Going out of business

Going out of business

What’s New Today

Story #1 relates to the President’s shedding of African Americans support.  #2 brings up another inconsistency in Obama’s campaign.  #3 has Dana Milbank summarize what a horrible month June is for Obama.  #4 asks which president Obama is most like and then gives you a surprising answer.  I had my own surprising answer as well.  #5 talks about how fine the Obama campaign and the economy are.  #6 finds that Romney is leading Obama in Wisconsin.  #7shows you how your tax dollars are at work in the green sector.  #8 asks if equity is possible in view of human nature.  

Today’s Thoughts

What ever happened to the Occupy Movement?  The only time you read about them is when some of them get arrested.

Obama is having troubles raising money.  A recent study by Stanford political scientist Adam Bonica finds that roughly 90% of those who gave more than $200 to Obama haven't contributed to him this election cycle. 

Why didn’t someone predict the Euro crisis?  They did.  Margaret Thatcher and Milton Friedman both did. 


1.  Obama losing African America support

President Barack Obama is rapidly losing support among African-American voters in North Carolina, a new poll out today from the Democratic-leaning Public Policy polling shows.

The poll finds that Mitt Romney would get 20 percent of the African-American vote if the election were held today, compared with 76 percent for Obama. Overall, Romney has a 48 percent to 46 percent lead on Obama in the crucial swing state.

Obama received 95 percent of the support from African-Americans in North Carolina in the 2008 election, compared with just 5 percent for Republican nominee John McCain.

http://www.businessinsider.com/barack-obama-african-american-vote-black-north-carolina-2012-6#ixzz1xdiJHNnR

Obama is still way ahead, but this is a drop of 19% or put another way a 480% increase in AA for Romney votes over what McCain got in 2008

2.  Inept Obama can’t keep his Stories Straight
Just how inept is the White House these days? On Friday, President Obama was demanding that Congress put "teachers, cops and firefighters" back to work. But his own website says he's already accomplished that.

At that press briefing, Obama complained that while the private sector has been "hiring at a solid pace," the "biggest weaknesses (have) been state and local governments, which have laid off 450,000 Americans."

"These are teachers and cops and firefighters," he said. "Congress should pass a bill putting them back to work right now, giving help to the states so that those layoffs are not occurring."
On the official White House schedule, this briefing was billed as Obama "delivering remarks urging Congress to act on the 'To Do List.'"

Maybe Obama should have checked that list first, since, of the five items on it, not one has anything to do with saving state and local jobs.

Nope. The only things on that list are tax incentives for companies to create jobs at home; help for underwater homeowners who want to refinance; some targeted small business tax credits; more money wasted on "green" energy; and a silly new "Veterans Jobs Corps."

Not that it matters, since Democrats have entirely ignored Obama's picayune To Do List anyway.
However, on that same White House web page, Obama lists all his amazing job creation accomplishments, with little green check marks to show they've been done. Things like "Rescue the auto industry" and "Sign 18 tax cuts to help small businesses."

And right there on that list are these: "Keep 400,000 teachers in the classroom" and "Keep police officers, firefighters and other first responders on the job."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/nonsense_4.html#dmHLfSFtho25jx7z.99

To paraphrase John Kerry, Obama had saved the jobs before he didn’t.

3.  Milbank:  Can it get Any Worse?

It has been a Junius Horribilis for President Obama.

Job growth has stalled, the Democrats have been humiliated in Wisconsin, the attorney general is facing a contempt-of-Congress citation, talks with Pakistan have broken down, Bill Clinton is contradicting Obama, Mitt Romney is outraising him, Democrats and Republicans alike are complaining about a “cascade” of national-security leaks from his administration, and he is now on record as saying that the “private sector is doing fine.” 

Could it get any worse? 

Early Monday morning, Obama learned that it could. His aides delivered the news to him that his commerce secretary had been cited for a felony hit-and-run after allegedly crashing his car three times over the weekend. In one incident, the previously obscure Cabinet officer apparently rear-ended a Buick, spoke to the car’s occupants, then hit the vehicle again as he left...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/car-wreck-at-the-white-house/2012/06/11/gJQAl8MpVV_story.html

The Obama Administration is looking like the Three Stooges and Obama himself is not even Moe (he’s more of the Curly type). 

