Blumenthal holds 5 point lead over McMahon in Connecticut US Senate race
Interesting. The margin of error for this Rasmussen poll is 4 points, after surveying 750 likely voters in Connecticut the two days after the most recent – and last – McMahon vs. Blumenthal debate. Blumenthal 51 percent, McMahon 46 percent, while 4 percent are undecided or want someone else.
With a 5 percent difference and a 4 percent margin of error, McMahon optimists can claim the race is a toss up when referring to the Rasmussen poll results released today. Less than 10 days ago, Blumenthal had an 11 point lead in a similar poll from Rasmussen. One thing is for certain, the entire “McMahon-wants-to-lower-the-minimum-wage” kerfuffle backfired for the Democrats, and the left’s negative ads are not working either. They put in a bunch of effort, clout and money to break the lead wide open … and screwed up.
Democrat Richard Blumenthal now leads Republican Linda McMahon by just five points in Connecticut’s race for the U.S. Senate in a survey conducted two nights after their third and final head-to-head debate.
The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Blumenthal, Connecticut’s longtime attorney general, picking up 51% of the vote. McMahon, the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, earns the vote from 46%. One percent (1%) prefer some other candidate, while three percent (3%) are undecided.
Of course, our free-flowing budget here at Radio Vice Online does not allow us to purchase the Rasmussen Platinum service with the cross-tabs and the rest of the results, but I know our friend Ed Morrissey has access so expect him to chime in shortly over at Hot Air.
I’m wondering about the second question concerning favorability ratings for which I currently do not have the results.
32 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
Steve, thanks for the update…keep em comin'!
Has Quinnipiac released their internals yet? How about for the Governor's race?
Wow-are polls now irrelevant?
Just read article that 1 in 4 households do not have landlines-estimation is a 4 to 6 point advantage in polls to the R's.
This was probably most evident with the 2008 polls which contradicted the actual results.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1761/cell-phones-and-…
Probably, anybody who wants a favorable or unfavorable outcome can find a poll that "proves" the desired result.
How many times does one have to remind people that Connecticut is blue? I realize we are trying for a transfusion but you cut someone and they bleed blue. Even in these times the true color of the state is blue through and through.Sad very sad.
Interesting poll, chris. Of course, the simpler answer might be that more people are self identifying as Republicans in the current political climate. Who knows? Maybe we should just concentrate on the poll that counts: the vote in November.
Polls can be manipulated in a variety of ways. The whole cell phone thing is still not fully understood, there may be a small benefit to the Rs but that is declining nationwide. There is an art to picking the zip codes for calls as well. The fact that it is telephone poll at all has been disected and it was found that the very wealthy and the very poor simply don't factor in. Etc., etc. I am fascinated to see our "Blue State" vote and how it turns out this year.
I thought we found out how unreliable polls were when in the ct Dem gov primary, a Quinnipiac poll had Lamont up 3% the weekend before voting, and he ended up losing by 17%. I don't know who they call, I'm a likley voter, have been for years, never been polled. I don't believe this poll any more than the one that had Blumy up by double digits a few days ago.
just as a quick aside, how old is that picture of Linda McMahon?
I just got back from the Apple Harvest Festvial in Glatonbury, helping out with the no-kill rescue animal shelter and I have noticed more interest in Republican signs, and most of the signs being "Linda signs", baseball caps, t-shirts, ete at the Republican booth, then any interest in the Democratic booth. Even one person told me about it being a very interesting election year. Plus also more signs of Linda displayed on roadsides then Blumenthal signs. So it goes to show that even in a "blue state" like CT, people want folks who have fresh ideas.
<!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 <![endif]–>
<!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 <![endif]–>
I can't believe that Linda slipped that much in the polls. She did very well in the debates, she comes across well in her ads on TV. I think the Democrats kicked their machine into high gear.
Things got awfully messed up around here for a couple of days. I think that they use companies like FuelCell Energy to deliver a massive shot to the citizens of Connecticut to get things going their way. The product that they build is way too expensive to operate; everyone that works there knows it’s a scam of some kind. All of the politicians in the area (mostly lefties) make frequent visits to FuelCell Energy, so you know that something is up. Remember Blumenthal kept bringing up FuelCell Energy in his last debate with Linda McMahon. The fuel cells that they build cannot be considered a viable alternative for power. They’re expensive to build, expensive to put into operation, expensive to run, and they die out after a couple of years. It’s a scam that we’re paying for in many different ways, and I’m sure there are many more companies just like FuelCell Energy out there that they use in a similar fashion.
Has Linda hammered Blumie on supporting obamacare yet?
Tonl, I think she did in the debate (2nd to last).
Response "you are under investigation for denying coverage to your employees".
She best not bring up that topic again.
(BTW for those who are going to say that they are "independent contractors"-they are not. They must work only for WWE-that is an employee not an Ind contractor.)
And for any CT business owner that struggles to pay social security, health care etc. for his employees, this should be an outrage.
Chris you have factual knowledge that clause is in their contract?
If the employees are contractors, they are not entitled to coverage. Been there, done that (not wrestling!).
I wonder if Rambo has ever actually created a job? Not filling a position in his state staff, but actually created a job?
Oh Chris, I sold health insurance for a company where I was a "captive agent", I could only sell for the company. I was a self-employed contractor and was not entitled to have paid health insurance or other benefits. It was possible to make 6 figures and many did, granted they worked lots of hours, but that was their choice. We were either covered by our spouse or we paid for our insurance through the company.
BTW, Linda McMahon also said that the ( I think the word was talent, can't remember exactly) were paid $500,000 annually for working 3 days a week. The American Way is to earn money and pay for insurances yourself, getting it paid for by a company is a wonderful benefit, it is not a requisite.
