Will my snap prediction that “Richard Blumenthal will survive misstatement-gate, and will be sworn in as Connecticut’s junior senator on January 3, 2011” go down in the pantheon of Great Brendan Loy Political Prognostications, alongisde Rudy Giuliani will win the 2008 GOP nomination and Hillary Clinton “will not win a single primary”? Twenty-four hours later, survey says…
“The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Connecticut finds Blumenthal with just a three-point advantage over Linda McMahon, 48% to 45%,” Rasmussen states on its website. “Two weeks ago, he led the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment by 13 percentage points. The New York Times story broke late Monday; the survey was taken Tuesday evening.”
Blumenthal performs better against Republicans Rob Simmons and Peter Schiff, besting them by 11 and 16 percentage points respectively.
So Blumenthal has slipped in the polls. No surprise there. Indeed, a 10-point drop is just about exactly what I expected. But actually, I think this may be good news for him, for several reasons.
As been heavily discussed over at Five Thirty Eight, Rasmussen has had a pronounced pro-GOP “house effect” in polling for this election cycle. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re “biased” or wrong — they may be accounting for a surge in Republican enthusiasm more accurately than other pollsters — but it does mean a 3-point difference should probably be taken with at least a few grains of salt. And, perhaps more to the point, even in a Rasmussen poll, Blumenthal is still ahead against all possible opponents.
The most recent 538 Senate forecast showed Blumenthal with an average poll margin of +24 vs. McMahon, +21 vs. Simmons, and +29 vs. Schiff. (So Rasmussen’s pre-scandal +13 vs. McMahon was 11 points more GOP-favorable than the average.) Assuming the apples-to-apples 10-point drop — i.e., from one Rasmussen poll to another — is for real, and translates to other polls, Blumenthal would still be up by an “poll of polls” average of double digits against all GOP candidates.
Moreover, one would expect this sort of scandal to produce a kind of “reverse bounce” for Blumenthal, liable to fade somewhat with time, leading to a partial recovery in his poll numbers. If this is Blumenthal’s low-water mark — +3 against McMahon, +11 against Simmons and +16 and Schiff, in a Rasmussen poll — I don’t see it convincing him to drop out, barring “another shoe” dropping.
The timing is also crucial: Blumenthal is due to be endorsed by the Democratic Party poohbahs this weekend, albeit subject to a potential primary in September (if someone either qualifies for a primary at the state convention or petitions their way onto the ballot). I think it will take much more than this initially-scary-looking-but-actually-not-all-that-bad Rasmussen poll to convince anyone in the party to throw him under the bus right now. And time is running out for new information to emerge before the convention.
Folks without ties to Connecticut need to understand, this is Richard Blumenthal. He’s an institution in Connecticut politics, and in the Connecticut Democratic Party. He’s been the Attorney General, and widely seen as a governor- or senator-in-waiting, for the majority of my life (specifically, since I was 9 years old), waiting — and waiting — and waiting — for the opportune moment to run for higher office. During that time, he’s built an enormous store of goodwill with Connecticut voters, not to mention an incredibly strong “brand.” So it would take something truly seismic to convince the party to cut him loose. And as bad as the New York Times story looks to outside observers, I don’t think the story, plus a 10-point drop in a Rasmussen poll, qualifies as sufficiently seismic.
(Having said that, I can think of one major figure in the party would might have an unusually strong, and sudden, incentive to re-open the bidding for who gets the U.S. Senate nomination…)
One last note: it’s hard for me to believe that Linda McMahon would actually do that much better in a general-election matchup than Rob Simmons, who seems like the best GOP candidate from an electability perspective, by far. If anything, the last 48 hours have shown the incompetence of the McMahon campaign, as they’ve given the Blumenthal campaign a lifeline by ham-handedly claiming “credit” for the NYT story, thus allowing the Dems to dismiss it as a partisan “smear.” Idiots. Anyway, McMahon’s strength makes me a bit skeptical of this particular poll.
The bottom line is that we need more information. But for now, I’m doubling down on my prediction. I think Blumenthal survives, and I think, in the end, he wins the general election by double digits.
No disagreements there, but whereas Republicans’ chances were slim and none last week, this week they are at least worth calculating. The ten-point drop is significant, but I question just how much that news has reached most of the voters. This may not be something he can quickly bounce back from, like news of a long-ago affair — this is something his opposition can continue to play up, to his detriment, right through to November.
