Dissecting the Bitter Connecticut McMahon-Murphy U.S. Senate Race

The nasty TV ads and attacks have been going on since August in Connecticut’s 2012 U.S. Senate race. With 62% of respondents in the most recent Quinnipiac Poll claiming they have an unfavorable opinion of this bitter race, neither former World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) executive and Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon nor three term Connecticut Congressman and Senate Democratic candidate Chris Murphy seem overly concerned about the lack of credibility in some of their charges and the toll it is taking on Connecticut’s voters. With the current 53 to 47 Democratic margin in the U.S. Senate, and the increasing prospect of losing current Republican U.S. Senate seats in Maine and Massachusetts to the north, Republicans would like nothing better than to pick up a seat in Connecticut. Let’s take a look at the landscape in this race, the issues in the campaign, the money being spent, and the polling trends for the candidates, including the all important women’s vote.

1. The Connecticut Landscape. Connecticut’s nearly 2 million registered voters are heavily independent: 720,161 Democrats and 411,062 Republicans with 817,432 unaffiliated voters (as of July 2012). Of these voters, the lead among unaffiliated voters has climbed even more since January 2012 with the newly registered unaffiliated voters (21,091) nearly surpassing the combined total of newly registered voters by party (Democrats 13,851 and Republican 9,256.) In 2010, Linda McMahon spent about $50 million and lost her race by 12% to then Attorney General Richard Blumenthal even though it was the worse year for Congressional Democrats in 70 years. One reason for her loss was the 20% margin of support for Blumenthal among women voters. Connecticut last elected a Republican to the Senate with Lowell Weicker in the 1970’s and has yet to elect a woman to the U.S. Senate. Connecticut Republican candidates won the right to be on the top line of the ballot based upon the 2010 gubernatorial vote. McMahon is also on the Independent Party line and Murphy will be on the Working Families Party line.

McMahon came out of the box early in this race with a carryover of high statewide name recognition (though some of it negative), a re-tooled campaign organization from her 2010 race, and a barrelful of personal money. She also beefed up her negative opposition research and staff and hit the ground running right after the August primaries with a heavy media buy of negative attacks on Murphy, largely focused on his personal financial difficulties. Murphy seemed like a deer caught in the headlights for several weeks without the statewide name recognition and with a fledgling campaign organization and limited funds to respond. Without the household name and good will to inoculate him like Blumenthal had in 2010, Murphy – who had enjoyed an average lead of 10 points in the pre-August polls –  took a hit and started to fall in the polls. That trend has been stemmed and Murphy now seems to be moving ahead of McMahon in the latest polls.

2. The Issues. McMahon has endeavored to paint Murphy as a career politician who hasn’t produced for Connecticut, has failed to attend over 75% of his Congressional Committee hearings, and has neglected to pay his rent, mortgage and taxes on time. She charged that Murphy received a “sweetheart” mortgage from a Connecticut Bank in exchange for facilitating federal TARP funds for the bank and that he hasn’t proposed a jobs plan for Connecticut’s future. McMahon also charged that Murphy voted to divert $716 billion  from Medicare to the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obama Care. And, to bolster her draining support among women recently, McMahon has charged that Murphy is paying his Congressional women staffers half of what he pays his male staffers and that he let legislation die that would have provided medical assistance for rape vistims while a state legislator.

Murphy has attacked McMahon for alleging that she supports women’s issues and is pro-choice when she supports the Blunt Amendment which would allow any employer to deny health care for birth control and other health services, e.g. mammograms, to its female employees and has taken monetary support from the  National Right to Life PAC. Murphy has also charged that McMahon wants to “sunset” social security, has flip flopped in her support for the Defense of Marriage Act, is a wealthy former corporate executive owning five mansions who has failed to pay her Stamford condominium real estate taxes on time or to pay back her creditors from a decades old bankruptcy until called on it during this year’s campaign.

From taxes to Medicare to the economy, the contrasts between McMahon and Murphy are dramatic. McMahon favors extension of the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy, while Murphy supports eliminating them for people who earn over $250K. Murphy opposes a voucher program for Medicare recipients while McMahon says she won’t cut Medicare benefits for the elderly but also won’t take a position on vouchers or other Medicare reform proposals until after the election. McMahon touts her 6 point economic plan focused on lowering business and individual tax rates and decreasing federal regulations and spending while Murphy bases his plan on less defined efforts to invest in manufacturing jobs, his legislation to strength “buy American” laws, and reform of Wall Street to protect investors.

Murphy supports the Affordable Care Act and McMahon says she will vote to repeal it. McMahon paints herself as in independent who will vote in a bipartisan way in Washington versus Murphy who votes with Congressional Democrats down the line. She has distanced herself from the Romney/Ryan ticket and decided not to attend the Republican National Convention in August. She touts her business experience and says that she knows how to create jobs in a tough economy. Murphy describes himself as sympathetic with middle class voters because of his middle class roots and a record to match.

