.

Patch's Poll: Linda McMahon Or Chris Murphy?

The U.S. Senate hopefuls are now in a statistical tie in Connecticut's 2012 U.S. Senate race.

The Democratic and Republican candidates in the 2012 U.S. Senate race in Connecticut so far have solid leads against their primary opponents, .

U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy, the Democratic frontrunner, leads former Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz 50-20 percent. Meanwhile, former WWE wrestling executive Linda McMahon leads her Republican opponent, former U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, 59-30 percent.

What’s even more notable in the latest poll is the shrinking gap between Murphy and McMahon. Murphy’s lead is just 46 percent versus McMahon’s 43 percent among voters in the November election. This is a statistical tie, said QU Poll Director Douglas Schwartz.

“McMahon’s improvement in the general election against Murphy is due to her better performance among independent voters,” Schwartz said. “She now has 43 percent of these key voters, to Murphy’s 41 percent, overcoming a 15-point deficit in March.”

Which of the four main candidates do you support for this Senate election? Which would you likely vote for in November? Take our poll and add your thoughts to our comments.

Jay R. Worsham June 08, 2012 at 01:58 PM
Let's see. McMahon = big oil/pollution, cutbacks in government programs for needy/elderly, gridlock in the Senate, more tax breaks for the rich ("job creators" who create jobs overseas), etc. Murphy = none of the above. Cast my vote for Murphy.
Aaron Jubrey June 08, 2012 at 02:59 PM
Lee- what's unfair about the tax system? The richest, pay the most. The poorest, pay the least (and often none at all). Is it fair that 47% of the people in this country pay ZERO federal income taxes? Jay-can you please point to Linda McMahon's quotes or website where she has argued in favor of any of that? I'm not asking much, just for you to prove what you've said about her is true. Shouldn't be that hard, right?
Spiff June 08, 2012 at 03:36 PM
@Lee and Jay, OK, here are some stats for you: - The top 1% of earners pay about 40% of all income tax, - The top 10% of earners pay about 70% of all income tax, and - The bottom 50% of earners pay about 2% of all income tax. (Source: Wall Street Journal and the Internal Revenue Service) These are the FACTS. Feel free to do your own research! So, is the tax system fair? Darn right it’s not! It absolutely favors the bottom 50% of earners. Upper income earners are already carrying this country! Obama and his Democratic cronies are trying to pull the wool over your eyes with their class warfare rhetoric. Don't believe them, they will not tell you the truth.
Bill W June 08, 2012 at 08:00 PM
Does the right ever tire of these statistics? They trot them out over and over and over again. Unfortunately, they work on most people who don't bother actually thinking about them. Did you know that obese Americans eat a disproportionate amount of Cheetos and fast food? It's true! They do! They actually eat MORE of that stuff than non-obese people. Fancy that. You did, however, forget to tell us that such-and-such % of Americans DON'T EVEN PAY INCOME TAXES! Spiff, if you lost your job (assuming you have one) for the next two years, would you pay income tax? No? Why not? And if you got a minimum wage job would you expect to pay a third of it to the government? No? Why not? Raising income tax "on the rich" from 35% to 38% will merely restore their tax rate to the level they were at before they were cut, contributing a tiny bit to the recession. In the midst of 2 wars. That made sense.
Aaron Jubrey June 08, 2012 at 08:23 PM
Bill W- So what you're saying is that 47% of Americans pay no income tax because they have been out of work for two years. And we should re-elect Obama based on that? LOL Your analogy doesn't even work. If someone chooses to buy and eat more than others, and end up obese, they have made that choice and live (or die) with the consequences. If someone chooses to work harder than most, earn more than most, they are punished by paying taxes at a higher rate than most. They are not stuffing themselves, they are having their hard earned money taken away so the federal and state government can continue to operate with obese budgets. By the way, Bush's tax cuts "for the rich" included child tax credits and mortgage interest credits. So anyone who has a child or a mortgage is now "rich". If we lose those tax credits in January, and our taxes go up, we can thank Obama and the democrats for "raising taxes on the rich".
Spiff June 08, 2012 at 08:30 PM