Agreed. This has gone from being like a Reverse North Dakota (in terms of the GOP’s odds) to being like a Reverse Arkansas, or maybe even a Reverse Kentucky. Blumenthal is still the heavy favorite, but he’s no longer a certainty.
That said, I agree with Nate Silver that the GOP had better nominate Simmons, not McMahon, if it wants to have any shot, notwithstanding Rasmussen’s outlier numbers on that point. As you wrote in another thread, such numbers are of questionable significance right now; what’s more significant is that McMahon’s campaign operation has shown itself to be completely incompetent in its handling of the massive gift that this scandal represents. Moreover, I just don’t see Nutmeggers as being the type who are going to elect an oddball candidate like McMahon. This is Connecticut, not Minnesota! And particularly if this is now going to be a race all about “character” and honesty and whatnot, Simmons is the better choice by light years.
P.S. I recognize that North Dakota and Arkansas (also Delaware) are likely — or, in North Dakota’s case, downright certain — GOP pickups, whereas Connecticut is a likely Dem hold. In that sense Kentucky is the better analogy, but I’m ignoring the hold/pickup distinction, and looking purely at odds of winning.
Put another way, I think of North Dakota, Arkansas and Delaware as basically GOP seats for purposes of the Senate math, such that I consider the Dems to be starting from a base of 56 seats, not 59. It would be a huge upset if the GOP lost any of those states (ND and AR for demographic reasons; DE because of Mike Castle’s popularity).
But I digress.
I agree with William Saletan . . . Blumenthal doesn’t deserve a break.
The main thing McMahon has going for her is Very Deep Pockets. Her ads (gauzy though they be) (not to say, wimpy) (“wimpy” 🙂 dominate the TV screens around here, much to my disgruntlement. From Simmons we hear bupkis.
Speaking of deep pockets, observers have noted that it’s altogether Possible that both CT majorparty Tickets this year May be led (for Governor & US Senator) by multimillionaire neighbors from the same nice little Home town: Ned Lamont (D-Greenwich), Dick Blumenthal (D-Greenwich), Tom Foley (R-Greenwich) & Linda McMahon (R-Greenwich). O God bless Greenwich is our Prayer. (Whack fol the diddle-o the dye doe day. 🙂
Venerable Loy is not supporting Gaelic names like Foley (“form of Gaelic Ó Foghladha ‘descendant of Foghlaidh’, a byname meaning ‘pirate’, ‘marauder’”) or McMahon (“Mac Mathghamhna, a patronymic from the byname Mathghamhain meaning ‘good calf’. This was the name of two (unrelated) chieftain families in counties Clare and Monaghan.”) ?
Next you’ll be telling me he prefers the Scottish or Northern Irish Lamont (“Scottish and northern Irish: from the medieval personal name Lagman, which is from Old Norse Logmaðr, composed of log, plural of lag ‘law’ (from leggja ‘to lay down’) + maðr, ‘man’ (genitive manns)”) !
hee hee 🙂 Estimable Alasdair, your Research is highly Commendable. I’m impressed. No, really. / And yes, I have to admit it: at the moment I am Leaning to the Lagman. ;> BUT I’ve not ruled out his competitor for the Dem gubernatorial nomination, Dannel Malloy. (See what ye can do with THAT one, Roibert a Briuis. 🙂 And Dan’s not from Greenwich. He was Mayor of faraway Stamford. ;}
And here I thought you would instinctually light upon the pirate/marauder !
Malloy (“Middle French derived from ‘Malloi’ composed of ‘mal’, from Latin ‘malus’ meaning ‘bad’, + ‘loi’ from Latin ‘lex’ meaning law – pejorative used for medieval coucil members who create bad laws “) – there is a certain quiet appropriateness to his political party of choice, in that regard …
(innocent smile)
LOL 🙂 Hey, as the Lawyers say, “hard cases make bad law” & Connecticut is definitely a Tough Case right now so there ye Go. / And here I was hoping Dan Mal-loy is just a longlost black sheep of the Fambly. I’m Crestfallen. (Of course so is the Fambly but nevermind about that now. 😉
But you’re right: I’ll have to give some reConsideration to the pirate-marauder theme. 🙂