CT-05: CT Capitol Report/Merriman - Murphy (D) Down by 5
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:30:54 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2010 Elections
  2010 House Election Polls
  CT-05: CT Capitol Report/Merriman - Murphy (D) Down by 5
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: CT-05: CT Capitol Report/Merriman - Murphy (D) Down by 5  (Read 5740 times)
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 06, 2010, 04:44:02 PM »
« edited: October 06, 2010, 09:35:27 PM by cinyc »

CT-05: CT Capitol Report/Merriman River Group Poll

Caliguiri (R)   -  49.7%
Murphy (D)(i) - 44.3%
Undecided     -  6.0%

October 3-5, 2010; 481 LV; MOE +/- 4.5%

http://www.ctcapitolreport.com/images/library/CapReportPollCT%205th%20Congressional%20District.pdf

CT Capitol Report promises polls of CT-01 and CT-04 tomorrow.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2010, 04:54:26 PM »

(D)(i)?
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2010, 04:57:27 PM »


Democrat.  Incumbent.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2010, 06:29:20 PM »

Haha, a poll with decimals. Cute.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2010, 06:37:44 PM »


Caveat emptor.  Well, at least it's free to us.

You'd love the ccAdvertising NY internals, showing results to the hundredths of a percent.  Talk about false precision.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2010, 06:46:40 PM »

This is really not that surprising.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,541


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2010, 07:50:24 PM »

Well, at least Murphy wont have to give up his seat now if he's going to run for Senate in 2012. 
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2010, 09:29:31 PM »

Murphy (D) is down 5%, while McMahon is down 10% statewide (a 15% difference).  CT-5 is about 10% more GOP than the state. So this to me is another indicator of just how nationalized this election is, absent unusual circumstances.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2010, 09:35:12 PM »

Murphy (D) is down 5%, while McMahon is down 10% statewide (a 15% difference).  CT-5 is about 10% more GOP than the state. So this to me is another indicator of just how nationalized this election is, absent unusual circumstances.

The poll release said McMahon performed her best in CT-05.  

Tomorrow's CT-04 release should be interesting.  CT-01 should be a Democratic blowout.  Hopefully, they poll the competitive race in CT-02, too.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2010, 03:22:43 AM »

The poll release said McMahon performed her best in CT-05.  
Anything else would be quite surprising.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
You mean, hopefully CT-02 is a competitive race, too.



I'd been somewhat wondering why I hadn't heard anything on the two eastern CT races.
Some people have this line about how a score of D incumbents are probably in trouble who don't even know it yet - how some seats might fall that nobody talked about - and I thought about what races they might mean and could think of about a dozen. These two were among them.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2010, 12:49:56 PM »
« Edited: October 07, 2010, 12:55:44 PM by cinyc »

You mean, hopefully CT-02 is a competitive race, too.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is.  It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut.  It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most.  I'd be shocked if Peckinpaugh isn't within at least 7.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,177
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2010, 03:01:14 PM »

You mean, hopefully CT-02 is a competitive race, too.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is.  It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut.  It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most.  I'd be shocked if Peckinpaugh isn't within at least 7.

I'd be shocked if either of these races are actually competitive
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2010, 03:08:05 PM »

You mean, hopefully CT-02 is a competitive race, too.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is.  It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut.  It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most.  I'd be shocked if Peckinpaugh isn't within at least 7.

I'd be shocked if either of these races are actually competitive

Prepare to be shocked.  All 3 districts were held by Republicans in 2004.  CT-02 and CT-05 flipped in 2006; CT-04 in 2008.  They should be competitive - and will be.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,858
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2010, 03:13:43 PM »

Not sure I buy this one, especially since they're CT-1 numbers seem off.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,177
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2010, 04:19:17 PM »
« Edited: October 07, 2010, 04:22:26 PM by Mr. X »

You mean, hopefully CT-02 is a competitive race, too.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is.  It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut.  It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most.  I'd be shocked if Peckinpaugh isn't within at least 7.

I'd be shocked if either of these races are actually competitive

Prepare to be shocked.  All 3 districts were held by Republicans in 2004.  CT-02 and CT-05 flipped in 2006; CT-04 in 2008.  They should be competitive - and will be.

TX-22, FL-16, and KS-2 were Democratic in 2006, yet somehow I doubt they're going to be close Tongue  This reminds me of how some people were saying Courtney and Murphy might be vulnerable/in tough races in 2008.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2010, 07:18:19 PM »

The key is the the GOP rebound in white upper class suburbs. That explains CT-05 and CT-04. In the 2000-2008 paradigm these were becoming more and more Dem and off limits to the GOP. Hence in 2006, Scott Elliot of Election Projections Listed CT-02 and CT-05 as the least likely to go back to the GOP after they were lost. The Paradigm has shifted significantly.


You mean, hopefully CT-02 is a competitive race, too.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is.  It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut.  It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most.  I'd be shocked if Peckinpaugh isn't within at least 7.

I'd be shocked if either of these races are actually competitive

Prepare to be shocked.  All 3 districts were held by Republicans in 2004.  CT-02 and CT-05 flipped in 2006; CT-04 in 2008.  They should be competitive - and will be.

TX-22, FL-16, and KS-2 were Democratic in 2006, yet somehow I doubt they're going to be close Tongue  This reminds me of how some people were saying Courtney and Murphy might be vulnerable/in tough races in 2008.

Cappielo was a strong candidate who just couldn't get traction in 2008 due to the environment and the continuing trend against the GOP in these type of seats.

