[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by dazzleman

He has a soothing personality and isn't as abrasive as Malloy was. But the bills that you mentioned that he signed are reasons that I would have a lot of trouble voting for him.

I wish the Republicans would change their nominating process because I think they have thrown away winnable elections by selecting bad candidates through a deeply flawed primary system in which very small numbers of voters end up choosing what our options will be, and with a big field the "winner" sometimes only has about 25% of that small number of votes. They should at least consider adding a runoff when no candidate gets to 50% and possibly opening up the primary to unaffiliated voters.

Agree 100%. Runoffs are needed when no one gets 50%. Nominating a candidate with 25% of the vote means that 75% of party voters didn't prefer them. Not a smart process.

[clutchrider]

I really wish Sue Hatfield would run for Gov. Although I am happy Wallingford stayed red and even took a good majority in the BOE. We do need a new R for mayor though so curious to see who turns up come the next election as the counts were not far off but I think it is more due to Dickinson's tenure and people wanting a new face.

The bigger issues on hand are going to be the child vaccine and if it is mandated for school come next year, the crime increase not just inner city but in the suburbs where police are tied and almost not willing to get involved other than taking a report down.

As for elections in general, sometimes I wish states would adopt a electoral college type system because the cities end up running the show making the suburbs lose their voice. I get it, they have the population density but it would go a long way to fairness IMO.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

Agree 100%. Runoffs are needed when no one gets 50%. Nominating a candidate with 25% of the vote means that 75% of party voters didn't prefer them. Not a smart process.

Stefanowski got about 27% if I remember correctly, and in a large field, that was the highest percentage. I can't help but think that had there been a runoff between him and the next largest vote getter (I don't remember who it was), the results might have been different.

To send a candidate out to the general election with such a slender base of support is idiotic, and in a large field with low turnout, it allows for results that are almost meaningless.

I am not a fan of the primary system to begin with, particularly closed primaries. Though they were billed as being more democratic, I think counterintuitively that they are less democratic than allowing the party to choose the candidate. If the party is smartly run (a big if), it will want to choose a candidate with a broad base of support who can win. Instead, the primary system allows voters mainly on the fringe of the party to choose based on whatever whim they have, with no thought of what happens in the general election. As it turned out in 2018, the main criteria within the Republican primary voters was support for Trump, who had at most 40% support in the state. That is just stupid and a guarantee of defeat.

Parties need to adapt to the local environment, and it's idiotic to try to make the Republican Party in Connecticut the same party as it would be in Texas. The same is true for the Democrats, though their national model, toxic as it is for the country, is more palatable here.

[in_newengland]

I love Lamont and would vote for him for president! He comes across as honest and caring, calm, smart, and wanting the best for the state. I'm all for tolls too--but on rds like I-84 where we could snag the NYers.

Sad that Dems lost in VA but when I asked my sister in VA about it, she said he ran a bad campaign. Sort of like Hillary, sort of like most things the Dems do lately. Just oblivious to what people really want and concentrating on trivialities instead of the important stuff.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by dazzleman

Stefanowski got about 27% if I remember correctly, and in a large field, that was the highest percentage. I can't help but think that had there been a runoff between him and the next largest vote getter (I don't remember who it was), the results might have been different.

To send a candidate out to the general election with such a slender base of support is idiotic, and in a large field with low turnout, it allows for results that are almost meaningless.

I am not a fan of the primary system to begin with, particularly closed primaries. Though they were billed as being more democratic, I think counterintuitively that they are less democratic than allowing the party to choose the candidate. If the party is smartly run (a big if), it will want to choose a candidate with a broad base of support who can win. Instead, the primary system allows voters mainly on the fringe of the party to choose based on whatever whim they have, with no thought of what happens in the general election. As it turned out in 2018, the main criteria within the Republican primary voters was support for Trump, who had at most 40% support in the state. That is just stupid and a guarantee of defeat.

Parties need to adapt to the local environment, and it's idiotic to try to make the Republican Party in Connecticut the same party as it would be in Texas. The same is true for the Democrats, though their national model, toxic as it is for the country, is more palatable here.

Amen brother. I read that the VA GOP changed their primary system to ranked voting, to prevent this very thing from happening. Gave them an electable candidate in Youngkin as opposed to a Trump clone.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

I'm all for tolls too--but on rds like I-84 where we could snag the NYers.

I am, too. One of his more unpopular stances, unfortunately.

I can't think of any Republican that could beat him. Maybe someone moderate like Erin Stewart?

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by Stylo

I am, too. One of his more unpopular stances, unfortunately.

I can't think of any Republican that could beat him. Maybe someone moderate like Erin Stewart?

I would support tolls if I believed that the money would actually be used for transportation, rather than an additional slush fund for corrupt legislature leaders to buy votes from public unions, or something like that. But I have no faith in the state government, particularly the legislature, in that regard. If the legislature had a more bipartisan balance that restricted the Democrats more, that would help.

I tend to agree on Lamont, though one thing that was a bit of a surprise to me was that the New Jersey results seems to be partially attributable to certain parts of the population deeply resenting the continuing COVID restrictions. That seems to be part of the reason that the Senate president lost to a truck driver who didn't even campaign. People were clearly looking for somebody to punish, and the reason they gave is that he did nothing to push back against Murphy's restrictions.

I don't think Lamont has been as bad on COVID as some like Murphy in NJ, Whitmer in Michigan, Cuomo in NY (though he was Cuomo's poodle at the beginning but thankfully took an independent path later) and Newsom in California. But I wonder if there could be a surprise there. Probably not but it's worth thinking about.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by dazzleman

I don't think Lamont has been as bad on COVID as some like Murphy in NJ, Whitmer in Michigan, Cuomo in NY (though he was Cuomo's poodle at the beginning but thankfully took an independent path later) and Newsom in California. But I wonder if there could be a surprise there. Probably not but it's worth thinking about.

Fully agree. Once Lamont began thinking instead of simply parroting the NY ex gov, our results improved.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Stylo

I am, too. One of his more unpopular stances, unfortunately.

I can't think of any Republican that could beat him. Maybe someone moderate like Erin Stewart?

Perhaps. She’s better than any candidate, both democrat and republican. The problem is so many in CT’s most populous cities vote overwhelmingly Democrat (Bridgeport, New Haven, Stamford, Hartford) regardless of candidate because of party loyalty. That’s what makes it so difficult for even great Republicans like Stewart to win.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

The problem is so many in CT’s most populous cities vote overwhelmingly Democrat

Right, just like FL, VA, GA, AZ, NC, among many others.