Poll Shows Obama With Big Lead in CT, Malloy Unpopular

The president has a wide lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Also, people surveyed rank Gov. Dannel P. Malloy as one of the most unpopular governors in the nation.


Public Policy Polling says that Connecticut will go to Obama in the general election, but the president’s popularity in the state has dropped dramatically since he was elected.

The president has a 54-41 lead, but won the state in 2008 by 28 points. A June Quinnipiac Poll showed Obama with a similar 50-38 lead.

The survey asked about Connecticut’s other politicians, and some fared better than others. U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal remains popular, with a 53 percent approval rating. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman has a 40 percent approval rating, while 40 percent also disapprove.

Malloy’s prospects appeared much more bleak with a mere 32 percent approval rating. The poll shows Malloy trailing a generic Republican opponent by  a 42-38 margin should he choose to run again in 2014.

R. Ludlowe October 01, 2012 at 08:05 PM
<<Ken: "The pollsters in this country are trying to alter the outcome of the race by altering people's perception of the race. People may be thinking about voting for Romney, but if “the polls” say Obama's going to win by 13 points, then why even vote? Pat, it’s called the "Pygmalion effect". Look it up.">> You make some good points. The mere suggestion that Obama (or any candidate) is doing better may help him do better. I use this site to track candidate opinion. So far it seems very unbiased and aggregates multiple sources: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html I think that Romney has flubbed the last month and done some serious damage to his campaign. He needs to nail the debates to have any chance of winning.
Kevin October 01, 2012 at 08:21 PM
hey kbby, you are the poster boy for why people shouldnt drop out of school.
Bob Franks October 01, 2012 at 08:35 PM
Yes, Obama did have a bad economy handed to him. No question about that. But he also had for his first two years, a Democratic House and Senate to push through an agenda to turn things around. And things did not improve. If anything, they got worse. His programs did not even slow down the downward spiral. With the exceptions of a few people that I work with, I know of no one who is voting for Obama. And if that's the case, how can he be leading in the CT polls. I am not better off than I was 4 years ago. Heck....my property values are not better than two years ago when I moved into CT. Hope and Change? I didn't get the hope....but I did get the change....a change for the worse. I am one Democrat who is voting for Romney-Ryan and now focused on Hope and Prayer. Hoping and Praying there will be a Change in residence in the White House.
James H October 01, 2012 at 09:04 PM
Yes, Obama was handed an economy in trouble but no more than the economic quagmire that Carter gave to Reagan. Now I'm not a fan of all Reagan's policies but ne left the economy better than he got it. To all those who support Mr. Obama's economic policies I ask you to think about this...when you have hard times in your household do you tell your kids to go out and spend as much as they want as long as they put it on the credit card? That is what I see the current economic policy as being, increase your debt to fund a failed $800Billion stimulus package. I did not vote for the president but I was willing to give him a chance. I think he was more concerned about not making an unpopular decision rather than making the right decision. Right now I don't know you to vote for but I honestly don't think the country can afford another 4 years of "borrow and spend" economics...for the first time in our nation's history the national debt has exceeded our GDP. By any measurement that put's this economy in a precarious position.
MAC October 01, 2012 at 09:06 PM
Obama counts on the votes of the ignorant and the DEPENDENT; and God knows there are millions and millions of both, sadly. If there were more common sense and INFORMED voters, Romney would win overwhelmingly, even in 'blue state' CT! "Among voters who are uncommitted to either of the leading candidates, just 10% believe the country is heading in the right direction. Only 24% approve of the way the president is performing his job."... "Obama has a one- or two-point lead in each of the Key Three States in this year’s election, Ohio,  Florida and Virginia.  All three states remain Toss-Ups in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections." http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll Romney and Ryan, "America's Comeback Team," are our only hope for a return onto the path of Prosperity for our nation and children! ...“We cannot afford four more years like the last four years,” said Ed Gillespie, a senior [Romney] adviser overseeing the candidate’s message. “Whether it’s health care, energy, taxes and spending and debt, foreign policy, the message is we cannot afford four more years like the last four years.”... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/01/romney-settles-on-simple-message
R. Ludlowe October 01, 2012 at 09:44 PM
Interesting. How long did it take Reagan to " leave it better than how he got it" exactly? Just one term?
