Quote from Rob Simmons:
“If donating tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats was ‘the cost of doing business’ for Linda McMahon and her professional wrestling empire, one wonders what she aimed to get in return for her generosity. This sort of influence peddling would not make her ‘a different kind of Senator.’ It would make her exactly the same as the one we have.”
Woo! That’s a SMACKDOWN.
… And yes, the wrestling jokes are still pretty funny. At least I think they are, so I’m going to keep using them!
Seriously, though, is Rob Simmons actually worried about Linda McMahon? Why? Sure, she has zillions of dollars of her own money to spend, but so does everyone else except Sam Caligiuri (and, I suppose, Rob Simmons).
I suppose it could be that she’s the only female candidate in the race, which might help her pick up some support… but otherwise she’s a charter member of the Single Digits Gang.
27 responses so far ↓
I’d also like to admit that every single one of my WWE jokes will be at least ten years out of date, and they will all be the fault of my friend Ben from college, who tied me up and forced me to watch rasslin’. Forced, I say!
Razor Ramone vs Psycho Sid! With Guest referee, Doink the Clown!
eriously, though, is Rob Simmons actually worried about Linda McMahon? Why?
If Linda loses support, who does it go to? Definitely not Schiff. Probably not to Caliguiri. If Linda loses a supporter, chances are, that supporter goes to Simmons or maybe Foley. So even if she isn’t polling that high, she’s probably eating right out of his base.
If all five candidates make it onto the primary ballot, the winner is almost certainly going to win with less than 50%, and there’s a good chance not even 40%. So you’ve got to figure out who is hurting you.
Schiff has the Ron Paulites, Caliguiri has the more traditional conservatives. I’m not sure where Foley’s base is, but with his bankroll, he’s not DOA. Linda McMahon and Rob Simmons are probably both getting their support from the more centrist wing of the Republican party.
Rob Simmons probably is also picking up support from more conservative people who view him as a pragmatic choice: he’s the one that is perceived to have the best chance of beating Chris Dodd.
So it makes sense for Simmons to attack Linda, and probably Foley as well, but I just don’t have a read on Foley yet. Even if Linda isn’t polling that high, she and Rob are largely fighting over the same turf.
As an exercise, I tried to think were a candidate’s supporters would go if that candidate suddenly left the race without making an endorsement.
Schiff: I’d say half wouldn’t vote Republican in the primary, instead voting Libertarian. Most of the rest would go to Sam.
Sam: I’d say a few would go to Schiff, maybe 15%. Then the rest would probably go to Foley, 60%, and 25% to Rob. A few to Linda.
Linda: I’d say most would go to Simmons, say 70%.
Simmons: I’d say they’d go in various directions. The pragmatist conservatives would go to Caliguiri, but most to Foley and Caliguiri.
WOAH headline snafu! hang on, fix incoming
And my take on the whole thing, gmr, is that Simmons is going to win a lot of the Republicans who went for McCain in the 2008 primary. Schiff gets the Paulites, Caligiuri gets the Huckabee folks, leaving Foley and McMahon to fight for the economic conservatives and Romney supporters (though there will be a geographic element here, too, as a lot of Romney’s support came from near the Mass. border. I don’t know why, since the closer you get to MA the more you realize that everyone there hates his ever-living guts).
Which suggests that Foley would benefit most should Linda go poof… maybe.
Of topic entirely (so the tread police might well issue me a ticket for illegal topic change without a signal) Don Pesci has a wonderful piece up on the 150th anniversary of Torrington born, John Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry.
How is it possible that Simmons can criticize anyone for contributions received and contributions made? Reviewing his current and previous filings are a day spent in the deep end of a hypocrisy pool. In his Senate bid, Simmons challenges Dodd for taking out of state money and then immediately flies himself to California and Washington, DC for lobbyist infested fundraisers.
Simmons was awash in Big Oil money who I am sure were pleased with Simmons’s five votes for President Bush’s energy bill in 2005, which cleared the way for some terrible new (Read: antiquated and regressive) energy policies. Check Simmons’s old personal finance disclosures – which oil stock doesn’t he hold? Exxon-check! Chevron-check! On and on…
Linda McMahon may have baggage, but Simmons should be prepared for a real Mick Foley style Cage Match! Had to throw that in there…
Exxon is the most widely held stock in the world; virtually all mutual funds hold some too.
