[nep321]

Democrats will easily win CT in 2018 for governorship and senators, as many CT voters come out in droves to vote in referendum against Trump. Myself and all of my friends in CT will be voting 100% Democrat across the ballot. Many conservatives have already left the state to pursue "greener pastures."

Look at what's happening in Georgia with the race between Jon Ossoff and his GOP opponent. He is the Democrat and is leading in the polls by 7 points now, in a district won by Trump. Polls are usually very, very accurate as they were in the 2016 general election. The polls showed Hillary leading the popular vote by about 1 point and she ended up winning the popular vote by about 1-2 points. While that didn't translate to electoral votes in her favor, we can see that polling is extremely accurate when it comes to popular vote. And in CT, the governorship is won by popular vote.

[RunD1987]

Originally Posted by ads94

I am a CT Republican, but that's as far as it goes. I vote Democratic on the national stage, but I will vote R for state-wide elections (house, senate, gov) but that's about it. The CT GOP being moderate and centrist fits me the most.

I agree I vote for R in our State. Mostly L or D for Federal level.

Nothing against the Democrats here. It's that their ideas are yo far left. Most of the Republicans are Centrist.

[ads94]

Originally Posted by nep321

Democrats will easily win CT in 2018 for governorship and senators, as many CT voters come out in droves to vote in referendum against Trump. Myself and all of my friends in CT will be voting 100% Democrat across the ballot. Many conservatives have already left the state to pursue "greener pastures."

Look at what's happening in Georgia with the race between Jon Ossoff and his GOP opponent. He is the Democrat and is leading in the polls by 7 points now, in a district won by Trump. Polls are usually very, very accurate as they were in the 2016 general election. The polls showed Hillary leading the popular vote by about 1 point and she ended up winning the popular vote by about 1-2 points. While that didn't translate to electoral votes in her favor, we can see that polling is extremely accurate when it comes to popular vote. And in CT, the governorship is won by popular vote.

This betrays the fact that Connecticut voters have shown, constantly, their ability to differentiate between national and local elections. "All politics is local" as the saying goes. Will Trump's disaster of a presidency have an effect in Connecticut? Sure. It won't help the wingnuts that decide to hitch their wagon to him in competitive districts. In Trumpland (the Naugatuck Valley, Litchfield County, parts east of the River) embracing him will mean more votes for whatever R candidate is running there.

At the end of the day, Malloy, not Trump, will be the driving factor in the election. Malloy does not deserve the reputation which precedes him, but nevertheless it will act as an albatross around the neck of any Democratic candidate for governor. People will hate Trump until the end of time in Connecticut. When election day comes, they will think "Do I want 4 more years of Malloy, more taxes, more budget cuts for less services, a degrading quality of life, or do I want *generic Republic* who offers *generic Republican things* that is different than we had now?" more often than not, the answer will be voting for *generic Republican*.

It's not to say the Democrats can't win the governorship. To suggest otherwise is laughable. It is equally laughable to believe that the Democrats have this election in the bag.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by ads94

This betrays the fact that Connecticut voters have shown, constantly, their ability to differentiate between national and local elections. "All politics is local" as the saying goes. Will Trump's disaster of a presidency have an effect in Connecticut? Sure. It won't help the wingnuts that decide to hitch their wagon to him in competitive districts. In Trumpland (the Naugatuck Valley, Litchfield County, parts east of the River) embracing him will mean more votes for whatever R candidate is running there.

At the end of the day, Malloy, not Trump, will be the driving factor in the election. Malloy does not deserve the reputation which precedes him, but nevertheless it will act as an albatross around the neck of any Democratic candidate for governor. People will hate Trump until the end of time in Connecticut. When election day comes, they will think "Do I want 4 more years of Malloy, more taxes, more budget cuts for less services, a degrading quality of life, or do I want *generic Republic* who offers *generic Republican things* that is different than we had now?" more often than not, the answer will be voting for *generic Republican*.

It's not to say the Democrats can't win the governorship. To suggest otherwise is laughable. It is equally laughable to believe that the Democrats have this election in the bag.

