An internal poll for the Dodd campaign conducted December 15-17 by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research among 601 likely Connecticut voters found Dodd and McMahon locked in a dead heat with 46 percent of the vote apiece, and the Senator trailing Rob
Simmons by a margin of 46 to 51 percent.
This poll tried to feel out the large number of undecideds that we’ve been seeing in previous public polls:
Once voters hear both positive and negative information about all three candidates, Dodd gains ground and leads McMahon by 5 points, 50 to 45 percent, and is in a statistical dead heat with Simmons, 49 to 48 percent. Furthermore,voters respond positively to Dodd’s work in the Senate, particularly on health care reform, the passage of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act, and Dodd’s economic plan to help small businesses and create jobs.
While this is an internal poll and like all internal polls must be taken with a grain of salt, I think we’re seeing something important here; namely, that the bad news on Dodd is already out there and reflected in his poll numbers, and if health care reform legislation passes this week, we should see improvement in the public polls.
But equally as important is the fact that voters don’t appear to be that thrilled by either of the two potential GOP candidates. There’s Rob Simmons, a Washington insider and Linda McMahon, who is an outsider, yes, but one with an extremely colorful background, no matter how her campaign tries to whitewash it.
And heads up, GOP – being the “Party of No” in Washington has not resonated with CT voters:
President Obama is viewed favorably by a 2 to 1 margin, and the Democratic Party receives a favorable-unfavorable rating of 51 to 37 percent (+14 points). By contrast, the Republican Party is viewed very unfavorably and receives a poor rating of 29
percent favorable to 49 percent unfavorable (-20 points).
It’s a long way till next November, and the longer Simmons and McMahon and Schiff fight and expose each others’ dirty laundry, the better it is for Senator Dodd.
51 responses so far ↓
So Sara, if everybody hates Republicans…loves Obama…not crazy about Simmons or McMahon…why are Democrats so desperate to kick loyal Democrat Chris Dodd to the curb?????
You’re right about the GOP being the party of no but I must point out the Democrats are now the party of YES
Yes to the trial lawyers
Yes to the teachers unions
Yes to illegal immigration
Yes to higher taxes
Yes to bailouts
Yes to higher deficits
Yes to printing more money
Yes to high unemployment
Yes to global warming hoax
Yes to extremism
Yes to terrorism
Yes to a greater dependency on foreign oil
Yes to Chris Dodd
Yes to Barney Franks
Yes to Nancy Pelosi
Yes to social*ism
YES WE CAN !!!!!!!!
So this is an outfit that does polling and election work almost exclusively for Democrats (it also does some stuff for non profits and corporations, because I guess there’s not always an election going on).
Once voters hear both positive and negative information about all three candidates, Dodd gains ground and leads McMahon by 5 points, 50 to 45 percent, and is in a statistical dead heat with Simmons, 49 to 48 percent. Furthermore,voters respond positively to Dodd’s work in the Senate, particularly on health care reform, the passage of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act, and Dodd’s economic plan to help small businesses and create jobs.
So basically “the positive and negative information about all three candidates” probably is a little biased, being an internal poll for Dodd. I bet the script sounds a lot more like a Dodd commercial than a McMahon / Simmons commercial or even a news report. Unfortunately for Dodd, not everyone is going to hear just what Dodd wants them to hear. What do you suppose the script in this poll said about Countrywide? Or Ireland? Do you think it might have said something like “Do you support Chris Dodd, who is fighting for you in Washington against the special interests and lobbyists, or do you support Simmons, who favors polluting the environment and signing over your rights to the special interests?”
And with that type of questioning, Dodd is only down one point… But I’m for anything that keeps Dodd in this race, because Dodd is going to be about the easiest candidate to beat this year in that election.
Oh Puffy, Puh-leeze.
“Yes to terrorism?” Give me an F*cking break. I’ve lived with terrorism since I was a schoolgirl living in England and just because I don’t believe in giving my humanity and TORTURING people doesn’t mean I say “yes” to terrorism.
“Yes to extremism” Um have you listened to Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh lately? Whose party is having “purity tests” for its candidates because they don’t drink the Kool Aid…Let me think…Oh yes, it’s the GOP!!!
“Yes to a greater dependency on foreign oil” – Major plank of Obama admin – renewal energy – guess you missed the memo
“Yes to global warming hoax” Oh jeez. Take off the tin foil hat and then we’ll talk.
It may be an internal poll but it’s unusual, to say the least, to release a poll where your candidate is behind. The push-polling questions in Dodd’s favor I guess are useful to Republicans as well, reminding them that it is not a ’slam-dunk’ to defeat a Senator with decades of experience, whatever your take on the efficacy of that experience. Whoever wins in Nov 2010 will have to earn it.
Pretty much like Moore Research, who did McMahon’s polling, works almost exclusively for Republicans.
GMR has it right — unless Greenberg (that is DeLauro’s hubby’s firm, I believe) releases the questions, one cannot assess the accuracy. E.G. — “Are you aware that Chris Dodd wants to give everyone free health care? And that he supports easy mortgage terms for poor people? Given that, do you like him?” Compare with, “Are you aware Chris Dodd has created a plan that taxes all union health care plans, and that he was in cahoots with Countrywide and AIG?” Both can be seen as “true,” and both are leading questions.
Even with the questions we couldn’t assess much of anything without knowing their likely voter model. Quinnipiac asked similar questions about Dodd and AIG bonuses (minus the word “cahoots”) a few months ago. Not surprisingly Dodd’s poll numbers were the lowest he’s gotten all year.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1283
This just shows internal polling is completely worthless.
PufnStuf just did a post in which he states that the Democratic Party is ” yes to terriorism” this is absolutely unacceptable discourse and paints every Democrat as unamerican and either a terriorist or loyal to them.Where is the moderation of this website for such unacceptable posting.
I hope PufnStuf recants this and soon.
Dodd is moving up as I suspected he would.He is also working on other legislation about the financial system and may well go up even further in the polls. Dont count him out yet as 10-11 months to an election is an eternity in politics.
Bruce, Closing Guantanamo Bay and Terror trials in NYC??
Funny how you are such a 1st amendment advocate and then you cry out for censorship because you disagree with their point of view. I respect you Bruce but I expect more.
Pufnstuf…..John McCain and former President Bush also advocated closing Gitmo…are they disloyal also?
Yes I do want the trials in NYC, right where the damage was done, so that the World will see the trials and know that we here in America govern by the rule of law and take no guff from terriorists.
Pufnstuf…I do value the 1st amendment…I asked where was the moderation when YOU painted me and every Democrat as “yes to terriorism” this is unacceptable discourse to me.Just because I hold a different opinion from you doesnt make me a terriorist or a lackey of them.When you disagree with me…and you surely do…it doesnt mean I find you unamercian…or a friend of terriorists…what I do find is another loyal and concerned american with a divergent opion from mine…..nothing more and nothing less…
“Yes to Terrorism” is accurate if you consider the use of aerial drones on civilians populations in Pakistan and Afghanistan “terrorism.” I do. So, Puffy has a point, albeit he and I see from diametrically opposing reasons.
“Yes to Terrorism” is accurate if you consider the supporting of regimes that harvest organs (Israel, China) from prisoners as terrorism.
“Yes to Terrorism” is accurate if you consider continuing illegal, immoral invasions and occupations of sovereign nations as terrorism.
So while Puffy seems to think that giving human beings all the bells and whistles of due process of law is terrorism, I think Obama looks every bit the international terrorist that Bush was when it comes to rogue foreign policy decisions.
And Puffy wants it a second way by saying moving prisoners from one maximum security facility to another is saying yes to terrorism. My question, Puffy, is, should we just execute the prisoners in Gitmo so we can close it and not have to bring them to the U.S.?
“GMR has it right — unless Greenberg (that is DeLauro’s hubby’s firm, I believe) releases the questions, one cannot assess the accuracy.”
So, Greenburg is married to DeLauro, who was, before she became Rep. for life, one of Dodd’s aides, and the thigh bone’s connected to the hip bone… and that’s the way of the lordy, lordy…
The only unanswered question is: Was this a push poll?
>>me and every Democrat as “yes to terrorism”
Hey ……………..if it fits.
Heavens only knows the SDS were pretty far from pacifists.