CT-02 was only going to be Competative if Simmons had a rematch. He didn't.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 07, 2010, 07:22:21 PM »

As was mentioned, CT-02 is more blue collar working class whites then the other two districts are. That coud be either good or bad for GOP. Simmons did well in this district but it was held by a Dem for 20 to 30 years before him and Simmons only be him due to a scandal I beleive in 2000, overcoming Gore's victory in the district. I think CT-02 is hardest of all them for the GOP to oust an incumbent Dem.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 08, 2010, 08:05:54 AM »

You mean, hopefully CT-02 is a competitive race, too.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is.  It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut.  It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most.
Nobody is abandoning the Democrats in large numbers, not even to nonvoting. What's actually happening is Republicans are turning out in record numbers for a midterm. And the fourth, being far more suburban, is much more likely to vote party not person in downballot races.
This isn't to say that the second might not be competitive too - just that it might not be.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 08, 2010, 12:31:15 PM »

You mean, hopefully CT-02 is a competitive race, too.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is.  It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut.  It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most.
Nobody is abandoning the Democrats in large numbers, not even to nonvoting. What's actually happening is Republicans are turning out in record numbers for a midterm. And the fourth, being far more suburban, is much more likely to vote party not person in downballot races.
This isn't to say that the second might not be competitive too - just that it might not be.

According to the recent AFK/AP poll, the gap in support among working class whites for Democratic congressional candidates has doubled from R+11 in 2008 to R+22.  That's what I meant by a significant abandonment of Democrats by working class voters - so-called Reagan Democrats moving back to the GOP.

The trend is most evident in the Upper Midwest.  Apparently, it's not translating to CT-02.  CT Capitol Reports' pollster claims the result is due to Courtney localizing the race.  I know Peckinpaugh had some tax issues.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2010, 12:42:05 PM »

CT Capitol Reports' pollster claims the result is due to Courtney localizing the race.
Which is easier to do in some types of areas than others. And certainly ought to be easier in eastern Connecticut that western Connecticut.
Which brings me back to what I've been saying here, and for weeks, and Sam Spade has been implying for months. (Yankee's got it too.) Tongue
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 08, 2010, 03:18:53 PM »



You mean, hopefully CT-02 is a competitive race, too.

No, CT-02 should be competitive if CT-04 is.  It's just one point more Democratic than CT-04 (D+6 vs D+5), but much more blue collar than the rest of Connecticut.  It's working class whites that are abandoning the Democrats most.
Nobody is abandoning the Democrats in large numbers, not even to nonvoting. What's actually happening is Republicans are turning out in record numbers for a midterm. And the fourth, being far more suburban, is much more likely to vote party not person in downballot races.
This isn't to say that the second might not be competitive too - just that it might not be.

People are abandoning Democrats, especially blue collar working class voters. The Problem is that this is New England and CT-02's blue collar workers might be resistant to voting GOP like has been seen in RI and Bristol, MA. This is the type of year in which such business as usuall can change but it doesn't mean it will and definately doesn't mean it is uniform acrossed these states.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 08, 2010, 03:56:58 PM »
« Edited: October 08, 2010, 04:00:31 PM by cinyc »

People are abandoning Democrats, especially blue collar working class voters. The Problem is that this is New England and CT-02's blue collar workers might be resistant to voting GOP like has been seen in RI and Bristol, MA. This is the type of year in which such business as usuall can change but it doesn't mean it will and definately doesn't mean it is uniform acrossed these states.

Actually, Bristol County, MA had the second-largest swing of any MA county from McCain to Brown, and the largest swing from the Republican in most recent major competitive statewide races (Weld v. Kerry and Romney v. O'Brien).  Granted, Scott Brown was from a neighboring county - but I don't think that explained all of it.  

I don't think CT-02's blue collar workers are resistant to voting GOP.  They did vote for Simmons.  

One major difference between CT-02 and CT-04 and CT-05 is the lack of a Democratic stronghold city with a large minority population whose residents likely won't turn out in anywhere close to the same percentages this year as in '08.  CT-04 has Bridgeport.  CT-05 has New Britain and Danbury.  Bridgeport turnout will likely determine who wins CT-04.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 09, 2010, 03:35:28 AM »

Pollsters actually expect the second-highest Dem percentage (of the available electorate) in a midterm in a long long time. 2006 being highest.
The issue is that they're also expecting a record-shattering Rep percentage.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,590
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 09, 2010, 11:58:14 AM »

According to the recent AFK/AP poll, the gap in support among working class whites for Democratic congressional candidates has doubled from R+11 in 2008 to R+22. 

No, it was a poll of whites who admitted to not having a degree, which was then packaged as a poll of 'the white working class'. Defining class in such terms is... actually pretty stupid. Though as whites who are working class are the part of the electorate most alienated from the two parties, they're also the largest block of swingable voters in the country. So, yeah.

But shifts in low turnout elections are mostly about turnout.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 09, 2010, 02:26:55 PM »

According to the recent AFK/AP poll, the gap in support among working class whites for Democratic congressional candidates has doubled from R+11 in 2008 to R+22. 

No, it was a poll of whites who admitted to not having a degree, which was then packaged as a poll of 'the white working class'. Defining class in such terms is... actually pretty stupid. Though as whites who are working class are the part of the electorate most alienated from the two parties, they're also the largest block of swingable voters in the country. So, yeah.

But shifts in low turnout elections are mostly about turnout.

AP argues that because of income disparities in different parts of the country, defining working class by educational background instead of income makes sense.  A $50,000 family income in NYC is practically peanuts.  $50,000 in Dubuque is a lot more.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 14 queries.