From the advocacy group Impact CT
Last week, we asked what Connecticut Democrats would do with even bigger majorities in the Legislature.
With less than three weeks until Election Day, this week we’re asking a different question: with all 5 members of the congressional delegation and all statewide officials up for reelection – all of them being Democrats – why aren’t the Republicans even competitive in any of those races?
Connecticut feels relatively quiet for this stage of an election. The latest Quinnipiac poll puts Gov. Ned Lamont ahead of Ryan Fazio, 58% to 38%, giving little indication that the race is tightening. While there’s no public polling available for any of the other statewide races, or any of the congressional races, there’s no sense that any of those races will even be close.
Sure, there are still votes to earn and races to watch, but the idea that there could be at least one upset here is nonexistent, while in other states across the country, Democrats are competitive in places they haven’t been in many years.
To be clear, we are an organization that supports Democrats. We want candidates who share our priorities to win. But we also think competitive races are good for the state and for our people because they draw more attention to the democratic process, force candidates to be public and accountable, and require them to explain their ideas against an alternative that voters might actually choose. It’s important for us to understand where our opposition is and what their strengths and weaknesses are. Competitive races give parties a reason to nominate people who can appeal beyond those already inclined to agree with them. A lack of competition makes it easier to avoid that work.
And competitive races tend to increase voter turnout, something we also support.
Let’s look at the best evidence of recent competition. Jodi Rell won reelection in 2006 by nearly 28 points. Chris Shays beat Diane Farrell in a rematch by 4 points that same year. That’s the last time Republicans won a statewide seat and a congressional seat: 20 years ago.
In 2014, Republican Tim Herbst came within two points of defeating Treasurer Denise Nappier. In 2022 George Logan ran a competitive race against Jahana Hayes in the 5th CD. And Republicans gained enough legislative seats in 2016 to produce an evenly divided state Senate, giving them the negotiating power we discussed last week.
So, why aren’t Republicans more competitive statewide now? If a U.S. Senate seat opened tomorrow, is there even a single Republican who would be prepared to run a serious campaign for it?
First, let’s consider the voter registration argument that Republicans don’t have enough registered voters to win statewide elections. While Republicans are outnumbered by Democrats, unaffiliated voters actually remain Connecticut’s largest registration group, representing approximately 41.5% of active voters in figures reported this summer. That does not mean all unaffiliated voters are moderates just waiting for the right Republican, but it does mean that Republicans need to build consistent support outside their own party to be competitive.
The voter registration argument also falls apart when you consider a Republican-turned-Independent Lowell Weicker was elected Governor in 1990, Republican John Rowland won in 1994, 1998, and 2002, and Republican Jodi Rell won in 2006.
So, has the party just declined since Trump infamously descended the elevator in 2015? After a decade, Republican candidates are still trying to determine how much distance to put between themselves and MAGA, and what that distance might cost them within their party. But it’s not quite that simple. Connecticut Republicans gained legislative ground the same year he first won the presidency. Their difficulties cannot all be traced to his arrival, although his continued dominance makes their path considerably harder. The latest Quinnipiac poll captures the problem: 29% of Connecticut voters approve of Trump, compared with 78% of Republicans.
Our hypothesis is that Republicans also have a pipeline problem – they don’t have the infrastructure to develop candidates and sustain the organization around them.
Recognizing this fact, businessmen Tom Foley and Bob Stefanowski decided to run for Governor in 2010, 2014, 2018, and 2022. With no Republican officeholder able to mount a serious challenge to them, they easily secured their party’s nomination. They lost all 4 times.
The Republicans tried the same formula with Linda McMahon, twice, for US Senate. She lost both times.
Municipal and legislative offices should provide opportunities for people to establish records, build relationships and demonstrate that they can govern, and turning those local successes into statewide credibility takes years of deliberate work.
But repeated losses can make that work harder because potential candidates become less willing to run, donors become harder to persuade, and experienced campaign staff look for more promising opportunities elsewhere.
Still, it would be too easy to say Republicans simply cannot raise money or run campaigns. They do both every cycle. Fazio’s campaign has spent $7.2 million on television and streaming advertising since July. Yet 30% of voters in the latest poll still had not heard enough to form an opinion of him. Money can introduce a candidate, but it cannot guarantee that voters will see that person as a credible alternative.
Other New England states show that broader support is possible. Massachusetts reelected Republican Charlie Baker with approximately 67% in 2018, two years into Trump’s first term. Vermont’s Phil Scott won a fifth term in 2024 (while openly supporting Kamala Harris). Their success suggests voters can distinguish a Republican governor from the national party when they have sufficient reason to do so.
So where does that leave us? On the Republican side, facing another non-competitive election cycle at the statewide and congressional levels, perhaps it’s time for a real reckoning, and a commitment to developing a real candidate pipeline.
On the Democratic side, winning with familiar leaders does not automatically develop the people who will eventually succeed them, and facing consistently weak opposition doesn’t require a party to sharpen its arguments or confront dissatisfaction among voters who continue supporting it.
Democrats should consider this as they look toward 2028 and beyond. As we wrote last week, more Democratic power should come with greater expectations for what the party delivers. Republicans’ inability to compete now may protect Democrats from the immediate electoral consequences of falling short. But it would be a mistake to interpret that protection as evidence that voters are satisfied, or that they will remain willing to accept the choices they are being offered.