This just shows internal polling is completely worthless.
I’d hazard a guess you didn’t major in Logic.
>>Hey ……………..if it fits.
So by that measure, anyone who supported Bush said YES to torture and ignoring civil liberties of American citizens.
Guys, let’s ditch the hyberbole and try to have an intelligent discussion please.
There are some things some of us just don’t understand about the coming trial of terrorists in New York City. Perhaps some lawyer in the house can clear up our confusion.
Some of the prisoners now at Gitmo but soon to be transported to the US mainland are to be tried in a federal court in New York. And these terrorists — no quotation marks needed here, since everyone including the pope, President Barack Obama and Ken Krayeske agree that, say, Kalid Sheik Mohammed is a terrorist — formerly considered illegal non-combatants, are to be invested for purposes of trial with all the rights and immunities of citizens of the United States. Purely as a practical matter MSK is to be treated no differently than, say, Ken Krayseke, who’s case in now wending its way through Connecticut’s court system.
Okay. So, you want to treat KSM and Ken equally. Fine. You’re at bat, you’re running the government, fine. Fair’s fair. Ex-President George Bush would have handled the matter differently, but he has long since rode off towards the sunset.
Here are three questions:
1) Not ALL the prisoners at Gitmo are to be festooned with constitutional rights. Why not? Please do not respond that they are to be denied the rights given to KSM because KSM’s crime – he masterminded the bombing of the Twin Towers in New York – occurred stateside. So what? Since when do we apportion constitutional rights to defendant A but deny them to defendant B for geographical reasons — when neither A nor B are citizens of the US but rather self-defined terrorists non-combatants who have declared a jihad against America, the Great Satan?
2) Would a show trial in New York – our esteemed US Attorney General has assured everyone that KSM will be found guilty — deprive KSM of his constitutional rights to a fair trial?
3) The United States is pushing for the death penalty in KSM’s case. He is being tried in a civilian rather than a military court. Many nations have abolished the death penalty, and these nations are loath to transfer to the United States anyone who may be put to death at trial. Would the execution of KSM, after the average wait period of a dozen or more, years make it less likely for prisoners such as KSM to be transferred to the US from other countries?
Don –
Not quite a lawyer yet (79 of 86 credits needed to graduate now complete!), so I’ll hazard my opinion:
1) Due process of law for everyone. I don’t comprehend the thought pattern that Holder etc put forth that says KSM gets due process but everyone else belongs in legal limbo…
2) I think the logic is more like that of Nuremburg: lets’ give ‘em a fair trial and then hang ‘em. Since KSM was waterboarded 186 or so times, it is highly unlikely that there is anything remotely close to a fair trial in this instance. The best we could do is turn him over to the Hague, or a similarly-agreed upon independent arbiter of justice because the U.S. is so biased in this trial it’s silly to even put the word “fair trial” here.
3) Yes.
>>Let’s ditch the hyberbole
The SDS was involved in a things that required my family’s sudden relocation.
That’s NOT hyperbole.
” hyberbole”?
Sara–
The bad news on Dodd is already out there?
Not quite. Dodd’s unseemly relationship with Ed Downe Jr is hardly household news, but it will be by November if Dodd remains the candidate. (do you want a timeline? Because it ain’t pretty.) Nor are his votes on financial deregulation.
While I agree that Countrywide is played out in full, Dodd’s move to Iowa remains a huge liability. There is still way too much material for negative ads and to suggest that there is nothing left that people don’t know is simply wrong.
PS — For extra credit, please name the wholly-owned AIG subsidiary on whose board Jackie Clegg sat earlier this decade. Don’t worry if the name doesn’t come to mind. We’ll all know it by November.
MODERATION? UGH!
Not that full disclosure ever matters, but Stanley Greenberg (who owns Greenberg Quinlan), is husband to Rosa DeLauro who ran Dodd’s first Senate campaign in 1980, and then was his Chief of Staff during his first term from 1981-1987.
More interestingly, Dodd and Jackie Clegg actually live in Stan and Rosa’s old Capitol Hill townhouse. Yes, Chris and Jackie Dodd bought the prior DeLauro/Greenberg residence in October of 1999, just months after their marriage.
