Connecticut gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial election, 2018
- General election: Nov. 6
- Voter registration deadline: Oct. 30 (by mail), or Nov. 6 (in-person)
- Early voting: N/A
- Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 5
- Online registration: Yes
- Same-day registration: Yes
- Voter ID: Non-photo ID required
- Poll times: 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
2022 →
← 2014
|
| Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut |
|---|
 |
| Democratic primary Republican primary General election |
| Election details |
| Filing deadline: June 12, 2018 |
| Primary: August 14, 2018 General: November 6, 2018 Pre-election incumbent(s): Gov. Dan Malloy (Democrat) Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman (Democrat) |
| How to vote |
| Poll times: 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Voting in Connecticut |
| Race ratings |
Sabato's Crystal Ball: Lean Democratic Inside Elections: Lean Democratic |
| Ballotpedia analysis |
| Federal and state primary competitiveness State executive elections in 2018 Impact of term limits in 2018 State government trifectas State government triplexes Ballotpedia's Election Analysis Hub, 2018 |
| Connecticut executive elections |
| Governor Lieutenant governor |
Businessman Ned Lamont (D) defeated businessman Bob Stefanowski (R), Mark Stewart Greenstein (Amigo Constitution), Oz Griebel (I), and Rod Hanscomb (L) in the general election on November 6, 2018, for governor of Connecticut.
Incumbent Gov. Dan Malloy (D) announced in April 2017 that he would not seek re-election to a third term in 2018, leaving the seat open. Of the ten preceding gubernatorial elections, a Democratic candidate won five—including Malloy's victories in 2010 and 2014—a Republican candidate won four, and an independent candidate won one. The last time a Connecticut gubernatorial election was won by a candidate of the same political party as the outgoing governor was in 1924 when Hiram Bingham (R) was elected to succeed Charles Templeton (R). In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton (D) carried the state by a margin of 14 percentage points.
Lamont's victory preserved the state's Democratic trifecta. At the time of the 2018 election, Connecticut had been a Democratic trifecta since Gov. Dan Malloy (D) took office in 2011.
Connecticut was one of 36 states that held an election for governor in 2018. Democrats gained seven previously Republican-held seats, and Republicans gained one previously independent-held seat. Heading into the 2018 elections, there were 16 Democratic governors, 33 Republican governors, and one independent governor. In 2018, 26 of the 33 states with a Republican governor held a gubernatorial election, while nine out of the 16 states with a Democratic governor held a gubernatorial election. Seventeen of the 36 seats up for election were open seats (four Democratic, 12 Republican, and one independent), meaning that the sitting governor was not seeking re-election. Click here for more information on other 2018 gubernatorial elections.
For more information about the Democratic gubernatorial primary, click here. For more on the lieutenant gubernatorial primary, click here.
For more information about the Republican gubernatorial primary, click here. For more on the lieutenant gubernatorial primary, click here.
