My Sept. 10 post was focused on a Quinnipiac University poll that had Tom Foley, Republican nominee for governor of Connecticut, leading Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy by 6 percent, 46 to 40. I argued that the results should be cause for concern for Gov. Malloy and his campaign team, as they followed two summer polls that gave Mr. Foley comparable leads.
With that in mind, in a column published yesterday (Sept. 14), Paul Choiniere, editorial page editor of The (New London) Day, proffered his take on the Quinnipiac poll. Like me, Mr. Choiniere asserted the findings should worry the Malloy camp. He also noted it will be interesting to see if they convince Mr. Foley that his current strategy – offering few policy specifics while playing on Gov. Malloy’s longstanding unpopularity – is working and should be maintained.
Mr. Choiniere intimated that he believes Mr. Foley will stay on his present path, but argued the smarter path would be to start offering some specifics.
Read this interesting column here.
I think Mr. Foley would be wise to take Mr. Choiniere’s suggestion. Obviously, many Nutmeggers are angry with Gov. Malloy and would like to vote against him, but they still must have a reason to vote for Mr. Foley. After all, if he doesn’t coherently explain how a change in the governor’s office would benefit Connecticut residents, many voters unhappy with Gov. Malloy may take a “devil you know” attitude.
Indeed, American political history is replete with examples of candidates who lost to vulnerable incumbents at least in part because they didn’t outline coherent, positive visions for the future. Among the most notable are 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who failed to bounce George W. Bush and Barack Obama, respectively. Their most obvious Connecticut counterpart is 2002 Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill Curry, who got his clock cleaned by then-Gov. John G. Rowland despite the onset of Rowland fatigue.
Again, we’ll have to see what Mr. Foley does, but failure to “go positive” certainly would qualify as an act of political malpractice.