4. Which President is Obama most Like?

…The conventional wisdom, especially on the right, is that of all past presidents Barack Obama most closely resembles Jimmy Carter. Both men, after all, presided over parlous economic times and chose ultra-typical liberal solutions that did not work, apparently worsening the situation and leading to, in Carter’s own term, national “malaise.” Both men also had to deal with serious challenges from Iran and did so, to say the least, ineffectually.

So the case for Carter — who, as we all know, was not reelected — is strong. But I have another candidate, one who to me resembles Barack Obama more, especially in personality and style.

His name is Richard Nixon.

Now I realize the comparison is unfair to Nixon who, other than Watergate of course, was a pretty decent president. He and his cohort Henry Kissinger opened Red China and effectively changed history by triangulating the Soviet Union. What those two men did helped lead to the diminution of Maoism as well and probably saved a huge number of lives.

Tricky Dick also ratified the first, and ultimately most significant, U. S. environmental legislation, the kind that actually had a positive effect on the air and water, as opposed to the destructive self-regarding nonsense we have today.

Unfortunately, Nixon, for all his political brilliance, was an overly suspicious, many have even said paranoid, man.

And therein lies the similarity to Barack Obama. Call Obama “Nixon lite.”

From the very beginning Obama gave hints of Nixonian traits, but now, with his presidency crumbling around him, the global economy in freefall, and his signature healthcare legislation loved only by members of his immediate family (and even they have probably not read it), he is approaching the apotheosis of Nixonianism – sweaty brows, furtive looks, and a generally solitary and paranoid style.

Even the normally sympathetic Vanity Fair has portrayed him as an isolated man — one who has isolated himself. Is that not Nixon?...

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2012/06/13/which-former-president-does-barack-obama-most-resemble/?singlepage=true

I’ve spoken on this before and I think we should also include Hoover in who he is most like.  Hoover was a progressive who tried to raise spending to combat the Depression and failed to significantly alter the plight of the country.  Sound familiar? 

5.  Obama Campaign:  Everything is fine

The 1990 Italian film "Everybody's Fine" is one of the most depressing films I've ever seen. Starring the late Marcello Mastroianni, it's the story of an old man who tells his wife he's going to visit their grown kids. According to their letters the kids are doing great, but he'd like to see for himself.

It turns out that the kids are all doing badly, and the whole trip is drenched in nostalgia and regret for what might have been. When the father gets home, he can't bring himself to tell his wife the truth, even though -- the audience discovers -- she's been dead and buried for years. In the last scene, we see the old man at his wife's grave, reassuring her, "Everybody's fine."

Listening to President Obama's defenders spinning his claim that the "private sector is doing fine" reminded me of those kids and their dad, all afraid to admit everything's not fine.

One common defense: He was just being ironic or sarcastic.

New York magazine's Jonathan Chait insists that Obama meant it "in the same basic way that I did this week when I was slowly recovering from a horrendous head cold and told people I was 'fine' ...." On Monday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes said on the "Today" show that Obama meant it the way somebody says "I'm fine" when they really mean "You don't have to rush me to the emergency room" after a bloody head injury.

The only problem: There's pretty much no evidence that's how Obama meant it.

In his news conference last week, Obama argued that the private sector isn't holding back the economy, the public sector is -- hence "the private sector is doing fine." When given the opportunity to retract his gaffe, he basically repeated it. "It's absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine," the piqued president said. "That's the reason I had the press conference." (Something's wrong when you have to explain why you had a press conference.)

http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2012/06/13/obamas_fine_mess

This is a major mistake by Obama.  Kind of like McCain's the fundamentals of the American economy are sound or Kerry’s I voted for it before I voted against it.


6.  Wisconsin:  A Toss-up

Mitt Romney now leads President Obama for the first time in Wisconsin where the president's support has fallen to its lowest level to date.  

The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Romney with 47% of the vote to Obama’s 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

Prior to this survey, Obama's support in the state has ranged from 45% to 52%, while Romney has earned 41% to 45%. Last month, the numbers were Obama 49%, Romney 45%. The president led his likely Republican challenger by 11 points in March - 52% to 41%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president

It’s now official. Wisconsin is now a toss-up state.  A toss-up is defined as a state in which neither candidate is ahead by more than 4%.  This brings Wisconsin from Obama in March, to leaning Obama in April/May to toss-up in June. 