It’s unclear by the deed how much the Dodds paid for the property. (the deed lists $10 and other valuable consideration.) However the transfer tax stamp shows a payment of $4840, which means the city valued the transaction at $440K. Also at the time, a $352K mortgage was taken out, from a well-known bank.
Bruce, all I know is when I disagree with you as I occasionally do, I don’t cry out for censorship. I will admit that you have always been thoughtful with your opinions but when your liberal friends have trashed Republicans, questioned their integrity or character, you have been silent. I on the other hand make an admittedly and intentionally pungent comment against Democrats and you attempt to portray that as a personal assault against you?
Bruce, although you are a devoted Democrat, I do not consider you the face of the Democrat party and I am not taking out my frustrations or anger on you so please, don’t take it personally.
ACR…..I was 18 at the time when I joined SDS….over 40 years ago…and 21 when i was recruited into the Weatherman Organization…I had nothing to do with your parents that I know of….By way of full disclosure….I was present at Chicago in 1968 and street faught the cops there….I was far from a Pacifist.And went back to Chicago in 1969 to participate in the famous Weatherman action called “days of rage”..4 days of street fighting…after that I was “at war” with America for sometime but those activities will remain private.Suffice it to say that I was indicted but one of this era’s most progressive legislator’s ( Andy Fleischman) dad..Karl…got me back here in 1973 with the indictment dropped…whereupon I finished my last semester of college,got a masters in economics and then a law degree.
Would I do the above now ? Nooooooo….would I do the above again if I was 18 again ? absolutely…..
Pufnstuf…I fully understand and I will not take it personally….By way of full disclosure my parents were conservative republicans and I enjoy the personal friendship of many republicans and some are or were elected officials.When a person is 21-28 and in college and law school as I was and live and party with folks who later become republicans when I am a progressive democrat doesnt mean I abandon my person friendships of long standing with folks that I grew up with.I may be an ardent progressive….that I proudly am…Don Pesci and ACR will tell you that hope…I dont “trash” anyone in here….
Don…As you know I am a lawyer and the questions you pose are good ones.Suffice it to say the defense lawyers will use every strategy they can on behalf of their clients and the details you posed with be front and center on various Motions filed by both sides.It will be quite a long time before all this sorts itself out and we will look at it from afar satisfied that in this great and beautiful country of ours, even those creeps will get a fair trial.
NO Bruce, you did not.
Considering the SDS was far from non-violent, for you to go on and on as to how we’re “abusing” the masterminds of 9/11 is a bit much.
Elsewhere in here today someone just had to bring up the idiots that were too stupid to commit suicide prior to capture where they later wound on trial in Nuremberg .
Give it break, they were effing Nazi’s.
Knocking them off was a great idea; that they hadn’t been wiped out by our GI’s at the end of the war was only an oversight or fluke anyway.
Half those reading this know their fathers or grandfathers did what was necessary.
What was true of white-trash cracker slave owners, Nazis, and now this current crop of dimwitted bigoted terrorists, remains true to this day. Those that would kill others only due to some quirk of birth are invariably better off dead themselves; and the sooner the better!
(Even if they’re not, the rest of us are far better off if they’re simply not around.)
I can neither fathom nor stomach the notion that we should be concerned over some feeble concept of “fairness” for those bent on the wholesale slaughter of innocents.
Less whiny hand-wringing and more reality is in serious order.
“I think the logic is more like that of Nuremburg: lets’ give ‘em a fair trial and then hang ‘em.”
You may have meant to write “impulse” rather tha logic. The logic is very different because Nuremberg was a MILITARY tribunal, and the US attorney general and the Obama administration taken the line that military courts ought not to handle terrorist cases — except when they should handle terrorist cases. There is no logic here. There is only a broken campaign pledge to close Gitmo 90 days after Obama has taken office.
I like the brevity of your answer in 3 but feel compelled to warn you: Don’t run for office as US Sen. from Connecticut.
Promise?
>>was 18 at the time when I joined SDS….over 40 years ago
Odd, over 40 years when I was 18, I often worked over 100 hours a week in the summer, and rarely less than 50 the rest of the year, putting myself through college as I was far too bullheaded to accept my father’s largess and attend Cornell where I’d been accepted, on his dime.