Contents
- 1 Candidates and election results
- 2 Candidate profiles
- 3 Polls
- 4 Campaign finance
- 5 Satellite spending
- 6 Race ratings
- 7 Noteworthy endorsements
- 8 Timeline
- 9 Campaign advertisements
- 10 Debates and forums
- 11 Campaign themes
- 12 Social media
- 13 Other 2018 statewide elections
- 14 Pivot Counties
- 15 Election history
- 16 2014
- 17 2010
Candidates and election results
General election
General election for Governor of Connecticut
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | Ned Lamont (D) | 49.4 | 694,510 | |
| Bob Stefanowski (R) | 46.2 | 650,138 | ||
| Oz Griebel (Griebel Frank for CT Party) | 3.9 | 54,741 | ||
| Rod Hanscomb (L) | 0.4 | 6,086 | ||
| Mark Stewart Greenstein (Amigo Constitution Party) | 0.1 | 1,254 | ||
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.0 | 74 | ||
There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source | Total votes: 1,406,803 | |||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Kameron Scott (Independent)
- Micah Welintukonis (Independent)
- Thomas Ford (Independent)
Political party key:
Democratic
Republican
Green Party
Libertarian Party
Working Families Party
Independent Party
- Fusion voting candidates
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for Governor of Connecticut
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | Ned Lamont | 81.2 | 172,567 | |
| Joe Ganim | 18.8 | 39,976 | ||
There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source | Total votes: 212,543 | |||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Jonathan Harris (D)
- Lee Whitnum (D)
- Betheona Guiles-Smith (D)
- Guy Smith (D)
- Jacey Wyatt (D)
- Luke Bronin (D)
- Sean Connolly (D)
Republican primary election
Republican primary for Governor of Connecticut
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | Bob Stefanowski | 29.4 | 42,041 | |
| Mark Boughton | 21.3 | 30,475 | ||
| David Stemerman | 18.3 | 26,177 | ||
| Tim Herbst | 17.5 | 25,063 | ||
| Steve Obsitnik | 13.4 | 19,102 | ||
There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source | Total votes: 142,858 | |||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Eric Mastroianni (R)
- David Walker (R)
- Antonietta Boucher (R)
- Dave Walker (R)
- Peter Thalheim (R)
- Joseph Visconti (R)
- Mark Lauretti (R)
- Peter Lumaj (R)
- Prasad Srinivasan (R)
- Scott Merrell (R)
- Michael Handler (R)
Candidate profiles
Party: Democratic
Incumbent: No
Political office: None
Biography: Lamont founded Lamont Digital Systems, a telecommunications company which he sold in September 2015. Prior to 2018, Lamont ran twice for statewide political office. In the 2006 U.S. Senate election, he defeated incumbent Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary but was defeated by Lieberman, who ran as an independent, in the general election. In 2010, Lamont was the endorsed gubernatorial candidate of the Democratic Party of Connecticut but was defeated in the primary by Dan Malloy (D).
- Lamont emphasized his ties to Connecticut and his belief in the state's potential.[1]
- Lamont portrayed his run as an effort to "change Connecticut’s direction before we fall too far behind."[2]
- Lamont emphasized his business experience, saying that he "knows how to bring people together and turn our state around".[2]
- Lamont characterized Stefanowski as a divisive and arrogant influence on state politics and associated him with Donald Trump (R).[3]
Party: Republican
Incumbent: No
Political office: None
Biography: A graduate of Fairfield University, Stefanowski's career in finance and accounting includes time spent with PricewaterhouseCoopers, General Electric, and UBS. Stefanowski served as a consultant immediately prior to launching his campaign.
- Stefanowski emphasized his status as a political outsider and that he "has spent his life turning around failed businesses."[4]
- Stefanowski portrayed his run as a chance to turn the state's direction around.[5]
- Stefanowski associated Lamont with outgoing Gov. Dannel Malloy (D).[6][7]
- Stefanowski said that he would cut taxes while Lamont would raise them.[8]
Party: Independent
Incumbent: No
Political office: None
Biography: Griebel graduated from Dartmouth College with a degree in English and received his law degree from Suffolk University. He worked as a teacher and coach at Worcester Academy before serving as chief executive officer of Bank Boston Connecticut. Griebel then led the MetroHartford Alliance for 17 years.