Well, Bill, if you read the post before mine then you would have seen that Aaron outlined that statistic in his/her post. (Although the correct statistic is actually 47% of households, not people.) I didn't feel the need to be duplicative. Unfortunately, it looks like you've bought into the class warfare rhetoric along with the rest of the cool-aide drinkers. Hopefully, however, there will be enough voters in November that recognize our current government policies are simply unsustainable and reject the entitlement society mentality. The United States of America has historically been an opportunity society and we all need to embrace these principles moving forward. The only way for us to jumpstart this anemic recovery is for government to enact business friendly pro-growth policies; we need to create opportunity for our fellow citizens and small businesses. The only way this is going to happen is with a change in leadership, at all levels of government!
Aaron Jubrey June 08, 2012 at 08:44 PM
One more thing Bill- People with minimum wage jobs likely don't pay federal income taxes because they don't make enough money. They might be in the 10% tax bracket, but even that is unlikely. Nobody is asking them to pay a third, that's a phony strawman argument you created. What you and others fail to understand is that the repeated argument in favor of raising taxes on the rich is that the system is unfair. As long as you and other tax and spend liberals argue that the rich aren't paying their "fair share", the libertarians and free-thinkers will continue to point out the fact that the rich pay the most. And since you obviously don't understand the argument (since you think the reason 47% don't pay federal income taxes is due to unemployment) I'll simplify it for you. "The bottom 50% of earners pay less than 2% of all income taxes". That means if you take 100% of people with jobs, and split them in half by how much money they make, the people on the bottom half pay less than 2% of all income taxes. Which means the people on the top half, pay 98% of all income taxes. According to the 2020 census, that means the group of people who makes less than $52,000/year pay 2% of all income taxes collected. The group of people who make over $52,000/year pay 98% of all income taxes. And this doesn't even touch on the fact that $50,000/yr in Birmingham AL is very good money. $50,000/yr in Manhattan, isn't.
Aaron Jubrey June 08, 2012 at 08:45 PM
*2010 census
Skip Cashwell June 08, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Once again, Aaron Jubrey presents truth. Anyone who is unable to accept his reports regarding taxpayer demographics, based upon IRS public reports, either has reduced mental ability or is one of the 99%-ers out there in la-la-land...smoking what? Thank you Councilman Jubrey for posting these truthful statistics.
ksav June 08, 2012 at 11:47 PM
anyone but McMahon
George June 09, 2012 at 02:17 AM
I hope McMahon loses!
Linda Mahoney June 09, 2012 at 09:29 AM
I agree!
Linda Mahoney June 09, 2012 at 09:31 AM
The rich don't pay the most they get all the breaks. It is the middle class that gets slammed.
john osullivan August 02, 2012 at 11:57 PM
Was McMahon trucking in Southington owned by her father in law? Did Linda and her husband buy a house real soon after declaring bankruptcy? Did Linda and her husband get rid of their student loans using bankruptcy?? Was she really falling on hard times then? or, was it a ploy to get rid of student debt? someone should sheck it out. Did her father in law not help them with his Trucking Co. money?? someone should check and see if she is speaking with a forked tongue, in her ads.
Andrew Ziemba August 03, 2012 at 12:54 AM
Ron Paul would be the right candidate. God, I wish he was running in CT. We have lost a true patriot in Congress...
Andrew Ziemba August 03, 2012 at 12:55 AM
Except that his allegiance is to Israel, and the banking elite...NOT to America...
Linda Mahoney August 03, 2012 at 10:08 AM
I agree with Abby!
janet August 03, 2012 at 11:36 AM
I don't care about Linda's bankruptcy 30 years ago. We care about bringing this country back to where it was in the 50's and 60's where you can support a family with a decent job. The only jobs out there now are for bankers, insurance and burger flippers. Not everyone can go to college and get an MBA. We need to bring decent manufacturing jobs back into this country.
Walter August 03, 2012 at 11:52 AM
I don't think that any of these candidates are "good". I vote by the "lesser of the evils" philosophy. Right now of the four candidates listed, I'm voting for Susan Bysiewicz. Murphy and Shays are useless, I think that their records indicate that quite well, and McMahon is only interested in the accolades that she would get if she won. So unless another, better candidate comes along its Susan Bysiewicz for me.
Malvi Lennon August 03, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Politicians grow goverment. Small business owners create jobs. I am a jobs voter. How about you?
William Brighenti, CPA August 03, 2012 at 11:40 PM
And how do you plan to create jobs? More tax breaks for the wealthy so they can build more facilities in China? Sorry, but that trickle down nonsense has been tinkling on the middle class for 30 years: it's all wet.
William Brighenti, CPA August 03, 2012 at 11:41 PM
