Money Didn't Talk After All | New Haven Independent

Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

NHI Newsletter

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Money Didn’t Talk After All

by Christine Stuart, Melissa Bailey, & Paul Bass | Aug 10, 2010 10:38 pm

(21) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: State, Campaign 2010

Christine Stuart Photo Melissa Bailey Photo

(Updated) Outspent and down in the polls, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy roared back to victory in Connecticut’s Democratic gubernatorial primary Tuesday over Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont. Malloy claimed a come-from-behind victory not just for him, but also for public financing in state elections.

Lamont spent over $9 million on the race, $8.6 million of it his own scratch. That’s more money than any gubernatorial candidate has ever spent on a campaign in Connecticut history—not just for a primary, but for a primary and general election combined. Malloy had $2.75 million to spend, most of it from the state’s public financing program.

Yet Malloy won decisively, despite polls predicting a tight race. With 90 percent of precincts reporting, he led Lamont 58 to 42 percent.

“That’s a lot of money, even for a rich guy” to spend on a losing race, two-time gubernatorial candidate Bill Curry remarked in a Connecticut public radio roundtable on the primary.

The result vindicated Malloy’s message to voters in Connecticut, and nationally: That public financing can give a candidate enough money to compete fairly against millionaire newcomers who try to buy elections with personal fortunes, even if the candidate doesn’t have a one-to-one match.

State Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford said he’s hopeful that Malloy’s win means “great ideas outweigh great bank accounts.”

State Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven echoed McDonald’s conclusion that the primary proved that public financing is a viable option. He said he thinks there was a really big “ick factor” about self-financing millionaires running among Democrats.

In a victory speech in Hartford, Malloy claimed victory in the name of some 4,000 people who made small donations to his campaign so he could qualify for Connecticut’s Clean Election Program. He said they made “sure that on this day we could stand together and stand behind clean elections in the state of Connecticut.”

Asked at a subsequent press conference what his victory means, Malloy responded, “You need at least $2.5 million to win a primary.”

He’ll test his campaign finance message again in 13 weeks, when he faces Republican Tom Foley, another self-financed millionaire businessman candidate, in the general election.

Some other results Tuesday night were more expected: Foley defeated Michael Fedele and Oz Griebel in the GOP gubernatorial primary. Linda McMahon defeated Rob Simmons and Peter Schiff in the GOP U.S. Senate primary. She spent $22 million.

Lamont’s running mate, lieutenant governor candidate Mary Glassman, offered the first concession speech at 9:45 p.m.

She praised her opponent, Malloy running mate Nancy Wyman, whom Glassman trashed in campaign mailings during the campaign.

“Now it’s time for Democrats to come together,” Glassman said.

At Malloy’s Hartford victory party, state Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo expressed confidence that that will happen.

“I’m confident we will be able to heal,” DiNardo said.

The first indication that Lamont was in trouble was a 2-1 Malloy victory in Manchester, a bellwether Hartford suburb expected to be close.

Early returns showed Malloy with 57 percent of the vote.

That was especially remarkable because Lamont had many more vote-pullers on the street in New Haven, Bridgeport and Hartford. Returns at 10:15 p.m. actually had Malloy in a dead heat in New Haven pending the tabulation of absentee ballots—even though New Haven’s mayor and political machine backed Lamont.

The night turned out quite differently from primary night in 2006, when Malloy lost the Democratic gubernatorial primary to New Haven John DeStefano.

Former Lt. Gov. Kevin Sullivan, who supported DeStefano in 2006, said the difference between this year and four years ago was the gravitation of labor support to Malloy and the number of ground troops he had. He said Lamont’s negative advertisements actually lost him support.

“The last round of negative ads struck people as so over the top,” Sullivan said.

Malloy ran stronger than expected in suburbs. Sullivan said there were so many Malloy campaigners in West Hartford Tuesday that they were tripping over each other.

Malloy’s decision to add state Comptroller Nancy Wyman as his lieutenant governor running mate was “just icing on the cake,“ Sullivan said.

Mesage Deficit?

The low turnout—expected to be 30 percent or less—had Democrats worried about the November general election.

“Democrats better wake up and realize there are big differences at stake,” said party activist Ed Anderson, watching the slow leak of returns and soaking in the somber mood at Lamont headquarters.

The answer lies in concentrating on a clear message, said New Haven Mayor John DeStefano.

Melissa Bailey Photo DeStefano (pictured) arrived around 8:45 p.m. to Ned Lamont’s post-election gathering at Bridgeport’s Testo’s Restaurant (owned by Bridgeport’s Democratic machine boss). DeStefano was handed a VIP pass. Instead, he walked into the grand ballroom, where Bridgeport politicos and campaign staff milled around over plates of pigs-in-blanket and spanakopita. They watched early results come in on projectors.

The buzz in the air was about how few voters showed up to the polls.

New Haven, like the rest of the state, appears to be suffering from “incredibly low turnout,” the mayor noted.

He said there didn’t seem to be a message, or issue, that drove people to the polls.

“I don’t think there was an overwhelming issue difference between these two candidates” in the gubernatorial Democratic primary, DeStefano said.