The first and only rassling match I attended featured Chief Jay Strongbow and Gorilla Monsoon.
The cool part is this: all the guys in the crowd and particulary the peanut vendors were sporting the 2010 Rob Simmons hair do.
Genghis, I think you are missing a lot when you attempt to write McMahon off as “single digits”.
McMahon’s name recognition is already higher than that of Foley, Caligiuri, and Schiff combined, and it’s probably on its way to rivalling that of Rob Simmons, who is known in Hartford and eastern Connecticut, but not that well in the rest of the state.
McMahon’s goal is an easy one. She wants to use her money to get ner name out there to the extent that she becomes number two in the polls. Then the media will turn this into a Simmons vs. McMahon race, with Linda being the anti-Simmons.
And unfortunateky you can count on the media to do so, as they want her $30 Million. Based solely on her money, she’s going to get 4-5 times the coverage that Caligiuri will get.
And Foley? He’s done, as McMahon just took his place as big spender in this race.
I’m sorry, but every time I look at that headline, I feel compelled to…
http://i403.photobucket.com/albums/pp118/thomasvanstone/RobTheRockSimmons.jpg
For that I present you with one (1) complimentary internet, sir
I think GMR’s comments are pretty accurate. My thoughts are that 4 candidates in this race have some form of a path to victory. Peter Schiff is DOA because 1) He does not have mainstream Republican views and it is a closed primary. 2) Despite the fact that he has already raised 1.2m online, it remains to be seen if he could muster the 3-4m+ it would take to be a credible candidate in this race. 3) He clearly cares about his businesss and personal ego more than the race.
The other 4 have some form of a path: Simmons could win out of default but it remains to be seen whether his politics inspires a lot of the people who currently are with him in the polls (remember closed primary, not a general election in the 2nd district). He has the current level of support because he is the defacto front runner and until a few weeks ago, he was the only recognized name. Once his front runner status goes away (which is starting to happen), his support will continue to whither. It is also unclear whether he’ll really have enough money to overcome McMahon and Foley’s media blitz. If he wins it is probably by a very small margin.
Foley will probably spend 2x+ what Simmons and Caliguiri spend combined. He seems to be a fiscal and foreign policy conservative and a social pragmatist which puts him inbetween Simmons and Caliguiri on the ideological scale. No one can argue that he isn’t a good Republican (re: McMahon), which all helps in a closed primary. For those reasons I see him going all the way to August and coming in no worse than second.
McMahon is a incredibly flawed candidate who wouldn’t have a path if it wasn’t for the millions she will certainly spend. She cannot be discounted because the money bulldozes a path for her, but it’s a pretty rough one in a closed primary.
Caliguiri’s path lies in the fact that he is the most socially conservative candidate in this race — if he stays in he’ll probably get 15-20% of the vote because of it, but it is unlikely he could actually figure out how to get to the 35%+ that it will probably take to win because he doesn’t and won’t have the money to compete. He is a good man and has a future, just probably not in this race.
Whoops, Gallup, CBS News, & AP all have Obama polling at 56%!.
So much for that meme of declining numbers.
Even Rasmussen showed a blip after his July speeach and Nobel win.
The latest Rasmussen are declining back to the usual 48 to 51% approval and 48 to 51% disapproval.
The GOP st
If there’s a huge new Obama theme that will change polling perceptions it will be Afghanistan.
He may go with the “Taliban are our friend” approach because they are too well woven into the Afghanistan social fabric to be rooted out. Instead the US will concentrate on regional elections and the 100 or so Al-Queda. I think an Afghanistan exodus along with Iraq withdrawal will help Obama in the polls barring another domestic terrorism incident.
Won’t help the 2010 contingent though. The Dems burnt a lot of good will proving the party isn’t united at all on health care, gay rights, or the US role in the Mid East.
Scooper, Obama ratings have sunk from 68% to 56%….. Even worse, Democrats approval ratings in congress are in a free fall. Again, more bad news for the Democrats going into 2010.