R. Ludlowe October 01, 2012 at 09:50 PM
1) there is more than enough ignorance on both sides. Let's not get too dramatic. After all, Romney's 47% ironically lives in mostly red states. 2) if Romney and Ryan are Americas ONLY chance to prosper, then we are up the creek no matter who wins. 3) do yourself a favor and don't quote Romney's advisers about our current president. At the end of the day, it really isn't very meaningful or impressive. It's about as predictable as Mitt's hairline. If you can quote an Obama adviser saying those things.... THAT would be noteworthy.
R. Ludlowe October 01, 2012 at 09:53 PM
I would live to know how you correlate the white house occupant to your local property tax. Have you asked any women who they are voting for? Outside of a few that are either employees or spouses of Fox News, I haven't met any yet that are looking forward to the burkas that they'll be wearing under ayatollah Ryan and VP Romney.
James H October 02, 2012 at 02:03 PM
Ludlowe...he may have done something right, didn't he get re-elected to his second term carrying 49 of the 50 states? As I said I'm not a complete fan of Reagan's policies but I'm willing to give credit where it's due
Jack Cash October 02, 2012 at 06:51 PM
Romney and Ryan would raise unemployment because they would slash public spending next year and the year after when the economy broken by Wall Street will still need support. This is the same phony austerity route that has Europe teetering on a recession. They will also TAKE FROM THE POOR AND GIVE TO THE RICH. Families making $30,000 to $40,000 would see a tax increase of $500 or more under Ryan's plan. He would also slash programs like Medicaid, food stamps and ones that support children's health. What would he do with the savings? He would reduce taxes on millionaires up to as much as $500,000 per year. Ryan also wants to turn Medicare into vouchers which are not designed to keep up with rising health care costs. He is shifting the burden onto seniors, taking away their currently guaranteed health coverage and leaving them at the mercy of insurance companies. The Affordable Health Care Act does the opposite and cuts payments to drug companies, hospitlals and other providers, placing the burden on to huge companies rather than elderly people on a fixed income. Ryan wants to ADD to defense spending. We already spend more on defense than the military budgets of the next five, big-spending countries put together. Ryan's plan will not reduce the deficit for decades. All of this, and more, is in Ryan's plan. Don't take my word for it. Here it is. http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
R. Ludlowe October 02, 2012 at 06:58 PM
@JamesH - my point is that Regan needed 2 terms to turn things around. Somehow, though, Obama is being held to the "one term" limit in that if you cant make a change in 4 years you should be dumped. Both parties do it, its typical rhetoric, but when i see it here on these forums I will call it out. You cant have it both ways. Or, if you do, you can admit that Bush had 8 years to screw things up, and that you can give Obama the same to try and fix it.
Ken October 02, 2012 at 07:13 PM
Jack Cash - Your comments are so full of left-wing propaganda, that I don't even know where to begin… You make totally outlandish remarks, using a link to a House Budget document as your "proof", but then fail to site where in the document your statements are proven. THIS DOCUMENT IS 98 PAGES LONG!! Please site the page number and paragraph in the document that unequivocally proves your point, or admit that your comments are just more Democrat, blah-blah-blah, Communist Manifesto BULLSH-- !! Then go back to your Obama Campaign Headquarters and drink some more kool-aid...
Kevin October 02, 2012 at 08:55 PM
hey jack cash,its better to say nothing and seem a fool,than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Creeky October 02, 2012 at 09:26 PM
There is a shortage of facts that cloud our ability to make decisions. Here are some, which I'll try to present in an unbiased fashion... Federal debt increases under Bush and Obama are nearly identical. The time frame of the increases are not. This data is available from lots of sources. Here is one: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/ Per question of correlating white house occupancy to property tax, look at Tesei's remarks (this is Greenwich, I couldn't find something for Fairfield): http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Tesei-warns-of-increased-costs-3878504.php Defense Cuts are a mixed bag for Connecticut. Certainly, it would reduce federal spending, but, that may be very painful for Connecticut: http://www.ctmirror.org/story/16996/threat-defense-industry-cuts-already-resulting-layoffs I don't have time for much more right now but, I'd ask all to consider the following questions with an open mind... Who really overspent, Bush, Obama, or Congress? Exactly how has Obama's foreign policy differed from Bush's? Why are we still talking about Bush? If foreign wars, oil, carbon, and pollution are significant issues, what exactly is Obama's energy policy? What is Romney's? Why was Yucca Mountain closed? What is the suggested solution to nuclear waste storage? I'm not crazy about Romney. I'm very dissatisfied with Obama. But, my real frustration is with congress, both sides of the aisle. Shouldn't yours be too?