Want to create jobs here? Remove the tax deductions for shipping jobs overseas.
Andrew Ziemba August 04, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Federal income tax rate should be near zero, but all should participate. If we had a near zero % federal income tax, all of the wealthy from all over the world would invest here and everyone here would have a job. The rich don't get richer by sitting on their hands. The rich get richer by investing their money by paying people to work for them. This gives everyone jobs and raises poor people out of the chains of welfare that they are in.
000 August 04, 2012 at 03:40 AM
NONE OF THE ABOVE, I'm right behind ya!
000 August 04, 2012 at 03:44 AM
We don't have Ron Paul but we had Peter Schiff and unfortunately, we blew it and got just the opposite, Dick Blumingthal. Schiff was one of the only "experts" to who RIGHTLY predicted the housing collapse when all the other "experts" were laughing at him. Peter is now predicting the collapse of the dollar and he will be right again. http://youtu.be/2I0QN-FYkpw
000 August 04, 2012 at 03:50 AM
@Andrew; Right on brother. The income tax was never supposed to be what it is today. It should be 2% for the military and that's about it, but I may be 1% or so off? But, even if it was zero, if you don't do something about the Federal Reserve and all the money printing, borrowing and debt, these hucksters in D.C. just keep right on spending and warmongering and now they're spreading the military out inside the country with the HSA, NSA, and the TSA in your airports, bus ternminals, reading your emails and logging your cell phone calls.
Catherine & Dennis August 04, 2012 at 01:26 PM
Linda!
Malvi Lennon August 04, 2012 at 01:34 PM
Does every single person who attempts to accomplish something and struggles succeed? Nope. Are some folks very rich while others are very poor? Yep. Has every rich person made his or her money in an honest way and contributed to society, as they should? Nope. Therefore, I have to agree with the left in that our society and our way of life are not fair. Then again, what is fair about floods, tornadoes, tsunamis, fires, cancer? What is fair about a prisoner being released from jail early and within a few weeks, he shoots a father of five in the head in cold blood? Life is not fair! So cry a river, build a bridge and GET OVER IT. The left’s recipe of higher taxes, more government programs, and picking winners and losers to impose “equality” does not work. While they succeed in taking from the rich that money NEVER makes it to the poor. Instead, the government wastes most of it on growing the bureaucracy. What little is actually is used for its intended purpose is micromanaged to ensure the poor remain impoverished. The politicians ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE give them just enough to survive but never enough to thrive lest they become educated and stop voting for their owners.
Catherine & Dennis August 04, 2012 at 02:07 PM
Take a look close to home. Malloy is giving away millions upon millions of dollars to now the 7th of his First Five. Even the name of the program is deceptive. $300 million for 300 jobs to one, up to $27.5 Million to a Fortune 500 company to bring in jobs that pay an average of $25k a year. (genious) $7 million of this paid for the land -the land owner rolls over the money to more land and doesn't pay taxes. The landowner for years has paid less on 150 acres than we did for our modest home.(They did give the town a fire house, but it is only used as a polling place). We get retroactive taxes even before this program (First Five of..??-now up to 7) took off. Anyone that can still afford to get out of this state should run!!! Anyone else see a reason for an FBI probe into corruption? We cant afford this Dem or any of the others. Our votes will go to Linda. We need to get rid of the career politicians that all scratch each other's backs for their own personal gain. We need a fresh start in a bad way from Town Council up. Next time you see Chris in the grocery store with the cute little kids, tell him that.
meowkats4 August 04, 2012 at 02:58 PM
Poor Connecticut! Time and time we elect the Democrat making the state as Blue as it can be. Now and then we elect a Republican Governor that is not any far better then the Democrat that they ran against. It could be true that people of Connecticut are just so old fashion or so traditional of following their ancestors beliefs that a Democrat is what my father was and my grandfather was so I am a Democrat all the way. Same holds true for Republicans, but not in Connecticut. Sometimes we just need to think what if we changed just this one time due to the fact our Country is in trouble and we only need to put someone else that is not a career politician in office. Maybe we will be a little better off down the road. We can always re-elect someone else in four years. .

Boards

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