7.  Our Green Dollars at Work

A Syracuse nonprofit got a $700,000 government grant last year to buy and install 68 electric car charging units around Central New York.

But this week, Synapse Sustainability Trust ripped the last of the chargers out of a downtown Syracuse parking lot.

Synapse Sustainability says it is replacing them — at no cost to taxpayers — because the manufacturer sold it the wrong type of charging units.

The goof-up will have little impact on the public. After all, there are only 30 electric or electric hybrid cars in five counties surrounding Syracuse. There are more charging units than there are cars that can use them.

But it is an embarrassment for politically connected Synapse and its affiliated for-profit businesses as they try to carve out a niche in the alternative fuel marketplace.

“We’re replacing all the units,” said Eckardt “Chris” Beck, a partner at Synapse Partners LLC and its nonprofit arm, Synapse Sustainability Trust. “It’s not a happy thing. But it’s the right thing.”

The mix-up has prompted Synapse to file a $6 million lawsuit against ECOtality, the maker of the “Blink” charging stations, according to legal papers filed in State Supreme Court in Onondaga County….

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/syracuses_little-used_electric.html

It seems Synapse is run by the County Democratic Party Chairwoman.  Can you say crony capitalism? 



8.  Is Equality Possible?

…On the other side of the equation is capitalism, though no country in the world has such an economic system in its pure form.  Here, winners and losers are decided by "the market."  Bill Gates became fantastically rich by starting a company that brought the personal computer to the masses.  Henry Ford created his wealth by introducing mass production of automobiles.  People in Hollywood came to their good fortune by making movies and TV shows the public enjoys watching.  In short, wealth is often made by offering an affordable product or service that is appreciated by the public on a wide scale.
The primary problem with the capitalist system is that the currently powerful can use their money and influence to stifle new competition.  A big company can sell its product at a loss for longer than the upstart can hold out.  Or they can swamp a young company with a massive advertising campaign or endless and expensive litigation. 

 Existing companies can even enlist the help of government agencies.  Here's just one example: in the U.S. in the 1930s, the introduction of commercial television was delayed by the Federal Communications Commission for almost 20 years at the behest of the radio industry (see "The Master Switch" by Tim Wu).  Such distortions of the market are typically painted in terms of the government protecting ordinary citizens.

It can be difficult to design a legal system that gives a truly level playing field that protects the legitimate rights of existing businesses without cheating new ones of their opportunity. 
It is not particularly odd that the most visible vocal proponents of a more equitable distribution of a society's wealth typically already have more than most.  Their social and political leanings are in sympathy with the powers that will be deciding who gets what, so there is little concern that any future actions will be to their disadvantage.  With their own security comfortably stowed, they can bask in self-congratulation that they are doing the right thing for the common folk.

Imagine that a truly equal society can be created.  Unless one is a true anarchist, it will still need a government, and a government requires people to administer its functions.  How long will it be before it is decided that some functions are more critical than others, that some buildings need to be bigger or fancier than others, that certain groups need different things or more supplies, and that certain equipment is more important here than there?  This "mission creep" is inevitable and inexorable.  Over time, it will lead to the same dramatic differences in distribution that societies have always seen.

In short, the idea that a model exists somewhere for a truly equal society is folly.  North Korea is the most tightly regimented, self-described communist country in the world (though it is arguably a dictatorial monarchy).  Hong Kong may be the most free-wheeling capitalist state in existence.  Yet both have a small group of people who live like kings and many more who don't (though there is little question which one most ordinary people would pick if given the choice).

The only real question is who, or what process, chooses the "haves"?  Do wealth and position come from learning to manipulate the levers of authority and force on the government side?  Or do these advantages come from the freedom to pursue our personal creative ideas and dreams?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/the_grim_logic_of_fairness.html#ixzz1xfOSiZkT

This is simply human nature in action.  I read once that the only true ‘communist’ societies are those with bare subsistence, where everyone shares equally or the society will starve. As soon as there is surplus, there were be fights over who gets the surplus.  Certainly in these subsistence societies, the hunters would probably want more of the extra since they create much of the surplus, need the extra calories and take the biggest risks.  “Mission Creep,”  see how easy it is?