When DeStefano ran four years ago in a very close primary over Malloy, health care became a driving issue, and both candidates drafted detailed plans for universal health care.

“I didn’t see that happen this year,” DeStefano said.

The mayor said he’d like to see the final numbers for voter turnout before making any conclusions, but early results make him concerned that “voters are feeling turned off,” that “they don’t know why to come out to vote.”

If the voter turnout is as low as is being predicted, “it’s not a good message for Democrats,” DeStefano said. “The message: You really need to be clear with voters about why you’re” running for office. There needs to be a clearer message, he said, than the “more thematic advertisements that you saw.”

That message clearly needs to be about jobs, Lamont said in his concession speech, as his daughters teared up standing behind him.

“Democrats stand up and say, ‘We’re going to fight for your jobs,’” Lamont counseled. “Don’t let those jobs go to India. Don’t let those jobs go to Singapore.”

Momentum Carried To Primary Day

At the polls Tuesday, Malloy’s momentum was clearly visible.

In Windsor State Rep. David Baram said during the last week of the campaign, he saw a shift from Lamont to Malloy partially related to the negative campaign ads. New Haven residents Bill and Pat Taylor agreed.

Retiree theater techie Bill Taylor of New Haven’s Westville neighborhood said he had trouble deciding between Democratic gubernatorial candidates Ned Lamont and Dan Malloy. “The campaign made the difference. It turned me against Lamont,” Taylor said.

It didn’t matter to Taylor that Malloy was the first candidate to air negative ads. (Read more on voters’ reactions to negative ads in the campaign here.)

Tuesday night, Lamont was asked about his barrage of negative ads.

“Going negative was not my nature,” Lamont insisted.

“I didn’t want anybody to vote against somebody. I wanted to give them somebody to vote for. We responded to some tactics. Look, the tactics of politics is not what gets me going, it’s turning this state around and I’m going to stay involved one way or the other.”

Republicans Turn Right?

Meanwhile, another dramatic result occurred in the Republican primary for attorney general, where Martha Dean easily beat Ross Garber.

Dean is a conservative follower of the Tea Party movement, which is pulling the Republican Party even more to the right on issues like taxes than it had drifted in the Reagan and Bush years. Garber is the quintessential moderate Connecticut Yankee, a fiscally conservative and socially liberal Republican comfortable in old-money towns like Greenwich.

Dean won her party’s endorsement at the May convention. But that’s because Garber wasn’t in the race yet; he was waiting to see if her sister-in-law, Susan Bysiewicz, was going to continue her pursuit of the Democratic nomination for attorney general. (She dropped out.) When he entered, even though Dean had the state party’s nomination, Greenwich’s Republican Party nevertheless voted to support Garber.

Comments

posted by: MM on August 10, 2010 10:06pm

Thank God. Money can’t buy everything. Let’s hope this two time loser Lamont throws in the towel for good this time.

Now, was Lamont backed by DeStefano, the one time gubernatorial loser who marginally beat Malloy last time around yet didn’t run again this time? Just shows what strength of personality, faith in ones-self, stamina and fortitude can do.

Good Luck in the election, Malloy.

It appears these characteristics of leadership and strength are missing here in New Haven.

posted by: robn on August 10, 2010 10:12pm

Politics, like comedy, has a lot to do with timing. What the Lamont campaign failed to recognize, and what the NHI has so aptly reported on, is the electorates appetite for POSITIVITY

posted by: Bill Saunders on August 10, 2010 10:51pm

If “you know who’ is probably running for senate, and if Lamont is a true fighter, and undiscouraged today’s turnabout, I sense a grudge match in the offing. It would be a shame to put $9 million dollars worth of name recognition to waste.

posted by: Razzie on August 10, 2010 11:27pm

He’s toast. it was his to lose, and he succeeded.

posted by: roomforaview on August 10, 2010 11:29pm

I think the genius of the Malloy campaign was that they poked at Lamont a bit and drew him into the negative ad onslaught. Lamont showed a very thin skin and responded with a barrage of howitzers in his over-the-top ads. Someone spending his own money on their campaign is not necessarily a bad thing. But when a multi-millionaire uses those millions to trash his opponent, that is going to gross people out.

posted by: Bill Saunders on August 11, 2010 3:06am

WOW,

Lamont spent over $120 per vote.
Malloy, only $27 (half of the self financed Hauser’s in the 92nd)

Q: How much did Lemar spend ??
A: $6.89 if the backwards math holds…...

A case for a campaign spending cap?
(or is the monetary loss enough?)

I would love to see a full blown report for all candidates for all offices.
Maybe the new Secretary of State can compile that information for us.

posted by: streever on August 11, 2010 7:33am

Malloy ran a very smart campaign: positive ads until his poll numbers stopped going up & he had no more to gain, he went (mildly) negative, which pulled Lamont on the defensive. Lamont alienated his own base by running an increasingly negative campaign after that.

posted by: robn on August 11, 2010 8:31am

My most burning question is, will the most dangerous place in Connecticut (in between Dick Blumenthal and a camera) be supplanted by a Linda McMahon figure four headlock?

posted by: Threefifths on August 11, 2010 8:52am

Who said that Money Didn’t Talk After All.