Puf–
All this talk about Dems falling apart is just that, — talk. You can repeat your talking point all you want, but your broken record campaign isn’t going to make it happen.
Me, I’m proud that Obama has more than half the country solidly behind him, despite the GOP’s non-stop campaign to tear him down. His current 56% number is twice that which Bush left office with.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-bush.php
As to Congress, they suck. But the Congressional GOP approval numbers are even lower, at about 20%. No one wants to give power back the likes of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell, and your dream of another 1994 is pure fantasy.
Anyway, I can’t wait to hear Dan DeBicella’s fundraising numbers announced this week. They’re going to show that your groundswell is in fact a mere ripple.
The Democrats are certain to lose House seats in 2010, but they will probably retain a majority. There is zero chance the Republicans retake the Senate, but they may net a few seats.
There were some unique factors in 1994: many of the Republican wins were in the South, which can’t really be repeated this time because that’s where the party is currently fairly strong. The Democrats were mired in various scandals (e.g., Rostenkowski), and this had been building up for years. And say what you will about Newt Gingrich, the man did have some ideas, and brought them forth in the Contract with America. I don’t see Boehner as having many ideas of his own. Finally, there were some redistricting effects in in 1994 that won’t be there in 2010. The 1990 census had districts redrawn, but in 1992, the Democrats largely avoided the impact because of Bill Clinton’s coattails. This wasn’t the case in 1994, so there were many Democrats sitting in fairly Republican districts.
I think the Republicans will pick up seats in 2010. But I’d be surprised if it was a majority. Furthermore, I don’t know if the Republicans should really hope for say a five seat majority. If the Democrats have a very narrow majority in the House, and say 56 seats in the Senate, it’ll be difficult for them to do much of anything, but they won’t be able to effectively paint the Republicans as obstructionists because they’ll still theoretically hold the reins of power.
Front-running CT-02 Republican candidate Daria Novak, has filed her October quarterly report.
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00461012/434867/
$4,948.68 raised
$6,178.71 cash on hand
$1,079.17 owed
$5,099.54 net cash
So much for the Tea Party movement, of which Daria is a leader.
http://dariaforcongress.ning.com/video/clinton-ct-tea-party-rally-may
Gotta love her “you betcha’s”.
Lady Gaga and the gay equality advocates are trying to force Obama further to the Left.
Tough days for the O-man. If he goes against the Pentagon in Afghanistan and supports Gay Equality he’s going to be a liability for moderate Democrats in 2010.
With the Baucus plan becoming something of a mockery of any real reform and the economy still in decline Obama’s got some work to do to build a coalition.
Scooper, I’m very happy you guys are in denial. Just keep telling yourself how much everybody loves Obama and while you’re at it, keep believing the economy is great, the job market is good and we’re winning the Afghanistan war.
Get ready 1984!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>He may go with the “Taliban are our friend” approach
Yeah that’ll work!
Until this video clip makes a reappearance.
Reading between the lines Obama will go with some of the Pentagon recommendations after all.
The WAPO reports another 13,000 are heading over in the form of ’support troops’ rather than ’service troops’. Obama now has more troops overseas than Bush during the surge.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091013/wl_afp/usafghanistanmilitarytroops_20091013051645
Simmons is simply trying to end her run before it begins. Standard acticity for a frontrunner facing new competition: Destroy them before they can engage the electorate.
As for these Obama polls, Goat Boy is right -there was a bounce after we lost the Olympics, to rally to our President, and a bit of a bounce this weekend after the Peace Prize.
But for the most accurate pollsters — Zogby and Rasmussen — Obama remains at @ 50%, and is poised to fall fast — I fear the unemployment rate will hit 10% just in time for Christmas, the stock rally will run out of steam as the EPS ratio is already far too high (over 19), and Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea persist in not paying attention to the Nobel Prize Committee. Swine flu etc. are wild cards, too.
He wants a win on health care, but so few people trust the govt. right now that a “win” will actually cost him — and fellow Democrats — at the polls. That’s my take.
Rasmussen and Zogby the most accurate pollsters? That’s a laugh.
Next you’ll probably want to describe FoxNews as fair and balanced!
You must log in to post a comment.