- Griebel said that both major parties have failed the state, saying that Connecticut's net job growth had been zero over the preceding 30 years and that neither party had offered solutions.[9]
- Griebel said that his opponents had needed to make concessions to interest groups in order to receive their parties' nominations and that, as an independent candidate, he did not.[9]
- Griebel said that he would govern with an emphasis on collaboration and would seek input from all of the state's major stakeholders regardless of partisan identification.[10]
Polls
- See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls
| Governor of Connecticut, 2018 | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Poll sponsor | Ned Lamont (D) | Bob Stefanowski (R) | Rod Hanscomb (L) | Oz Griebel (I) | Undecided/Other | Margin of error | Sample size | |||||||||||
| Gravis Marketing (October 30 - November 1, 2018) | N/A | 46% | 37% | 0% | 9% | 8% | +/-3.8 | 681 | |||||||||||
| Sacred Heart University/GreatBlue Research (October 29-31, 2018) | Hearst Connecticut Media Group | 38% | 40% | 0% | 9% | 13% | +/-4.3 | 500 | |||||||||||
| Quinnipiac University (October 22-28, 2018) | N/A | 47% | 43% | 0% | 7% | 4% | +/-4.0 | 1,201 | |||||||||||
| Sacred Heart University (October 13-17, 2018) | Hearst Connecticut Media Group | 40% | 36% | 0% | 8% | 16% | +/-4.3 | 501 | |||||||||||
| Public Policy Polling (October 8-9, 2018) | Change Course CT PAC | 43% | 38% | 0% | 0% | 19% | +/--- | 828 | |||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 42.8% | 38.8% | 0% | 6.6% | 12% | +/-3.28 | 742.2 | ||||||||||||
| Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Click [show] to view older polls. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Click [show] to view hypothetical polls conducted before the primary | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PredictIt Prices
This section provides the PredictIt market prices for this race during the three months leading up to the election. PredictIt is a site where people make and trade predictions on political and financial events. Market prices reflect the probability, based on PredictIt users' predictions, that a candidate will win a race. For example, a market price of $0.60 for Candidate A is equivalent to a 60 percent probability that Candidate A will win.
Campaign finance
The following chart shows campaign finance information obtained from the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission.
Satellite spending
Satellite spending, commonly referred to as outside spending, describes political spending not controlled by candidates or their campaigns; that is, any political expenditures made by groups or individuals that are not directly affiliated with a candidate. This includes spending by political party committees, super PACs, trade associations, and 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups.[11][12][13]
This section lists satellite spending in this race reported by news outlets in alphabetical order. If you are aware of spending that should be included, please email us.
- The Democratic Governors Association committed $125,000 to its Our Connecticut PAC in July.[14]
- The Protect Freedom PAC has spent over $1 million on ads in support of Stefanowski as of September 4.[15]
- The Republican Governors Association committed $7.5 million to its Change PAC, including a $350,000 commitment in September and a $1 million commitment in the first week of October. The PAC has run ads in support of Stefanowski and opposing Lamont.[16][15][17][18]
- The Service Employees International Union reported spending $295,800 on canvassing and get-out-the-vote efforts in support of Lamont on September 21, 2018.[22]
Race ratings
- See also: Race rating definitions and methods
Ballotpedia provides race ratings from four outlets: The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, Sabato's Crystal Ball, and DDHQ/The Hill. Each race rating indicates if one party is perceived to have an advantage in the race and, if so, the degree of advantage:
- Safe and Solid ratings indicate that one party has a clear edge and the race is not competitive.
- Likely ratings indicate that one party has a clear edge, but an upset is possible.
- Lean ratings indicate that one party has a small edge, but the race is competitive.[23]
- Toss-up ratings indicate that neither party has an advantage.
Race ratings are informed by a number of factors, including polling, candidate quality, and election result history in the race's district or state.[24][25][26]
| Race ratings: Connecticut gubernatorial election, 2018 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race tracker | Race ratings | ||||||||
| November 5, 2018 | October 30, 2018 | October 23, 2018 | October 16, 2018 | ||||||
| The Cook Political Report | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up | |||||
| Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales | Lean Democratic | Lean Democratic | Lean Democratic | Lean Democratic | |||||
| Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball | Lean Democratic | Lean Democratic | Lean Democratic | Lean Democratic | |||||
| Note: Ballotpedia updates external race ratings every two weeks throughout the election season. | |||||||||
Noteworthy endorsements
This section lists noteworthy endorsements issued in this election, including those made by high-profile individuals and organizations, cross-party endorsements, and endorsements made by newspaper editorial boards. It also includes a bulleted list of links to official lists of endorsements for any candidates who published that information on their campaign websites. Please note that this list is not exhaustive. If you are aware of endorsements that should be included, please click here.