I sure as heck had no time to join a darn thing.
Ken,
Really, aren’t you stretching the language just a bit? A war is not an act of terrorism; it’s an act of war; in some circumstances, that may be bad enough.
You have not said which act of terrorism you object to: Bush’s war of choice in Iraq, or Obama’s war of necessity in Afghanistan.
Once you define a war as an act of terrorism, you have defined down terrorism. And your definition requires all of us to regard Obama as a terrorist.
Sometimes war incidents approach terrorist acts: Sherman’s march to the sea, the bombing of Dresden, the dropping of an A-bomb on Japan, because such acts involve the destruction of civilian populations. But even so, they are acts of war far more serious than the incidents you mention on the American side of the jihadist barricades.
At this rate, I’m prepared to get together a delegation to erect a picket line between you and the person handing out diplomas at whatever college you are attending, certain that most college professors and presidents would not take the fatal step and cross it.
ACR…I never once said or intimated that we were abusing the masterminds of 9/11….scroll up and reread what i exactly said….
On another note….I admire you for doing what you did to pay your own thru Cornell…you sure did fine…
I would absolutely love it if Dodd stayed in. Keep pimping him Sara…
>>pay your own thru Cornell…you sure did fine…
I certainly didn’t mean to imply I actually WENT there.
Quite the contrary, I went to the cheapest place I could find that was acredited for starters, CCCC on the Cape; then nights in Denver, etc. and it dragged on for ages.
I remained bull-headed and despite 5 years worth of credits, refused to take a required science course and never got a degree.
Self employed for most of my life, it didn’t seem to matter; at 58 and unemployed it suddenly appears to have been a big mistake!
My mother told me it would be, and sure enough!
Definition of Terrorism (from dictionary.com)
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
War is defined as:
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
What is a nation but a group of people assembled for political purposes? So while the definitions seem miles apart, when you determine what a nation is, and what force of arms means, the definitions are nearly identical.
So, I’ll ask again, how is dropping cluster bombs on wedding parties in Afghanistan not terrorism? Or how is firebombing Fallujah with white phosphorous (Nov. 2004) not terrorism? Or inviting Blackwater into Haditha? Or using unmanned aerial drones? Or crossing the border into Syria? I could go on and on about American war crimes during these past 8 years, but I think you get the drift.
And Don, I attend the University of Connecticut School of Law. I graduate on May 23, and I bet my classmates would think it lovely if you showed up with a picket to protest the celebration of our completion of academic work.
Ken,
You have to dig a little deeper than Webster.
We both know that war is diplomacy by other means, sometimes brutal means. But the distinction between war and terrorism does not lie in the difference between cluster bombs and regular bombs. If the British had caught George Washington during the American Revolution, they might have tried him as a terrorist. As a student of the law, I ask you to imagine a defense of Washington, and I know you are capable of rising to the situation; because you are no special pleader dummy.
I do not say that a comparison between acts of war and acts of terrorism cannot be made, even persuasively argued. I am saying they are not the same thing. Let me put it this way: Washington is no Kalid Sheik Mohammed. Surely you see the difference.
If there is no difference between acts of war and acts of terrorism, it follows as a matter of logic that all acts of war are acts of terrorism.
Now that syllogism may suit your fancy; it may even suit your purposes, if you are a pacifist.
But it is wrong.
If you do not yeild to my sweet persuation, give me a date on your graduation. I’ll be there with my pickets on.
You do understand that under definition 1) some smarmy lawyer might convince a jury that picketing is an act of terrorism because it involves threats, intimidation and coercion. In fact, stretching 1) as far as you have stretched it, the infinately flexible definition could easily be utilized to convince the unwary that you were arrested because Hartford police had some reason to believe that you were about to intimidate Rodi Rell for political purposes when you advanced upon her, with a smile on your face, at that notorious parade. Under these circumstances, I would rather throw Webster to the wolves than you. I assume you feel the same.
Don
The date is above. Maybe you need to reread my posts more carefully. For a 10 year old child on the ground in Afghanistan, does it matter who blew up his aunts and uncles at a wedding? It is terrorism.
And waterboarding someone 186 times is not terrorism? It is not using violence to achieve political goals?
