Campaign Notebook: Murphy, McMahon Seek Female Votes

News and updates from the campaign trail in Connecticut.


Women could be key to the Senate race this November. Both Linda McMahon and Chris Murphy are pulling out all the stops to win over women and make them wary of the other candidate, reports the Daily Caller.

McMahon recently organized a women’s rally featuring former Gov. M. Jodi Rell and other supports. Murphy has been airing an ad criticizing McMahon’s role in the WWE and painting McMahon as anti-abortion.

Polls show Murphy with a small lead with women, but the gap has reportedly closed from McMahon’s 15 point loss in that demographic from her 2010 bid.

Fifth District

Elizabeth Esty (D): A ten-year-old video surfaced of Esty telling residents of Cheshire that they can move if they have no kids in the school system and don’t agree with the tax ramifications of a revaluation.

According to the Register Citizen, Esty said she later fought to get tax credits for the town seniors.

Andrew Roraback (R) said he’s going to fight back against attacks from the Esty campaign and her supports, reports the CT Mirror.

"I have to stand up for my reputation, and I have to stand up for the truth," Roraback reportedly said.

Other Congressional Races


Rosa DeLauro (D): The news of unsafe peanut butter being recalled in Connecticut and elsewhere is, according to DeLauro, a reason for the government to ensure health safety. According to her Twitter account:

Peanut butter #recall shows we have to improve #foodsafety. Have to ensure the CDC, FDA, and state and local agencies have $

More great work by @USDA's MDP, helping keep people safe from foodborne illness. Every1 stay safe! #recalls http://1.usa.gov/QfgIaT 

Wayne Winsley (R) shared a blog post from radio personality Laura Ingraham that offered her support of Winsley.

She wrote, “Winsley is not a career politician. He is a citizen with courage and determination who is stepping forward to do what must be done to get his state and country moving in the right direction again.”


The Connecticut Post followed U.S. Rep. Jim Himes and Republican challenger Steve Obsitnik through Fairfield County and noted the similarities – and differences – between the candidates.

