Sunday, September 20, 2009

Understanding the Connecticut Senate Race Peter Schiff Has Jumped Into

Next fall, political observers believe, a Republican could win the US senate seat in Connecticut, for the first time in 20 years, against the unpopular Democratic incumbent, Senator Chris Dodd. But the race to get the Republican nomination will be a very crowded field, with lots of big spenders. Rob Simmons, a former CT congressman, is collecting checks from old money insiders. Former WWE executive Linda McMahon who can, of course, body slam anyone when it comes to reaching into one's own pocket to spend money. Former ambassador to Ireland, Tom Foley, is "Mister Connections" who can tap that network for money. Then there is Schiff, who has a national following linked to the coattails of Ron Paul that he can tap for money. Closing out the pack is state Senator Sam Caligiuri who will be operating on a shoestring budget.

This means that a primary is likely in Connecticut (as opposed to a convention pick) and the prize is up for grabs. It is very conceivable that the primary winner will win with far less than 50% of the vote. This is a plus for a candidate like Schiff who is likely to have a strong hardcore following but, unlikely to have the name recognition and political machine that would be required to win in a race against just one well known candidate. But, this also means that the lone non-money bags candidate, Caligiuri, may have a decent shot at pulling off an upset. It's really anybody's nomination to take, if they run the best campaign.

Bottom line, if you like your politics heated and aggressive, with big spenders, and with a Ron Paul type libertarian in the race who has a shot at winning, the CT Republican senate race is one to watch.

1 comment:

  1. letter to dodd
    From the NY Times: Leading Senator Pushes New Plan to Oversee Banks

    what is really needed in trials for treason of the regulators that are owned by the thieving bansters.
    If they had done the jobs that they were paid to do by the taxpayers this mess would not have happened.
    If you and your cronies in the government had performed your oversight duties likewise this mess would not have happened but as you are owned and operated by the same thieves as the "regulators" i wonder about your push for a super regulation agency when trials with penalties for the deliberate malfeasance of those trusted to enforce the existing laws would provide enough incentive to avoid a repeat.
    Or is the idea to provide a easier way to bribe the "regulators" for your bosses in the corporate world by having fewer points of contact