The crooked two party is control by money. As soon as one of these corporate control puppets get in office,You will then see the money trail.And those of you who vote them in will be crying.

posted by: Watchman on August 11, 2010 8:58am

OURr TAXPAYER MONEY, DID TALK. Dan Malloy, tollk $3. million dollars from our massive state budget deficit, SHOWING HE IS FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. He used the money to buy viscious, repetitive attack ads, against Ned Lamont, who paid for his election campaign, and was not a parasite of the taxpayers, like Malloy. Now, Malloy, will pick the pocket of Connecticut taxpayers, for another $3 million dollars, to attack Republican candidate, Tom Foley, thanks to the deficit-spending- minded, Democratic General Assembly. Shame on our voters, if they match up Dan Malloy, with our irresponsible Democratic lawmakers. Malloy will then, be able to recklessly overspend, like Pres. Barack Obama, has been doing, with his “rubber-stamp Democratic Congress!”

posted by: anon on August 11, 2010 9:47am

LaMont didn’t push for massive new taxes on the wealthy, even though that is the only way this state can move forward and even though the income gap is growing wider than ever before. That’s why he lost.

posted by: Bill on August 11, 2010 12:16pm

SSSSH the GOP slate has more diversity than the dems. A female running for the Senate and AG.

posted by: Watchman on August 11, 2010 12:45pm

THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE GOT PRES.OBAMA ELECTED, BY BLAMING PRES. BUSH, FOR NOT TAXING THE RICH. NOW, NED LAMONT IS BEING BLAMED, FOR NOT WANTING TO TAX THE RICH. GIVE LAMONT A BREAK. HE LOST THE PRIMARY. NO NEED “FOR THE EXPERTS” TO BEAT UP ON NED LAMONT, AT THIS POINT.

posted by: Moti Sandman on August 11, 2010 1:11pm

Hi Paul:

Can you post the numbers by ward? That would be great to analyze.

Thanks,

posted by: Alphonse Credenza on August 11, 2010 1:47pm

Democrats went for the party establishment figure. This is why the party is stuck in Neutral and why although it may hold power, can’t really accomplish much at all with it, except to hold on to it, and that not very well any longer. Let them dig their own trench ever deeper!

posted by: Watchman on August 11, 2010 8:43pm

Alphonse Credenza is right. Richard Blumenthat announced today, that the is planning to be a fighter in Congress, once he wins the election.
He would fight, rest assured, to vote for more massive spending, for Barack Obama. We must vote out Obama’s Congressional “rubber stamps” in November. Vote for Linda McMahon, to eliminate Blumenthal as a new Obama vote!

posted by: de on August 11, 2010 11:15pm

SSSSH, and Bill, the Democratic Party has a “female” (you can call them women, you know) running for Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of State. What’s your point?

posted by: Alphonse Credenza on August 12, 2010 3:27pm

Watchman - I am not a Democrat (nor a Republican), but lean center-right. I can’t agree that Linda is a sensible choice. If only because the focus of her life has been the development of a business built upon flash and acting. All of us know are aware of this.

Anyone who has spent a lifetime building up a business on these premises, as she has, is likely to carry it over to politics, which already has too much of the same thing.

She is a, I find, a more scary choice for CT than just another Dem. It is hard to believe—and ultimately disappointing—that CT Republicans have chosen her to represent them as Senator. Peter Schiff would have been a signal of serious change. Linda signals just that the majority of CT Republicans are shallow thinkers.

posted by: Watchman on August 12, 2010 4:38pm

Alphonse Credenza: Since you are not a Republican, it is not for you to say, that Republicans should have voted for Peter Schiff. You should have registered Republican, and then you could have voted for Peter Schiff, whom I also have a lot of respect for. ... Republicans voted for Linda McMahon, because they thought she had the best chance to defeat Richard Blumenthal. You catagorized Republicans as “shallow thinkers” for nominating Linda McMahon, but coming from someone WHO DID NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN, OR DEMOCRATIC, you chose, not to put your money, where your mouth is! ...

posted by: Alphonse Credenza on August 13, 2010 8:35am

Watchman:

I think you are much mistake. The republican party and the democratic party are opposites of the same ilk. You fellows are all the same.

Your purpose is to hold power, spend money and grow government. The Reagan revolution, Gingrich’s failed compact with American, Bush massively growing the deficit…none has stemmed the growth of government; in fact, stimulated it!

Your rhetoric about what republicans will do if elected is entirely unpersuasive. Experience with your proffered representatives has demonstrated how few of your promises have actually been accomplished.

posted by: Watchman on August 15, 2010 7:59pm

Alphonse Credenza:

In reality, the same CONTROLLING billionaires’ cartel, that owned George W. Bush, now own Barack Obama, “lock, stock and barrel!”

WE ARE ALL, NOW STUCK, IN BETWEEN A ROCK, AND A HARD PLACE!

New Haven Independent

New Haven Independent Login Form