Analysis: Both candidates have a record of fiscal irresponsibility so that negates their mutual charges. There is no proof that Murphy got a sweetheart mortgage deal and, in fact, there are indications that he was charged 1% more than the average borrower for a similar mortgage. The TARP program was not even envisioned at the time he obtained his mortgage so to allege that there was a quid pro quo doesn’t hold water. Murphy is a career politician and seems to want to run away from that title instead of convincing voters that his experience in government is a plus. As stated by a recent letter to the editor in The Connecticut Post, “I’m glad my car is serviced by a career mechanic and my teeth are worked on by a career dentist.”

Murphy responds to his low committee attendance record with the fact that he has a 97% voting attendance record. His over 75% absence from committee hearings does seem high. However, having worked as a legislative assistant in Congress, I know first hand that Congressmen serve on many committees and subcommittees with conflicting meeting schedules (Two committees and three subcommittees for Murphy), making attendance at some committee hearings impossible. Further, most Members of Congress running for higher office commonly take a hit on their attendance when they are back home campaigning for a longer stretch of time, especially when their opponent is in the state full-time, like McMahon.

Murphy’s point about his voting attendance record is well taken. How a Congressman votes and whether he has his high voting percentage are often more important indicators of effectiveness than attendance at committee hearings. Murphy’s voting record can best be categorized as moderate to liberal. But, it is also important to evaluate whether Murphy has been an influential “player” in Congress. While Murphy is in only his third term and is in the minority where it is harder to have influence, he still hasn’t seemed to have distinguished himself on many issues in the House. This might explain why he hasn’t touted his legislative record much during the campaign. Murphy does have a strong record of constituent service in his 5th Congressional District. Unfortunately, since his District comprises only 20%of the state, that won’t help him get much support throughout the rest of the state.

McMahon’s charge that Murphy cut Medicare is specious. The $716 billion was not diverted from funds that would have been received by Medicare recipients but from reimbursements to Medicare providers. And, the diversion was supported by many nonpartisan organizations as a step to foster greater efficiencies in the Medicare program. For McMahon to attack Murphy on this issue is also disingenuous since Paul Ryan’s Republican House budget removed the same $716 billion from Medicare.

Murphy’s charge that McMahon wants to sunset social security is patently false. In the context of her statement to a tea party group earlier this year, it is fairly clear that McMahon proposed that government reexamine social security, and other government programs, periodically not eliminate it. Murphy’s TV ads have unnecessarily alarmed senior citizens. But, what McMahon’s statement in misusing the term sunset does do – together with her avoidance until recently to be interviewed by the major newspaper editorial boards, her lifting of major parts of her economic plan from think tanks and other Washington scripts, her past misstatements about lowering the minimum wage in tough economic times,  her earlier over reliance on “talking points” on issues, and her failure to discuss the nuts and bolts of her position on several issues until after the election, such as Medicare, by saying that she will vote in a “bipartisan” way when she gets to Washington – is amplify the sense that she is not ready or experienced enough to serve in the U.S. Senate.

3. The Money. Until the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and a number of outside PACS came to rescue Murphy in mid-September, he was vastly outspent. He will still be outspent by McMahon’s wealth, but he is now able to compete. As of September 30, McMahon had loaned over $27 million of her own funds to the race so far this year. Of her over $29 million total war chest, only about 5%, or $1.65 million, was raised from outside sources with about $720,000 from outside organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Right to Life PAC. She had $1 million then on hand. As of September 30, Murphy had about $2.2 million on hand. He had raised $8.2 million from supporters and benefited from $6.4 million in independent expenditures by labor (AFSME), environmental, U.S. Senate (DSCC, Harry Reid) and other groups for a total of about $14 million. Federal documents filed with the U.S. Senate in October reveal that McMahon has loaned more personal funds to her campaign bringing her total expenditures to $42.6 million, approaching her $50 million spent in the 2010 campaign.

4. The Opinion Polls and Analysis. Early polling in the race showed McMahon with a 2:1 margin of enthusiasm among her supporters, a 7% edge in support for her among men, and a margin of 9% for her among unaffiliated voters. Murphy enjoyed a 6% edge among women’s voters. Since then, both candidates have seen their negative ratings climb with voters giving each candidates a 40% unfavorable rating earlier this month, likely spurred by the nasty nature of this campaign. Polls also reveal that 23% of voters still didn’t know enough about Murphy giving him an opportunity to grow his support while just 11% of voters did not know McMahon sufficiently.

Three August polls (Rasmussen Reports, Public Policy Polling and Quinnipiac) showed a tight race with McMahon up in two polls by 3 per cent, and Murphy up by 4 percent in the 3rd poll. September polls gave Murphy a 37% to 33% edge in the Hartford Courant/UCONN Poll and a 48% to 42% lead in the Public Policy Poll. The Quinnipiac Poll (9/28-10/2) had a 1% edge for McMahon – 48% to 47% and the Rasmussen Poll  (10/7) had a lead of 51% to 46% for Murphy but with just 1% undecided (and 2% for other candidates) making the poll suspect. Since then, the Real Clear Politics average of all polls has Murphy up 3.1%.

