« California charts its own course | Main | I'm Not Surprised »

September 01, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200d83462194769e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CT House Races Get Even More Interesting:

» Recommended reading from Majikthise
DemFromCT on Connecticut House races. How to eat a zebra in 40 minutes (if you're a lion), via Cynical-C. Scott Lemieux tells you everything you ever wanted to know about Bush v. Gore but were too angry/demoralized to ask. Meteorologist [Read More]

Comments

reported here that the national Dems are pulling money out of the Boswell race because interal polling show him pulling away from Whimpberti.

http://www.iowatrueblue.org/

mark
carlisle, iowa

proudtobeaburdenonsociety

abgdinstr, thanks! I believe Cillizza mentions that as well.

CT-2: We've got to get rid of Rob Simmons, Bush-Cheney enabler. Rob Simmons, former CIA agent who remained mum on the Valerie Plame outing. Rob Simmons, tool for big pharma, who voted for the Republican Prescription Give-away to Pharma Plan. Rob Simmons, the Nature Conservancy award winner who was the only CT delegate to vote for Bush's energy plan. Rob Simmons, who is going to have Poppy Bush come to the district to help raise money in a few weeks. Rob Simmons, who will probably, as he has in past elections, get Laura Bush come to raise money for him.

Interestingly, the Senate is starting to look up. Gallup has the Dems leading in PA, OH and MT. VA is slipping away from the R's, as will RI if Chafee loses on Sept 12. MN looks safe for the Dems. MO, however, looks better for the Rs. That makes TN the key.

There are an awful lot of races in an awful lot of places where the Rs are on the defensive. A hard election to control.

There are an awful lot of races in an awful lot of places where the Rs are on the defensive. A hard election to control.

Yes. They have more $$ but not infinitely so. Imagine losing RI and what that says. Dinks their all-knowing, all-powerful image a tad, no?

Mimikatz and DemFromCT, I hope you're right about RI. I felt the same way until I actually saw Laffey (an interview and one of the debates), and I must admit I'm a tad concerned now. Depending on the issue, he comes off as decidedly non-wingnut, and earnest to boot. Of course, change the subject to taxes and related matters and he's got Club for Growth written all over him; and I have yet to see Whitehouse in action. But I'd be happy to hear from someone who knows more than I about this race to put my mind at ease.

How about this:

Fleming & Associates for WPRI. Aug. 16-21, 2006. N=401 likely voters statewide. MoE ± 5.

General Election Trial Heats:

Lincoln Chafee (R) Sheldon Whitehouse (D) Unsure
43 42 15


Stephen Laffey (R) Sheldon Whitehouse (D) Unsure
26 58 16

from Polling Report (subscription).

Well, that certainly makes me feel better; how well known is Laffey statewide? Do you know whether the #s are based on images that have already solidified?

Ned Lamont announces term limits for democrats!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad