible news for Lieberman. One has to wonder if those rumors of Lieberman bolting the party carry any weight.

See the next post down for the rest of the poll.

Source

Poll. Quinnipiac Poll--Connecticut. Conducted by Quinnipiac University May 31-June 1.