These are notable endorsements that were issued after the Democratic and Republican primaries concluded.
For more endorsements, see the following pages:
| Noteworthy general election endorsements | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endorsement | Lamont | Stefanowski | Griebel | |||
| Newspapers and editorials | ||||||
| The Connecticut Post[27] | ✔ | |||||
| The Hartford Courant[28] | ✔ | |||||
| Elected officials | ||||||
| President Donald Trump (R)[29] | ✔ | |||||
| Former President Barack Obama (D)[30] | ✔ | |||||
| Former Vice President Joe Biden (D)[31] | ✔ | |||||
Timeline
- November 5, 2018: Lamont and Stefanowski met for a debate broadcast on WPLR-FM.
- November 2, 2018: A Gravis Marketing poll found Lamont leading Stefanowski 46-37. The poll reported a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points.
- November 1, 2018: A Sacred Heart University poll found Stefanowski about even with Lamont, with 40 percent support to Lamont's 38 percent. The poll reported a margin of error of 4.3 percentage points.
- October 31, 2018: Change PAC launched a $3 million television ad campaign in the New York City media market opposing Lamont and supporting Stefanowski.
- October 30, 2018: Lamont, Stefanowski, and Griebel met for a debate at Foxwoods.
- October 30, 2018: A Quinnipiac University poll found Lamont apparently leading Stefanowski, with 47 percent support to Stefanowski's 43 percent. The poll reported a margin of error of 4.0 percentage points.
- October 28, 2018: The Hartford Courant endorsed Oz Griebel.
- October 28, 2018: The Connecticut Post endorsed Lamont.
- October 23, 2018: A Sacred Heart University poll sponsored by Hearst Connecticut Media Group found Lamont about even with Stefanowski, with 40 percent support to Stefanowski's 36 percent. The poll reported a margin of error of 4.3 percentage points.
- October 16, 2018: Change PAC reported spending $300,000 on ads opposing Lamont that week to be followed by $430,000 weekly for the remainder of the election.
- October 15, 2018: A Public Policy Polling poll commissioned by Change CT PAC found Lamont leading Stefanowski 43-38. The poll did not report a margin of error.
- October 11, 2018: Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) endorsed Lamont.
- October 10, 2018: A Quinnipiac University poll found Lamont apparently leading Stefanowski, with 47 percent support to Stefanowski's 39 percent. The poll reported a margin of error of 5.0 percentage points.
- October 1, 2018: Former President Barack Obama (D) endorsed Lamont.
- September 26, 2018: Griebel, Lamont, and Stefanowski met for a debate in Storrs.
- September 21, 2018: The Service Employees International Union reported spending just under $300,000 on get-out-the-vote efforts in support of Lamont.
- September 17, 2018: Lamont and Stefanowski met in New Haven for their second debate.
- September 13, 2018: The Stefanowski campaign released an ad titled Crystal Clear.
- September 13, 2018: The Stefanowski campaign released an ad titled New Haven.
Campaign advertisements
This section shows advertisements released in this race. Ads released by campaigns and, if applicable, satellite groups are embedded or linked below. If you are aware of advertisements that should be included, please email us.
Ned Lamont
Support
|
|
Oppose
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Stefanowski
Support
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oppose
|
|
Oz Griebel
Support
|
|
Debates and forums
- Lamont and Stefanowski met for a debate on WPLR-FM on November 5, 2018. Click here for footage of the debate.
- Lamont, Stefanowski, and Griebel met for a debate at Foxwoods on October 30, 2018. Click here for footage of the debate.
- Lamont and Stefanowski met for a debate in New London hosted by WTNH 8 on September 12, 2018. Click here for footage of the debate.
- Lamont and Stefanowski met for a debate in New Haven hosted by WTNH 8 on September 17, 2018. Click here for footage of the debate.
- Lamont, Stefanowski, and Griebel met for a debate in Storrs hosted by Channel 3 on September 26, 2018. Click here for footage of the debate.