Ken October 02, 2012 at 10:42 PM
Fairfield Native - How does simply adding a link to a 98 PAGE DOCUMENT give "great credibility" to Jack's highly debatable comments? If I attacked Obama for being a "wasteful spender" and then added a link to the Federal Budget, would you then give my assertion immediate "credibility"? The truth is that Jack's solution to all of America's problems is Wealth Redistribution. Obama is taking America down the path to Socialism. And it better wake up and change direction on November 6th. Obama is taking us "Forward" alright. Forward right off a cliff...
Creeky October 03, 2012 at 03:15 AM
One more for cutting the rhetoric, or kool-aid, or whatever one cares to call it... It is quite questionable whether, over the longer term, the health care law will lower the cost of insurance. The method by which it attempts to do so is the 80/20 rule, aka MLR, aka medical loss ratio. It's quite popular right now, as many are receiving rebates. The idea is, the health care companies must spend 80% of their revenue on healthcare, with the remainder, 20%, being the most allowed for expenses like marketing, salaries, stockholder dividends, CEO bonuses, et cetera. Keeping in mind, most health care companies are no longer mutuals, but rather publicly traded, for-profit entities. Therefore, it is their job to make money for their shareholders. So, how to do this? SImply, pay more for health services. Here is the government's explanation: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/reports/mlr-rebates06212012a.html Here is NPR's view: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/20/161373271/insurance-companies-send-out-rebate-checks-economists-get-nervous
Creeky October 03, 2012 at 03:37 AM
Also, just a reminder, the first Presidential debate is this week, Wednesday, October 3rd, 9:00pm until 10:30, and the topic is Domestic Policy.
momofone October 03, 2012 at 03:15 PM
It's not propaganda. It's fact. What Ryan has proposed is exactly what Jack has summarized above.; he even provided a link to the actual document. How is that propaganda? At least he's sticking to facts and not name-calling. Get some civility!
Concerned Parent October 03, 2012 at 03:20 PM
This nation suffers from "Premature Evaluation" and is not limited to gender, race, religion, or age...
Fairfield native October 03, 2012 at 03:50 PM
You are correct momofone- Jack's approach has stronger credibilty than name calling.
Ken October 03, 2012 at 04:08 PM
momofone - Please see my post above. I've asked Jack to site WHERE in that 98-page document his "facts" come from (something that he has NOT done). Simply giving a link to a very long document does NOT give him immediate credibility. Certainly he should be able to point to the page number and paragraph that proves his assertion that "[Ryan] would reduce taxes on millionaires up to as much as $500,000 per year". If, as you say, he's dealing with "the facts", then it should be a simple matter of proving it. Right? Until he does that, I will not BLINDLY assume that his OPINIONS are FACTS. What's hard to understand about that?? Here are some facts for you. Over 23 million Americans can’t find a job right now. We've had unemployment over 8 percent for the last 3.5 years. Gasoline prices have more than doubled in the last 4 years. Our national debt has skyrocketed over $5 Trillion in the last 4 years. Over 47 million Americans are on Food Stamps. And our Ambassador to Libya is dead. Shall I go on? Obama's policies have been an abject failure and America needs to change course NOW! Or be prepared to fall off that fiscal cliff that many economists have been warning us about! If you can't understand that, then my question to you is this...which flavor kool-aid would you like?
Creeky October 03, 2012 at 04:43 PM
Unfortunately, Ryan's plan (as linked) doesn't actually contain enough specifics to make accurate generalizations without assumptions. The bulk of the analysis on the internet makes significant assumptions. Mainly, that spending won't slow. Ryan's plan is quite similar to the one enacted under Reagan, which simplified the tax code. As such, good or bad, with less steps, you could pick out areas where particular intervals will see a greater burden, e.g. Jack's assertion of families earning between $30k and $40k. The assertion that taxes on millionaires would be reduced by as much as $500k assumes no loopholes for those taxpayers closed. In fairness, the document is filled with pages specifically arguing to close loopholes. So, that claim is spurious. Continued...
Creeky October 03, 2012 at 04:46 PM