Steven DeVaux September 27, 2012 at 08:36 AM
This lady could be a female clone of Brookfield's First Selectman! They must use the same playbook! "Elizabeth Esty (D): A ten-year-old video surfaced of Esty telling residents of Cheshire that they can move if they have no kids in the school system and don’t agree with the tax ramifications of a revaluation. According to the Register Citizen, Esty said she later fought to get tax credits for the town seniors."
Mary Davis September 27, 2012 at 12:07 PM
I have to go with Linda for Senate.. she won't be paid off by special interests or vote for bills (Obamacare) to find out what was in them like Murphy has done.
Dean Mulligan September 27, 2012 at 01:52 PM
Lewd Linda would be a disaster, and would make CT the laughing stock of the USA. Just another plutocrat looking after the super rich and screwing everyone else. NEW YORK -- In little-noticed remarks at a Tea Party town hall meeting earlier this year, Republican Connecticut Senate candidate Linda McMahon proposed introducing a "sunset provision" into the Social Security Act. McMahon, the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, has consistently dodged questions about cutting government entitlement programs in her two Senate runs. Speaking before a group of Tea Party supporters in Waterford, Conn. on April 20, however, McMahon said she would consider making major changes to Social Security, from raising the retirement age to means-testing benefits. She also proposed introducing a "sunset provision" -- the legislative term for putting an expiration date on a law unless it is renewed.
David Propper September 27, 2012 at 03:43 PM
If we only vote for people who do not take the outside money, given the cost of campaigns, only the super-rich would be able to run. I think I prefer people from a multitude of incomes to be our elected representatives. Also, I would be careful about using the term "special interest". It tends to be used, in a negative way, to describe organizations that have a very focused concern. However, people who deeply care about an issue (regardless of their political inclination) probably don't appreciate the inferred derogatory usage.
Brian Boodry September 27, 2012 at 04:51 PM
McMahon would be an utter embarassment for the entire state. She's running her campaign as if it were a WWE Raw Event, inclusive of photo-shopped advertising, a total disregard for the truth, and no understanding of the real issues. Hey Linda ... where's your husband? If you are not embarassed by your past, how come he never appears with you?
Mary Davis September 27, 2012 at 05:41 PM
@ David: My point was that her vote can't be bought. There are two reasons why a politician's vote can't be bought... integrity or they don't need the money. In Linda's case I believe both apply. In Murphy's case, I question both. My special interest comment is based on how Murphy is on the Financial Services Committee and conveniently got a sweetheart loan from an institution in his district under his oversight. An even larger concern in my mind is how or why he would vote for Obamacare without knowing what was in it? I don't need or want him voting that way in the Senate for me. Its like diving off a diving board and checking to see the depth of water afterward. We're still finding out what hidden treasures are in Obamacare. it should have debated in public as President Obama promised it would. Murphy was obligated to vote no rather than vote for the unknown. He had no idea what he was committing me to and that is very irresponsible. Anyone that is that careless does not deserve a promotion.
Mary Davis September 27, 2012 at 05:43 PM
FYI.. Here is an interesting article about some of Murphy's financial aspects in the Wall Street Journal... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444813104578018840576951224.html
Brian Boodry September 27, 2012 at 07:42 PM
Hey Mary ... .perhaps Linda's vote can be bought because she wants to keep her money !! Nothing wrong with success, but do not kid yourself into thinking that she's immune from infuence because she has money. Very naive thinking.
Mary Davis September 27, 2012 at 08:03 PM
It is demonstrated without question that Murphy votes as someone else tells him to... Why would anyone vote for a bill that they have no idea what is in it? Perhaps he is beholden to someone else... a special interest, contributor, a political party, an out of state union... it seems the list of possibilities is endless except he certainly did not vote with his constituents in mind. Someone told him to vote for Obamacare and he obeyed... why? who knows... politically or financially bought, it doesn't really matter, he's a career politician who is not doing us any good. Its not naive to imagine the person who is not a career politician is far less likely to be bought... It's naive to think it doesn't matter as you apparently do.
Brian Boodry September 27, 2012 at 08:31 PM
Never said I was voting for Murphy as you seem to believe, but it appears your opinion is based on one fact ... his vote for Obamacare. Turn down the Fox News and open your eyes, its a big world. Do you honestly think McMahon is going to be any better, really? Or rather, is there any politician ever in the history of the world that voted in agreeement with you (or any other voter) every single time? Nope. No way.
Mary Davis September 27, 2012 at 08:44 PM
@ Brian Yes, I do think Linda will do far better..without question! Better than Dodd, better than Leiberman.. and of course better than Murphy. Murphy's already proven what he's made of... and I don't like it. The point is not that he voted for what I wanted or didn't want... the point is he didn't know WHAT he was voting for. Good, bad...? he had no idea. It's irresponsible... and a major indication of what he'll do if he gets the chance in the Senate. Not for me...he has not and will not represent his constituents. The Democrats should have chosen someone else to run, then who knows. Linda will bring a woman's, non-career politician view we really need in Washington.
Steven DeVaux September 27, 2012 at 10:21 PM
If we only elected the unemployed think what we could do for the unemployment rate!
Brian Boodry September 27, 2012 at 11:52 PM
Ok. So you,re voting for Linda because she is a non-politician woman. Have you seen how Linda treated women at the WWE? Search the inter-webs and see for yourself. Wait, you can't because Linda and her minions are scouring the web and deleting her past.
Brian Boodry September 27, 2012 at 11:54 PM
WWJVF ... Who would Jesus vote for?
Michael Gianfranceschi September 28, 2012 at 02:43 AM
probably someone against abortion
Mary Davis September 28, 2012 at 12:08 PM
Gentlemen: I hate to break the news to you.. but WWE wrestling isn't real. They're pretending. They are actors and actresses playing parts. The men aren't really hurting each other...none of it is real. So let me understand your position, if a woman chooses to use her body as she chooses its OK with you.. as long as it she's getting an abortion... but if the same woman chooses to act on the WWE you're against it and then criticize and belittle her for that? I don't base my political support based on how well I like or dislike the characters on a television show. It seems you do. It also seems this WWE statement is just something you've heard and think is worth repeating. Its just a lame attack when your own candidate has nothing good he say about himself. I'll bet you have never seen the WWE and just blindly repeat the propaganda message.
Brian Boodry September 28, 2012 at 12:52 PM
Gotta Love Convervative Christians ... everyone else's opinion is wrong. Again, read the post ... not my candidate. I just don't like closed-minded, uninformed voters whose sole goal is to polarize the populace. This is not what American needs. Learn the issues, please.
Steven DeVaux September 28, 2012 at 02:11 PM
Ain't America great or what? People can define their own needs. And they can actually be different unlike the Libyan or Egyptian Bill of Rights...and wrongs.
Danbury_Dude September 29, 2012 at 12:39 AM
Here is a little tid bit about Linda. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/don-c-reed/of-wrestlers-arthritis-republicans_b_1922280.html
Danbury_Dude September 29, 2012 at 01:00 AM
Michael Gianfranceschi September 29, 2012 at 01:45 PM
and of course there is no liberal/progressive slant from the HuffPo is there??
Rob Gianazza September 29, 2012 at 03:26 PM
So Linda McMahon is proposing re-evaluating Social Security and attaching a condition like "sunsetting" should a serious legislative action not take place? Sounds like an incentive to get something done, with a dis-incentive to kick the proverbial can down the road. I could live with that.
Rob Gianazza September 29, 2012 at 03:35 PM
So Linda is guilty of exploiting women? Weren't these women knowingly under contract for profit? Please don't be naive and think that Linda's business dealings, with actors and actresses in a highly theatrical industry, can be translated into how she responds to legislation which will help re-build our economy. She is first and foremost a business woman that knows how to turn a profit. We need those entrepreneurial skills in Washington, not the political hacks with their only skill being how to tax the populace.
Rob Gianazza September 29, 2012 at 03:37 PM
You don't like yourself?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something