Chris Murphy Opens Lead on Linda McMahon in Connecticut Senate Race

As she did in 2010, McMahon in the last weeks of her bitter Senate battle is losing favor among women and older voters.

U.S. Senate hopeful Chris Murphy has opened a modest lead on opponent with 49 percent of likely voters now saying they support Murphy, a Democrat, and 43 percent saying they would vote for McMahon, a Republican.

Those are the results of the latest Quinnipiac University poll released today. The poll shows that Murphy is gaining ground on McMahon as women and older voters begin to move away from McMahon.

The poll shows that women back Murphy 52 to 38 percent and that voters 55 and older are split 51 to 42 percent for Murphy.

In the university’s last poll conducted Oct. 4, women backed Murphy 50 to 44 and voters 55 and older were tied at 48 to 48 percent for Murphy.

Even men appear to be having second thoughts about McMahon. In the latest Quinnipiac poll male voters split 50 to 46 for McMahon. In the earlier poll they were split 52 to 45 percent for her.

Still, the race “remains fluid,” Quinnipiac officials said “as 11 percent of Murphy voters and 14 percent of McMahon voters say they might change their mind in the next 13 days.”

"It's déjà vu all over again in the Connecticut Senate race. As we hit the final stretch of the campaign, Linda McMahon is beginning to fade, as she did in her 2010 run against Richard Blumenthal," said Douglas Schwartz, director of the Quinnipiac University poll. "Has she hit her ceiling? She took 43 percent of the vote in 2010, losing by 12 points to Blumenthal. Two weeks before the election, she is back at 43 percent."

A total of 62 percent of Connecticut likely voters have a "strongly unfavorable" or "somewhat unfavorable" opinion of this Senate race in general.

McMahon, Schwartz added, appears to be losing the popularity contest with Murphy. Between 41 to 47 percent of the surveyed voters reported an unfavorable image of McMahon, compared to 39 percent for Murphy.

"One of McMahon's key strengths had been that voters liked her more than Murphy," Schwartz added. "Voters are evenly divided on Murphy but have a net negative opinion of McMahon. After improving her image from two years ago, her favorability rating has fallen back to about where she was in 2010.”

In the presidential race Barack Obama has opened an even greater lead in Connecticut over Mitt Romney, the poll shows. The president leads Romney 55 to 41 percent, compared to 54 to 42 percent in the Oct. 4 poll.

You can read details of the poll here.