Those of you that recall the Reagan era, and Reaganomics, may recall the trickle down theory. The idea was that you would free dollars in (today's numbers) the $200k+ range to allow investment and growth. It isn't without legitimacy. One must keep in mind, many jobs are created by the smallest businesses, which today, are often LLCs. Owner's (members, partners) of LLCs are taxed as individuals. So, in order to save money for investment, like a truck, a machine, a building, a new employee, they must first take income, pay tax, and save. Some are arguing that you can spur job growth by loosening tax on these ranges. Ryan is claiming that he wants to do that, while closing other loopholes, making it more attractive for businesses to so invest. Reagan's approach did work, so, it isn't like there isn't a good argument to at least consider these ideas. Also, Obama plan got zero votes in the House and Senate. We should probably be looking at all plans, not attacking them. I'm sure I've made some mistakes above and I'll depend on some of you to clear them up. We really need to look at the theories first, and then make plans, then analyze them for details. Going after details in a theory document doesn't really get us anywhere. I'm sure some will claim bias on my part but, I'm really trying to present some info with none.
Creeky October 03, 2012 at 05:18 PM
Come to think of it, we should probably look at the two basic theories. One is that Government should determine where to invest to spur the economy, and the other is that Business and Investors should determine where to invest to spur the economy. Government should invest is more taxation, and government investment in business, like the R&D credit and business loans. Facetiously, we could call this the Solyndra plan. Business and Investors should invest we could facetiously call the Tax breaks for the rich plan. It isn't accurate to call the Republican and Democrat plans. The truth is, the government invest model was run under Bush and Obama. The investor should invest model was run under Reagan and Clinton. So, let's have some productive debate.
Ken October 03, 2012 at 05:43 PM
Creeky - I appreciate your measured approach to bring some balance and thoughtfulness to this discussion. I am more than willing to participate in such a discussion, on one condition... Please show me where in the Constitution it states that it's the Federal Government's job to spur the economy with massive infusions of taxpayer's money. Or where it's the Federal Government's job to pick economic "winners" and "losers". In other words, there's a problem with your very debate premise. In a Capitalist system (we’re still a Capitalist system, right?), it’s the Free Market that determines the “winners” and “losers”, that generates Capital for investments, that assumes the risks. Not the Federal Government. Not the American Taxpayer. The Federal Government’s job is to protect our freedoms, insure our safety, and yes, provide a temporary safety net for those that need it. That’s it! It’s Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, NOT Handout Happiness! The problem with Democrats and some Republicans today is they’re fighting over who can hand out the most “happiness”. Ask the East Germans or those in the former USSR how “happy” they were. That’s where we’re headed under Obama.
Creeky October 03, 2012 at 05:58 PM
Ken, As for my personal beliefs, I think you and I have much in common. I'd much prefer far less government. Further, I don't believe either the Democratic or Republican parties represent us in any way. I think they represent their campaign contributors, lobbyists, and their own financial futures as lobbyists. But, there will be winners and losers in any tax code. We do need to have discussions on what is fair taxation. Lastly, I think we're quite a minority. I think most of the country wants government intervention. They seem to be demanding it now. I'm asking them to have an honest conversation about exactly what that intervention entails, and move away from the rhetoric, and religious like adherence to the parties. The two party system is broken, as the failure to actually write a budget proves. Congress hasn't passed a budget since 2009! And both sides continue to blame the other. It's a horror show. And, it's being played out right here in these comments. So tell me my friend, what is your idea for a practical path forward? What words do we choose to argue for less government intervention that encourages dialogue over rhetoric and name calling?
Creeky October 03, 2012 at 06:02 PM
And Ken, I don't think we are a capitalist system. I think we're a socialist system, much to my dismay. Further, aren't you arguing for the investors should invest model? Or, do you think the higher tax brackets are under-taxed, but there still shouldn't be investment by government?
Fairfield native October 03, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Creeky- I don't agree with all that you have written but appreciate your approach. I think people are more open to consider other's point of view when it is presented without name-calling. I know it took time to develop such well thought out responses- they are intelligent and presented without insult.
Creeky October 04, 2012 at 12:23 AM
Fairfield native, Thanks. In truth, I'm not sure that I agree with _everything_ I've written but, the process helps me think things through. It's terribly difficult for all of us to understand these issues, weave through all the half truths presented by both sides, and not get caught up in the mudslinging.
Michael Duff October 06, 2012 at 04:16 PM
G.W.Bush warned the Democrat controlled congress numerous times that the lending policies put forth by Dodd and Franks encouraging home loans to those who could not afford them would lead to economic failure. Presidents do not make laws Congress does.


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