The latest poll with cross tabs is the Quinnipiac Poll conducted October 19-22. It has a 6% lead for Murphy among likely voters (49% to 43% for McMahon), up from a 1% lead for McMahon in the last Q Poll. McMahon’s 43% matches her the percentage of her vote total in 2010 against Blumenthal. There has been a dramatic shift in women voters’ preferences. McMahon’s support among women has now declined by 6% and Murphy’s has increased by 2%. McMahon could be losing female support due to the strong Murphy TV ads highlighting her anti choice positions, and the support for Murphy in recent state visits by U.S. Senators Mikulski, Shaheen, Landrieu as well as Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. Women now support Murphy 52% to McMahon’s 38%, a 14% lead for Murphy. But, some of the 6% loss by McMahon is not going straight to Murphy but to undecided so there is still room for McMahon to regain their support.

I learned first-hand when I ran for the U. S. Congress in Connecticut that women federal candidates have a tougher time getting support from women voters than from male voters. Often it tends to be “stay at home Moms” or “soccer Moms” as opposed to career women who can find a career women candidate unsettling for a variety of reasons. McMahon has endeavored to address this factor by positioning herself as a softer, grandmotherly version of herself this time out. But, her two major VIP visits have been N.J. Governor Chris Christie and U.S. Senator John McCain. She needs to get moderate independent women, like Maine’s U.S. Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, to stump for her in CT if she hopes to draw more support from women voters. McMahon could also capitalize on her more favorable image among unaffiliated voters than Murphy (46% to 31%) by drawing more independent VIPS’s, like John McCain,  to Connecticut and touting some real independent policies of her own rather than just saying that she will be independent and bipartisan if elected. The fact that Lowell Weicker has endorsed Chris Murphy doesn’t help but since he has been gone from the active political scene in CT for many years it is not a significant factor.

Exacerbating McMahon’s problems, though, is the fact that President Obama has been running at double digits ahead of Mitt Romney in CT for most of the campaign with an average 11.7% lead. The latest Q Poll has Obama up 14% (54 to 42) and the latest Rasmussen Reports poll (which tends to trend Republican) has the lead at 7% (52-45). Obama’s lead at 55% is 6% higher than Murphy’s 49%. And, Obama’s 60% women’s support is 8% higher than Murphy’s 52%. With Connecticut’s statewide voter turnout projected to be about 20% higher in 2012 than it was in 2010 ( 78% in each of the last two presidential years, with 59% in 2006 and 57% in 2010), Murphy will likely benefit from Obama’s coattails.

McMahon’s latest TV ad encouraging voters to split their tickets for her and Obama may help somewhat but probably not significantly. The CT Democratic organization is well-organized and with four incumbent Democratic Congresssman on the ballot in the five Districts, their organizations will be pushing for a straight line vote for Obama, Murphy and themselves. The more contested races in the 4th and 5th Districts may foster a higher Republican vote there, but Murphy is still popular in his 5th District and Elizabeth Esty and Jim Himes are both running competitive races.

The positive news for McMahon is that she still leads with support among male voters, 50% to Murphy’s 46%. But, her 7% lead has now declined to 4%. And another voter segment moving toward Murphy are voters over 55 years old. The October 4th Q Poll had them split evenly 48% for each candidate. Now, McMahon’s support has declined by 6% to 42% to 51% for Murphy, a 9% margin for Murphy. It is likely that the increasing publicity over McMahon’s fuzzy positions on Medicare and the false Murphy TV ad about her intent to “sunset” social security have started to take their toll on her candidacy.

Based upon 3 Q Polls, McMahon’s favorable rating among voters has declined from 47% in August to 45% on October 4 to 41% on October 22nd. For the first time her unfavorable rating exceeds her favorable rating, 47% to 41% with 11% of voters who haven’t decided. For Murphy, his favorable and unfavorable ratings are tied at 39% now with 21% of voters who haven’t decided. But, he has bounced back somewhat from his October 4th rating of 40% unfavorable to 36% favorable. He doesn’t seem to have the fervor of support or high positive ratings that one might expect from an incumbent Congressman and still suffers from low recognition among the voters.

5. Summary. The Connecticut U.S. Senate race is still fluid, but the race is trending toward Murphy. Seven (7%) of voters remain undecided according to the latest Q Poll. And, whereas the number of voters who say they may change their minds in the presidential race is only 6% and 5% for Romney and Obama, respectively, it is 14% and 11% for McMahon and Murphy, respectively. Further, McMahon’s supporters remain more enthusiastic about their vote for her, with only 11% not enthusiastic compared with 18% unenthusiastic for Murphy. But, Murphy has cut into McMahon’s support from women and older voters and  is starting to build further momentum for his candidacy from the growing number of endorsements from major newspapers like The Hartford Courant, The Connecticut Post and The New York Times. McMahon needs a more effective strategy to regain and increase her support among women voters, to convince voters that she is up to the job of serving in the U.S. Senate, and to blunt the projected margins in President Obama’s plurality in the state that will provide coattails for Murphy. Time is running short.