Wisconsin and the Economy

What’s New Today

Story #1 looks at the national implications of Wisconsin.  Why did Walker raise more money than the opposition? Why was Obama’s total part in this a tweet?  #2 looks at Obama’s “the private economy is doing fine” remark.  #3 looks at who’s had the worst economy since the Great Depression.  #4 looks at the latest Democratic fund raising letter and wonders is it panic or opportunism.  #5 talks about Obama and his dinners with Historians.  #6 looks at what Obama’s doing to other Democrats.

Today’s Thoughts

Amber Lee Ettinger, widely known as "Obama Girl" during the 2008 presidential campaign, told The Daily Caller she is "not as excited as I was the last time, that's for sure."

After Administration officials said of Corey Booker, “He’s dead to us,” Lannie Davis said: “You have vicious people who are working for the president”

1.  The National Implications of Wisconsin

…But back to the national implications. The fact that one candidate raised more money than the other is not just a fact of nature. You have to ask why Walker raised more. After all, there are plenty of rich and upper-middle-class Democrats, not just in Wisconsin but around the country, and this race got lots of national attention. The unions still have millions in dues money to spend—though they're getting a lot less, now that workers actually have a choice in the matter. They also have the benefit of an extensive network of grass-roots advocates and volunteers, which can do a lot to make up for a gap in spending. Then, of course, there is the national Democratic Party.

Ah, but there's the rub. In the weeks leading up to the recall, the national party pretty much abandoned Wisconsin. Money and organization didn't flow into the state, and President Obama's contribution amounted to exactly one "tweet " the day before the vote….

…But this actually makes it worse for the left. Walker's limitation of union power was not bitterly contested, because it is popular.  It is popular because it has been a success, moving the state government from a deficit to a surplus and helping many local governments and school boards avoid mass layoffs.

That is the wider significance that the left is trying to avoid. The Wisconsin vote reflects a national shift in favor of controlling government spending.

Jay Cost has an interesting piece in which he points out that the slowdown in growth during the Great Recession has led to a "politics of loss." The idea is that for most of the post-World-War-II era, economic growth allowed politicians to avoid difficult choices. The level of taxation stayed relatively stable as a proportion of the economy, but because the economy grew so quickly and so steadily, those taxes could keep paying for an ever more generous welfare state. So we could have an economy in which everyone seemed to gain, in which Republicans could promise to reduce taxes without slashing welfare benefits, and Democrats could keep expanding the welfare state without jacking up taxes very much.

Now that the economy has essentially stopped growing, that has been exposed as unsustainable. Every dollar paid out to public employees or to middle-class entitlements has to be taken out of the hide of taxpayers, one way or another—or if the taxpayers aren't fleeced, then the unions are going to be forced to scale back their benefits and entitlements are going to have to be reduced. It is now a zero-sum game…

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/08/the_return_of_the_reagan_democrats_114424.html

The Unions and the Democrats should hope that Romney wins and that he can get the economy moving again (he can).  If the economy doesn’t grow, there are huge cutbacks that must happen. 

2.  Obama blows it again
It was just six words from a 29-minute news conference, but President Barack Obama's assertion that "the private sector is doing fine" looks primed to play a starring role in this already-fevered campaign season.

In a discussion that focused in large part on Europe's problems, Mr. Obama turned at one point to the U.S. He said Republicans needed to join him to help state and local governments that have continued to pare jobs while private-sector employment expands.

"The truth of the matter is that … we've created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone," he said in response to a question. "The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government," which, he said, isn't getting the support it needs from Washington. 

Within minutes, Republicans including House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), the Senate minority leader, reacted.

Mr. Obama's Republican presidential challenger, Mitt Romney, called the comment "an extraordinary miscalculation and misunderstanding" by the president. "I think he's defining what it means to be detached and out of touch with the American people," Mr. Romney said at a campaign stop in Council Bluffs, Iowa….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303665904577454624044933902.html?mod=WSJ_hppMIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

This is akin to the joke about the person who falls off a 50 story building.  At floor 25 someone asks him how he’s doing.  He responds, “Pretty good so far.” 