The second definition of terrorism “the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization” applies as much to the results of psychological warfare that the Bush and Obama administrations perpetuate against the American people. Shock and Awe had purposeful ancillary effects on our populations. Obama’s George Orwell/Leon Festinger (read today’s Doonesbury) in front of the Nobel Committee was psychological warfare.
Consider Jose Padilla and his state of imprisonment. Gitmo and Padilla were set up not just to show the “terrorists” the awe-inspiring power of the U.S., but to show the American people – hey, this is what you get if you mess with us.
Is the American political body not living in a state of fear and submission? How about 7 percent of the electorate in Hartford turning out for a board of ed election? Is that a state of submission? How do you define “I just plain don’t care because think I’m powerless to change reality around me”? Or do we think that education is so unimportant that we needn’t determine who serves on the board?
And when parsing the difference between “valid” war and terrorism, to draw a distinction between the two is to accept violence is sometimes a political solution.
Ken,
Okay. You just continue to conflate a) using a passenger plane to destroy two buildings full of workers, none of whom individually were connected with military aggression with b) the apathy shown by 97 percent of Hartford’s electorate. Both, according to you involve terrorism. And good luck in your legal career.
>>….does it matter who blew up his aunts and uncles at a wedding? It is terrorism.
To your straw man (or straw boy in this case) it would appear to be terrorism, okay.
However, placing a “no – smoking” sign in a breakfast diner is to me outright tyranny.
It’s all in the eye of the beholder.
But to confuse collateral damage, which occurs in virtually all armed conflict with an overt act of intentional terrorism requires a major leap in logical thought.
The same US military that you’re all too happy to castigate is the same military that shows up lickity-split when some horrific disaster occurs as they did after the Indian Ocean tsunami 5 years ago this week.
ACR…its your guys who this week mostly voted to DENY the soldiers in Afganistan any new logistical support and body armor…..some would call that unamerican,but not me of course.I just call it poor tactics and very ill-advised.
everyone punched my sack here when i said the q poll was a repubican tool. looks like i might have not been so wrong… they load the numbers and fix there results. dodd is going to clobber that dirty wrestling ho or rob “everyone look at me i was in vietnam” simmons. keep it up repubics… wastin our time.
Donkeydonk can not be taken seriously until he learns punctuation, grammar and tense. Is it any doubt that the Donk is a product of socialized education (public education Donkey, so I may clarify, keep pushing medicine in the same direction). Keep perpetuating those uneducated Democrat stereotypes.
There is no way Dodd is “clobbering” anybody. If anything he will be sneaking his way past the “dirty wrestling ho” (way to represent yourself buddy), losing quite handily to Simmons or doing what I have expected all along and taking the eventual meeting with Vice-President Biden, his appointment to the Ambassadorship of Ireland or retirement due to his health problems and clearing the road for Senator Blumenthal or Murphy (or god forbid DeLaurio, which would hasten my move out of the state). Please get a clue.
Could someone please define a “repubic” for me?
Donkey Donk – I had to put your last comment into moderation. Please keep to the issues and refrain from making those kinds of spurious personal attacks. Also, you make your point much more effectively without resorting to low level terms such as “repubes”. Just not necessary.
Sara,
Feel free to post the obvious Pulitzer Award winning rebuttal for all those to see. I’m sure it was a well thought out, elegantly written sapient (wise, Donk) remark.
Nah. My goal for the New Year is that we can try maintain a civil dialogue on this site, and it’s starting now. I’m sick and tired of the name calling. We’re supposed to be grown-ups here and we should be able to express ourselves without this kind of stuff.
I can respect that.
>>I’m sick and tired of the name calling.
Yeah okay.
>> We’re supposed to be grown-ups here..
What?
Hey, don’t push.
I agree. We should all try to stick to the issues.
Although, the word “repubes” did make me giggle a bit. Sorry.
>>the word “repubes” did make me giggle…
I had a quite civilized cup of coffee with Bruce Rubenstein, a credentialed `real’ Democrat yesterday in Hartford.
Odd how those of us on the field, as opposed to in the stands, tend to behave with a higher level of decorum towards members of the opposing team than the bomb throwers from either side.
You must log in to post a comment.