Arlene Murphy October 24, 2012 at 04:41 PM
So glad to see Chris Murphy pulling ahead in the polls. It is sad and frightening to see McMahon spend $72 million to deceive Connecticut voters and to smear Congressman Murphy's good name.
Sandra October 24, 2012 at 05:23 PM
So sad to see CT vote for more of the same in Chris Murphy. At least Linda spent her own money. Chris will continue to vote for tax and spend policies in Washington that do nothing to improve our fiscal cliff or bring jobs back to Connecticut. Job training is useless if you do not motivate companies to stay in Ct. What IS frightening is the fact that a vote for Obama means the country will be $20 trillion debt.
James R M.D. October 24, 2012 at 05:30 PM
Arlene, can you articulate why you are voting for Murphy?
James R M.D. October 24, 2012 at 05:36 PM
and Why is CT is such a fiscal mess and dismal state ?
DM October 24, 2012 at 05:47 PM
Only poll that matter is the one in November.
Frederick Klein October 24, 2012 at 06:04 PM
The polls that matter to people are the ones that show that the candidate they support is winning. The polls that don't matter are the ones that show the opposite.
KEVIN DILLON October 24, 2012 at 06:07 PM
Rasmussen has the race 1% apart. Rasmussen was rated the most accurate predictor in 2008. This race will be decided by independents and turnout based on the top of the ticket. According to Rasmussen, Romney is within 7% of Obama in CT which was won by Obama in 2008 by 23%. If yard signs mean anything, driving around Fairfield I see very few Obama signs. They were all over the place in 2008. That tells me the enthusiasm gap is higher for Romney. If that turns into a higher turnout, McMahon has a shot. And once the likes of Al Franken enters the Senate, the door is open for anyone.
Ignatius Reilly October 24, 2012 at 06:18 PM
While I may not agree with your assessment of voter enthusiasm I completely agree with your Al Franken remark. They'll let anyone in the Senate these days. That was amusing Kevin.
Frederick Klein October 24, 2012 at 06:59 PM
The House of Representatives is even worse. Bunch of animals.
Sandra October 24, 2012 at 07:11 PM
The "word is out" Harry Reid is a buffoon and a liar. Obama lied, yes lied in the third debate about not wanting a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq. He was too embarrassed to say he was turned down. Obama also lied according to Bob Woodward about Congress creating "sequestration". Obama should have said It was "me" my administration. On the Libya attack Obama peddled the video story for two weeks, spending $70,000 on ad that ran in Middle East blaming the video. Now we find out Obama knew immediately it was a terrorist attack watching it from above in a drone. Pleeease!
Ignatius Reilly October 24, 2012 at 07:21 PM
Sandra, I'm not trying to be rude but what exactly does that Obama rant have to do with Chris Murphy or Linda McMahon? Did I miss something?
Sandra October 24, 2012 at 07:37 PM
responding to "bunch of animals" in the House We have people who are misleading us in the White House Interesting that you refer to my fact checking and obvious conclusions as a rant. There are men and women fighting and dying for our values and it is a disgrace that our press is not trying to uncover the truth at the risk of more tragedies
Ignatius Reilly October 24, 2012 at 07:41 PM
Well given the thread I was a little surprised with your voracity is all. And I think he was referencing the House of Representatives. All Presidents lie and/or mislead. All administrations do as well. And your values may not be the same as your neighbors. Our press is, generally, a disgrace. Can't argue with you there.
Frederick Klein October 24, 2012 at 08:42 PM
I have to agree that our press has become disgraceful. But I don't like when people complain about the press because it is biased, but then talk in glowing terms about Fox News. If you are against a biased press, that does not mean you support the press when it is biased in your favor.
Ignatius Reilly October 24, 2012 at 09:17 PM
I agree completely Frederick. My statement that the media is a disgrace applies to all media. Objectivity is bought and sold everyday and that's true across the board.
Josh Albin October 27, 2012 at 01:23 AM
This is not an endorsement of Chris Murphy! But Linda McMahon lacks the moral character to be a United States Senator. If you honestly believe that as a constituent of hers she will put your best interest before her's i ask you to consider the following professional decisions she's made in the past. 1. Linda and her husband became rich off a company where their employees put their bodies in harms way and frequently suffer serious injuries. They have always refused to pay for the health insurance of their employees. When the UFC in 2011 decided to cover their fighters (real fighters) the WWE followed by requiring their talent acquire insurance, but at their own cost. (for all you republicans who hate unfunded mandates here is one in Linda's own company). 2. She and her husband made their fortune by turning a blind eye to steroid use in their own company. 3. Their lack of care for employees medical health in order to make an extra buck (through not paying health insurance and through entertainment revenue) has lead to some terrible things. When one of their employees in 2007 committed a double murder-suicide the leading two causes were steroid abuse (which was proven to be true) and so much brain damage that one neurologist suggested the brain resembled "an 85 year old Alzheimer's patient," from multiple undiagnosed concussions. Linda and her husband have no care for employee wellness.
Josh Albin October 27, 2012 at 01:33 AM
4. Any finally my personal favorite example of a lack of moral character. The WWE like professional boxing or MMA makes the bulk of their money through their pay per view events. In 1999 a wrestler was repelling from the rafters, fell and subsequently died in the middle of the ring. With still 4 more matches left, despite the death, the WWE decided to continue the show. Why? Because the impending lawsuit (settled for $18 million) would have to get paid for somehow, and if they stopped the show they'd have to reimburse much more than $18 million in pay per view shares. Vote for Linda McMahon and just know that you are voting for someone who cares about their own bottom line, not what is best for others.
Josh Albin October 27, 2012 at 02:02 AM
You don't hire contractors (say a builder) under 6 year contracts. To compare the two is wrong. They are more than actors. Actors do not suffer serious physical injuries at the rate of professional wrestlers. These comparisons are not correct.
Josh Albin October 27, 2012 at 02:06 AM
The NFL pays for players health insurance. And they have undertaken huge rule changes to improve player safety (for the most part you can argue some things increase risk of injury to players ie Thursday Night games). While I don't think they are perfect in this department they at least take some interest, which is not the case with the WWE.
Jeffrey Melaragno October 27, 2012 at 02:26 AM
Two items to ponder: 1) No one is forcing the wrestlers to become wrestlers or to work for WWE. Both are the decisions of the wrestlers. They are free to pursue any profession that they qualify for. 2) Don't the WWE wrestlers make a decent amount of money (some over $1 million per year)? I would gladly pay for my own health insurance with that salary. If it didn't make financial sense to wrestle for WWE, why would anyone do so?
Josh Albin October 27, 2012 at 02:35 AM
1. I'm not sure how this addresses anything i said about moral character and the charge made? But I'd respond with this. Think MLB. Steroid use became rampant through the 90s and early 2000s. The reason was that if it increased performance and one guy did it other players had to follow to give themselves a chance to secure their job, position and future contracts. MLB turned a blind eye to the excessive steroid use because it was making money off the Sammy Sosa's, McGuires, Bonds, A-Rod etc. Most people agree this was a morally bad practice (turning a blind eye to breaking the law in order to make money while knowingly allowing your employees health to be risked since it helped your bottom line). This is no different than the WWE, except its done to a greater degree there. You don't need to be into pro wrestling to know that Hulk Hogan is one of, if not the biggest name of all time in that genre, and he was so popular because of his physique. He was a steroid user. Thus similar to the baseball scenario too make it big in that business, and get paid big, people take steroids. With respect to the McMahons and other people like Bud Selig, we all know they are too smart to not know it was going on. 2. The top guys make plenty. But thats a small percentage of the total. A lot of the guys do not make nearly as much as you think. I'm still fascinated that no McMahon supporter can defend the death incident.
iamspartacus November 08, 2012 at 10:38 PM
I must of missed it did McMahon only lose by 1%? God that Rasmussen is accurate, not the shill for the Republican party and Fox News I always thought they were. It was a real nail biter.
James R M.D. November 08, 2012 at 11:46 PM
Spartacus - The problem is the Country's dynamics and demographics have changed drastically. We are moving toward a socialist model. Our youth have been led to believe they are the best without actually earning it, Everyone gets a trophy. In Obamacare we actually consider a 26 year old adult to be a dependent child still living at home. Some other predictions that have better odds. The economy will not improve under this new model. Unemployment will continue to rise. Taxes will go up for everyone. We love jobs but hate the job creators therefore we are in for a very dismal four years. Time heals all wounds but we will all be hurting for quite some time. Liberalism is a mental disorder. It has been proven. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD is the author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago and served for two years as a psychiatrist in the United States Army. He is currently in private practice in the Chicago area.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something