[andthentherewere3]

It's pitiful that we have to decide who is the most honest liar.

[brasscitybluenwhite]

lol^^^

at least he served... Where was Linda back then? Too cool to serve her country?

[nep321]

Blumenthal's lead is starting to shrink again. It stands at 7.6 points over Linda. Look at the 10/18 polling: RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Connecticut Senate - McMahon vs. Blumenthal

[mlassoff]

I read something interested regarding polls: They are biased in favor of old people!

The polling companies only call people with home phones to conduct polls. I haven't had a home phone for three years. I have Google voice which forwards to my cell phone and my VOIP phone. Many of my friends only have cell phones... This is not uncommon among the younger generation...

Perhaps that explains some of the "surprises" come election day... Didn't the polls have Malloy and LaMont tied up till primary day? I don't think the polls are a reliable indicator any more...

[nep321]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

I read something interested regarding polls: They are biased in favor of old people!

The polling companies only call people with home phones to conduct polls. I haven't had a home phone for three years. I have Google voice which forwards to my cell phone and my VOIP phone. Many of my friends only have cell phones... This is not uncommon among the younger generation...

Perhaps that explains some of the "surprises" come election day... Didn't the polls have Malloy and LaMont tied up till primary day? I don't think the polls are a reliable indicator any more...

Then how do you explain Scott Brown's victory in MA this past January? The polls showed Martha Coakley with a slight lead. Historically, polls in general have been shown to give a slight artificial lead to the Democratic candidate. I forgot the reason why.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by nep321

Then how do you explain Scott Brown's victory in MA this past January? The polls showed Martha Coakley with a slight lead. Historically, polls in general have been shown to give a slight artificial lead to the Democratic candidate. I forgot the reason why.

This is my point. I think the polls are generally unreliable, without noticeable bias until election day.

[brasscitybluenwhite]

^^ I know! No one ever calls me!

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

The polling companies only call people with home phones to conduct polls. I haven't had a home phone for three years. I have Google voice which forwards to my cell phone and my VOIP phone. Many of my friends only have cell phones... This is not uncommon among the younger generation...

I don't disagree with you that the polls lack accuracy, but this is not entirely true. I received a call on my cell phone last Thursday regarding where I stand.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I don't disagree with you that the polls lack accuracy, but this is not entirely true. I received a call on my cell phone last Thursday regarding where I stand.

Interesting. Which polling company was it?

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Well, in the third quarter of 2010, Blumenthal raised 1.6 million. Wow. So if you believe that fundraising is milking the voters, I assume you don't like the current campaign finance laws? Would you support getting corporate money completely out of campaigns, or do you prefer anonymous Chinese corporations running political ads here too?

I'd support forbidding all fundraising or use of personal wealth. I'd support a tax payer supported fund to be divided evenly among all the candidates, includeing any third or fourth party. Let them all share a bus & tour the state together on our dime & give each one equal exposure in the media.

First, liberal progressive is a redundant term. I can tell you're one of those compassionate conservatives we have heard so much about!

No, liberal & progressive are not redundant. Liberal simply means a person lacks the ability to interpret things as they were intended or obviously are and thinks that rationalization is the answer. "Depends on your definition of the word "is" comest to mind. You can be progressive & stil deat with reality & within the constraints our constitution puts upon congress & Govt in general. There are progressive Republicans and most current republicans are liberal.

Sorry, individual giving, and volunteering doesn't begin to meet the needs that we have. Not to mention volunteering doesn't address prison conditions, out whole focus on punishment, inconsistent sentencing, etc. All of these are societal issues, not something that can be overcome with me volunteering in a jail (which I have done in the past).

What needs? How are the needs of people other than my family my concern or responsability? Where in the constitution of our state or the country does it say that the govt has a right to tax the populace in order to feed the unfortunate?

While you let these people "rot," you forget that one day 85% of them will be out of prison. What then? We've made better, angrier criminals. The focus needs to be changed and the system gutted.

Fix the system, stop locking up people that smoke pot or have family squabbles & stop letting rapists, murderers, carrer criminals & the like out.

As far as donations... If donations, churches, etc., met the needs of indigent, mentally ill and disabled, then I agree, government social welfare programs would not be needed. However, everyone knows that this is NOT the case. Individual giving and volunteering doesn't get us there. Perhaps if we worked on the social conditions so consistent with poverty in the US, there would be fewer poor people and we could look at a non-profit sector approach. Till then, we have no choice but to continue the social welfare programs that people (mostly children) depend on.

Can you not understand that if voluntary efforts are not enough then people obviously dont care & MAKING them pay for something they dont want to is stealing? Can you noy understand that if our tax burden were not so high many people would have a different outlook & give more?

The compassion drips from your every word!

A misconception on your part.

First off, I'm pretty sure that the 'crack mom' on welfare you speak of is much less common then you would like to believe. Here are a few reasons people need public assistance through no fault of their own:

First off I know personally generational welfare families that vote dem ONLY because they KNOW its good for their lifestyle.

-Mental Illness
-Physical Disability
-Catastrophic Disease
-Catastrophic Injury
-Death of a spouse on whom they were dependent
-Major illness of a child
-Death of a child's parent
-Breadwinning spouse abandons family
-Economy renders person unable to find work
-Family member's catastrophic illness or injury requires full time care
-Underinsurance
-No Insurance
-Residential Fire
-Infidelity
-Medically Difficult pregnancy

I know it fits in with the world view of some to believe that every social welfare recipient is a "crack mom." If you believe this, then it's much easier to justify reducing and eliminating social welfare programs. The reality is that the overwhelming majority are not crack addicted ner' do wells.

You honestly think society should foot the bill when someone cant find work? For infidelity? Because a man runs off on his wife? Because of an injury? Most of your list has nothing to do with societal responsability, but it does mae it obvious that its a slippery slope and very easy for people to abuse.

Yes, I know, I vote for Linda is based on sound reasoning and intelligence while a vote for Blumenthal is "sheepdom." If it's "sheepdom" your concerned about, I'd suggest you re-read your comments and my own. See who's comments almost completely echo those found on Fox News, RushGlen and the screaming conservatives on this forum. In my estimation, taking a stand, defending social welfare programs, and proudly espousing unpopular (but completely sensical) liberal positions represents a lot more independent thinking and analysis then spouting the vile border-line hate speech of RushGlen and reposting it here.

I dont watch Fox news regularly & never watch the talking heads. I go to work every day, in my own small business, put in 10 to 12 hours on the job & then come home to do paper work. After all that as a resident of CT at the end of the day I give up some 30% of my money just for income tax, after that theres gas tax, sales tax, property tax this tax that tax, all so you can have your social programs in the highest taxed state in the country thats still broke.
When will you guys learn that you cant keep taking from one group & giving to another. It cant work. The takers will keep growing in number, as your list proves until the country, state town, whatever, goes broke, like has already happened. Our state is in a deficit, our nation is in a deficit.
You & Bloomie & Obama can make believe the answer is more programs & bigger govt, but you cant pay for them, I may be hard & uncareing, but you my friend are killing our country.