3.  Obama vs Reagan

Our current economic slowdown is being called the "Great Recession."  How often have you heard someone say this economy is the worst since the Depression?  The economic problems we face today are enormous, but that does not mean that the problems are unparalleled in recent decades.  In terms of unemployment, the economy President Reagan faced in the early 1980s was actually worse than today's.

Unemployment, which stood at 7.8 percent when President Obama took office in January 2009, peaked at 10.0 percent near the end of that year and was at that level for just the one month.

Ronald Reagan inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent in January 1981.  Unemployment, which peaked at 10.8 percent in 1982, was at 10 percent or higher for ten straight months.

These numbers suggest that President Reagan faced a jobs challenge at least as great as the present one.
Our current unemployment rate (May 2012) is 8.2 percent.  In May 1984, the corresponding month in President Reagan's first term, unemployment was down to 7.2 percent, a 3.6-percent drop (compared to a 1.8-percent decrease to date for President Obama).  Unemployment has declined only half as much under President Obama, and it has taken us longer to get there.

Both presidents relied on budget deficits to stimulate the economy, but the similarities end there.  President Reagan's deficits were much smaller.  Deficits during his first term averaged 4.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), compared to 9.1 percent of GDP during President Obama's first term.  President Obama's deficits, which have been twice as large as President Reagan's were, have produced only one half the reduction in the unemployment rate….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/the_obama_nation_versus_the_reagan_sensation.html#ixzz1xIfEHBfg

Democrats don’t want to compare Reagan to Obama because it doesn’t work well for them.  With Obama “It’s mourning in America.”

4.  Panic or opportunisim?

…Ann Marie Habershaw, the Obama campaign's chief operating officer, told supporters in a blog post published Friday that last month was "the first time that the Obama organization has been outraised by an opponent since 2007." She warned that "we are not guaranteed to win this election."

"If there's anyone still out there acting like we have this thing in the bag, do me a favor and tell them they're dead wrong," Habershaw wrote. "Now that Mitt Romney has locked up his party's nomination, yesterday's numbers are only the beginning. The Republican big-dollar donors and special-interest cash will only keep coming out of the woodwork, lining up to support him."

The message caps a steady and increasingly doom-laden series of entreaties by the campaign to step up the fundraising pace for the final stretch of the presidential campaign. Campaign manager Jim Messina wrote in an e-mail that "we got beat" on money, and urged supporters to "fight like hell and win this thing." 

The call-to-arms follows a remarkable surge in fundraising by Romney, who brought in $76.8 million last month after locking up the GOP nomination. The total overshadowed Obama's own monthly fundraising tally of $60 million, which was his best so far in 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/obama-campaign-appeals-for-donations/2012/06/08/gJQA1ZFwOV_blog.html

I’m not sure which it is, perhaps both.  But I think the Democrats are starting to realize it is serious.  I’m interested in seeing what kind of money Romney brings in this June after Wisconsin.  Perhaps donors will smell blood in the water. 

5.  Obama and the Historians

On the evening of Tuesday, June 30, 2009—just five months into his administration—Barack Obama invited a small group of presidential historians to dine with him in the Family Quarters of the White House. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, personally delivered the invitations with a word of caution: the meeting was to remain private and off the record. As a result, the media missed the chance to report on an important event, for the evening with the historians provided a remarkable sneak preview of why the Obama presidency would shortly go off the rails

Today, with Mr. Obama in full campaign mode, that event—as well as two more unreported White House dinners with the historians—is worth examining. Together, they shed light on the reason this president is likely to find it much harder than he expects to connect with the public and win reelection to the White House.

At the time of the first dinner, the new president was still enjoying a honeymoon period with the American people; according to Gallup, 63 percent of Americans approved of the job he was doing. Brimming with self-confidence, Mr. Obama had earlier confided to David Axelrod, his chief political strategist: “The weird thing is, I know I can do this job. I like dealing with complicated issues. I’m happy to make decisions.…I think it’s going to be an easier adjustment for me than the campaign. Much easier.”…

…When one of the historians brought up the difficulties that Lyndon Johnson, another wartime president, faced trying to wage a foreign military venture while implementing an ambitious domestic agenda, Mr. Obama grew testy. He implied that he was different, because he could prevail by the force of his personality. He could solve the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, put millions of people back to work, redistribute wealth, withdraw from Iraq, and reconcile the United States to a less dominant role in the world.