This discussion on "worker vs. contractors" can be summed up rather easily. Those who choose to work for the WWE…CHOOSE to work for the WWE! They sign a contract and CHOOSE to participate! I know these type of choice making situations hurts the delicate sensibilities of the liberal – life dictators! Oh Well!!! Get use too it!! Their day of public rule is coming to an abrupt end!!! See you Nov 2nd!!
@Tbone: I thought (mistakenly, apparently) that democrats were all pro-choice…hmmmm…guess that only applies to certain issues.
Chris you got me thinking now, I'm wondering if players on the major sports teams are employees or IC's. But what we are mixing up here is workmans comp with obamacare. I'm using your quote “you are under investigation for denying coverage to your employees”. At that time she wouldn't be required to provide insurance to an employee but as an IC you may be required to provide your own workers comp or you would fall under a blanket policy provided by the WWE and a deduction made from settlements. Thats basically how its worded in a few contracts I've signed in my chosen field.
Winnie888, Great Point! I wish the campaigns would pick that up!
"I thought (mistakenly, apparently) that democrats were all pro-choice…"
Yeah, as usual you r mistaken.
so, it would follow that all R's are pro-life…
like Linda?
I am! And for more and better reasons than anyone can claim to be anti-life. But now we are waaaay off topic!!
So how about that independent contractor issue?
The Conservative Woman Forum, to which I belong, encourages a range of beliefs. We differ on most social issues, however, we all believe that the Constitution is the basis of our government and we believe in fiscal responsibility in government(which is the same as the first). So I and numerous others are Pro-Choice. But Chris, name one Liberal candidate and how many of your liberal friends believe in Pro-Life.
to tell you the truth, I never surveyed my liberal friends. But some of my D friends are pro-life as some of my R friends are pro-choice, as Linda is.
And dims, look up the law as far as ind cntractor def is-basically, you are free to work for other businesses-and i think you know that-or you should.
chris said "Response “you are under investigation for denying coverage to your employees”."
If you're talking health insurance, employers are not (yet) required to provide (or offer) it to their employees. But that point is moot, since the wrestlers are considered independent contractors.
I find it interesting, but not wholly unexpected, that the esteemed Hartford COurant has yet to give any coverage to this poll. While the day before, they gave the Q-poll results showing Bluymie w/11 point lead front page above the fold coverage.
"How do they get away calling me an independent contractor and yet I have to sign an exclusivity contract. I can't work for anyone else. They get around paying Social Security. Why does the government let them off the hook?" Jesse Ventura
Well, it seems we still have a choice when it comes to where we work. If one does not like the terms of a contract, don't sign it. I imagine Jesse Ventura signed the contract voluntarily, which means he agreed to the terms. He could have walked away. But then, would we even know who he is?
Oh come on… Ventura was totally wrong (as is chris-os' statement above). One factor – an exclusive contract – in no way is the final determination if the person is an EE or independent contractor. From the IRS website…
"The general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor if you, the person for whom the services are performed, have the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not the means and methods of accomplishing the result."
More here.
Ventura had a beef not with his employer, rather with the federal government's definition and determination of who an IC is. Do you think if there was an issue at the federal level about this the IRS would not have challenged the way WWF/WWE did business? They do this all the time.
I've been an independent contractor and the employer I worked for had a full review by the IRS to determine if we were ICs or EEs. Guess what? My retail employer – who grossed a whopping 750k per year – went through a required review and determined we were indeed, ICs.
WWF/WWE did not "get around" paying SS. The government got their cut from Ventura since – as an IC – he paid the full boat (about 15 percent) to the government. Would Ventura rather just had the WWF/WWE cut his pay the 7.5 percent and have the company pay that to the IRS? That's exactly what would have happened if he magically became an employee instead of an IC. He was just totally pissed off that he had to pay the extra 7.5 percent to the feds. Which if honest, he'd understand he was paying it anyway!
In no way was WWF/WWE breaking the law, in fact they were following the law.
Again, we've drifted totally off topic in this thread.
Thanks, Steve. I don't know who would want to listen to Jesse Ventura anyway.
Steve get today's "Paul Harvey 'and now the rest of the story'" award! Dont'cha love when the veneer peels away? 😉
You know as well as I do, Steve that soc sec is only 1 thing that employers have to pay.
Her take home pay is $46 mill. If she treated her IC's as employees, what would she take home $43 mill? Her "contractors" routinely die of heart attacks, drug overdoses, suicides and strokes before they were 50. There is a "death clause preventing them or their families from suing. There is a "gag order" to prevent family from talking about what has been called the most dangerous working conditions in the US.
When her "employee" Lance Cade died and she was asked about him, she said she "might have met him once". Yeah, then she says she will "put the people of CT first"!
There is a book "Ring of Hell" that talks about the terrible treatment of not only the wrestlers but office workers.
Surprised at you Steve, for joining the St. Linda camp. Anyone who thinks that they can utilize people and that their lives are disposable…well, she may not be a career politician, but she is the epitome of everything that is wrong with those in DC, both parties!
So I put up a post with information about a Rasmussen poll and add in some commentary. Somehow, it drifts as usual. Then in two comments, you specifically state that since they have exclusive contracts they must be an employee. You even challenge people to look up the law. I took the bait and replied to a comment in this thread that had nothing to do with the subject. In detail, I proved your comment to be incorrect.
Then you twist into a different subject and now suggest that I'm "joining the St. Linda camp"? You've twisted it again complaining about how much McMahon made? Then twisting it again stating contractors "routinely die". Stop this, this thread is CLOSED. Every time you lose an argument like you did in this thread, you feel the need to twist the subject to something else and bring up another point that you might be able to "score points" on. No more.