I disagree. Malloy was re-elected even though he was extremely unpopular during his first term. Also, very recently, Hillary Clinton easily won CT, despite Malloy's continued unpopularity. Since 2018 is also a federal election with federal positions up for election, turnout will likely be higher than expected, especially with all the Trump resistance going on in the country at this time. It will only escalate as we approach November 2018, as the Trump administration fails to deliver on healthcare, among other things.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by Raider111

Had nothing to do with it. Bridgeport Hartford and New Haven made him unelectable just as they will do in the next election.

I vote both ways (independent) I voted for Rell and Malloy. If you look at election results quite a few suburbs went for Malloy and even more the 2nd time.

Foley ran on very few ideas other then saying I will cut taxes. He had no plans on how to cut taxes or more importantly how to pay for them. At one point he was even telling the unions he wouldn't lay them off or cut their benefits, to try and gain their votes. He really was clueless.

[ads94]

Originally Posted by nep321

I disagree. Malloy was re-elected even though he was extremely unpopular during his first term. Also, very recently, Hillary Clinton easily won CT, despite Malloy's continued unpopularity. Since 2018 is also a federal election with federal positions up for election, turnout will likely be higher than expected, especially with all the Trump resistance going on in the country at this time. It will only escalate as we approach November 2018, as the Trump administration fails to deliver on healthcare, among other things.

2010 was a phenomenal year for the Republicans. The GOP ran a flawed and unelectable candidate in Connecticut, who lost. In this instance, Connecticut differentiated between the national and the local. The same could be said about 2014, where the terrible Republican candidate was defeated again by Malloy, who was a better choice.

Clinton still winning Connecticut, in spite of Malloy's unpopularity, simply demonstrates my point. Connecticut voters do not tie the federal election (Clinton) with the state politics (Malloy). Please keep in mind despite Hillary winning Connecticut by a healthy margin, the State GOP increased their Senate Seats and their House Seats in the Connecticut legislature. This would not be the case if Connecticut voters voted lock-step with state and national elections.

[Matrix2791]

Originally Posted by nep321

I disagree. Malloy was re-elected even though he was extremely unpopular during his first term. Also, very recently, Hillary Clinton easily won CT, despite Malloy's continued unpopularity. Since 2018 is also a federal election with federal positions up for election, turnout will likely be higher than expected, especially with all the Trump resistance going on in the country at this time. It will only escalate as we approach November 2018, as the Trump administration fails to deliver on healthcare, among other things.

Malloy barely won, and that was with a crappy GOP candidate running. Had the GOP run a formidable opponent, I think they would of won. Lets face it Foley was not a good candidate at all. For as blue of State as CT is, Trump didn't lose by a landslide by any means. The cities are what put the dems over the top here. Take the cities out of the equation, and it's a whole different ball game. She won with just a little over 200,000 votes, and that is in a State of about 3.5 million people.

CT Presidential
Hillary Clinton 897,572
Donald Trump 673,215

2014
Malloy 548,248
Foley 521,645
Visconti 11,422


As for the Trump resistance? I doubt there is one. It's the same ole people that predicted the Hilary landslide, that are now predicting Trump's demise. Credibility anyone?

[Mike 75]

Absent some miraculous turn around in the state's economy, the GOP has the inside track in the 2018 election. Trump will have no bearing on it. The areas to watch are the suburbs that typically vote Democratic. If the GOP wins, it will be because these towns went red.

[MikeSmithh]

Originally Posted by nep321

Polls are usually very, very accurate as they were in the 2016 general election.

Oh yeah, Clinton totally beat Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in the 2016 election just like all of those 'accurate' polls predicted.

It's widely known that many of the polls were not accurate in the 2016 election...whether your a Trump supporter or not.

Also, I wouldn't be so confident that the Democrats are going to sweep all the state elections in 2018. The state senate is almost tied between Democrats and Republicans for the first time in decades...that should be a major warning for Democrats. Many people are becoming increasingly unsatisfied with the constant tax increases, budget problems, etc.

I smell smug lefty complacency...

[JayCT]

Please stop the bickering and return to the topic of the OP. JayCT, Moderator