It was, by any measure, a breathtaking display of grandiosity by a man whose entire political curriculum vitae consisted of seven undistinguished years in the Illinois senate and two mostly absent years in the United States Senate. That evening Mr. Obama revealed the characteristics—arrogance, conceit, egotism, vanity, hubris and, above all, rank amateurism—that would mark his presidency and doom it to frustration and failure….

Over the two-hour dinner, Mr. Obama and the historians discussed several past presidents. It wasn’t clear from Mr. Obama’s responses which of those presidents he identified with. At one point, he seemed to channel the charismatic John F. Kennedy. At another moment, he extolled the virtues of the “transformative” Ronald Reagan. Then again, it was the saintly Lincoln…or the New Deal’s “Happy Warrior,” Franklin Roosevelt….

…In the wake of the shellacking the Democrats took in the midterm elections in 2010, Mr. Obama held a second dinner with the historians, which was devoted to the question of how he could “reconnect with the public.”

A third dinner took place in July 2011, shortly after Mr. Obama and his team botched the budget-deficit negotiations with Congress, and the United States government lost its Triple-A credit rating for the first time in history. It revolved around the theme “the challenge of reelection.”
That fall, I spoke to one of the historians who attended all three of the dinners. We met in a restaurant where we were unlikely to be seen, and our conversation, which lasted for nearly two hours, was conducted under the condition of anonymity….

 “There’s no doubt that Obama has turned out to be a major enigma and disappointment,” the historian told me. “He waged such a brilliant campaign, first against Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and then against John McCain in the general election. For a long time, I found it hard to understand why he couldn’t translate his political savvy into effective governance.

“But I think I know the answer now,” he continued. “Since the beginning of his administration, Obama hasn't been able to capture the public's imagination and inspire people to follow him. Vision isn't enough in a president. Great presidents not only have to enunciate their vision; they must lead by example and inspiration. Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the individual. He and Ronald Reagan had the ability to make each American feel that the president cared deeply and personally about them.

“That quality has been lacking in Obama. People don’t feel that he’s on their side. Obama doesn't connect. He doesn't have the answers. The irony is that he was supposed to be such a brilliant orator. But, in fact, he’s turned out to be a failure as a communicator."

If the verdict of this historian is correct, and Barack Obama’s fundamental failure as president is his inability to connect with people, he is in far more serious trouble than most people realize as he seeks a mandate for a second term in office. Or, as this historian put it: “I wouldn’t bet the ranch on his getting reelected.”

"More than that, Obama might not have the place in history he so eagerly covets. Instead of ranking with FDR and Reagan and other giants, it seems more likely that he will be a case-study in presidential failure like Jimmy Carter." 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/08/what-do-historians-really-think-obama/#ixzz1xIsVSRSP

I believe the American public is like a wife who is considering divorce, but doesn’t want to admit it to herself.  And Obama is like a husband who knows he’s in trouble and he’s trying to blame everyone else.  So the polls are still close, but it won’t be when in November.

6. Fallout from Obama

A surprising new poll of the Connecticut Senate race shows Republican candidate Linda McMahon not only leading the primary field, but within striking distance of the likely Democratic nominee, Rep. Chris Murphy.

A Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday found McMahon, World Wrestling Entertainment co-founder and 2010 Republican Senate candidate, leading her primary opponent, former Rep. Chris Shays, by a whopping 29 percent. 

Equally surprising was that in a trial heat with the presumptive Democratic nominee, Rep. Chris Murphy, McMahon trails by only 3 points, 43 percent to Murphy’s 46 percent. Shays, on the other hand, gets beaten 45-37.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/09/surprising-new-poll-throws-conn-senate-race-into-spotlight/#ixzz1xJ7SrbIO

Quinnipiac is a poll that gets more accurate the closer we get to the election because they go from registered voters to probably voters to likely voters.  Right now their polls are skewed toward the Democrats.