Campaign themes
Ned Lamont
Lamont's campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Reducing Property Taxes for the Middle Class Businesses won’t come to a state where their employees can’t afford to live. Young people won’t consider building a future in a state where they can’t afford to own a home. And long-time residents won’t retire where they can’t afford to remain. That’s why I’m proposing a plan to give Connecticut families a property tax cut. Decades of fiscal mismanagement mean we can’t afford pie-in-the-sky promises, so I’m proposing a smart, achievable commitment to responsibly give middle class families the tax relief they deserve. It’s not only the right thing to do for working families; property tax relief is key to making Connecticut a better place to start or grow a business and create jobs. Connecticut’s property tax system is broken. We rely far too much on taxing people’s homes and cars to fund essential local services. And towns and cities with the greatest local needs also have the greatest difficulty raising local revenues, with less local wealth to draw on and much of their local property exempt from taxation. Municipalities must become more efficient and reduce costs – but our state must also provide immediate relief to hard-pressed middle class families. High-need towns and cities have schools to fund, roads to repair, and police and firefighters to keep on the job. With flat or declining local wealth, they are backed into ever-higher property tax rates – making it harder to attract residents and businesses and keep long-time locals in their homes. Development is distorted, too, creating incentives for towns to limit access to families with school-aged children and making it less attractive to develop affordable housing in our cities. Worse still, the burden of high property taxes is unfairly distributed: lower- and middle-income families and seniors are hit the hardest. And this is a problem that isn’t unique to homeowners: 20 percent or more of the cost of rent in Connecticut is due to local property taxes. Reforming this broken system is imperative, but it will take time to turn around – and working families in Connecticut can’t afford to wait. Recently, the middle class lost one of the last breaks it got. Governor Malloy rolled back the property tax credit, effectively raising taxes on the middle class. In my first biennial budget as governor, I will restore and expand the property tax credit for working families. Starting in the second year of my first budget, I will reverse Malloy's tax hike by raising the property tax credit for existing beneficiaries by 50 percent. And I'll expand eligibility, allowing any taxpayer with property tax liability to participate and growing the number of Connecticut residents who can get a break. If your household earns up to $160,500 a year, you’ll qualify for relief from property taxes paid on your home or your car. 900,000 taxpayers in homes with more than 2 million Connecticut residents would see a benefit. About half of these residents will be getting much-needed property tax relief for the first time in four years. That is meaningful relief, and it’s delivered responsibly at a cost of around just 1 percent of the most recent annual state budget. Looking ahead, we need to do more. It’s no secret that Connecticut’s budget is as broken as our property tax system. Decades of fiscal mismanagement by Hartford politicians in both parties have put real limits on how much of a tax break we can reasonably afford – constraints that the Republicans willfully ignore in the hopes that no one will call them out on their fantasy math. Impossible promises won’t ever put money back in the pockets of working families in Connecticut, but responsible planning will. That’s why in my second biennial budget, I’ll propose additional property tax relief targeted at the low- and middle-income taxpayers who are hit the hardest by this broken system. We’ll use the first two years to begin to get our state’s finances back on track, so that we can afford critical tax relief aimed at the families struggling hardest in Connecticut to make ends meet. For a relatively modest cost, we can provide up to a $1,200 credit to working families owning or renting a home and paying more than 6.5 percent of their income in property taxes. There are nearly 350,000 taxpayers in Connecticut, in homes with 915,000 people, who would stand to benefit. And the average beneficiary will receive a nearly $700 tax cut. In the longer term, we need fundamental structural reform of Connecticut’s broken property tax system. That means having every stakeholder at the table – from municipal and nonprofit leaders who must do more with less, to teachers and first responders who make our communities run, to homeowners and renters who have to be able to afford a place to live. Structural reform starts with identifying inefficiencies within our fragmented system of 169 towns and cities, but it also means critically reexamining whether regional services make more sense than leaving every locality to fend for itself. These are tough choices, and only one candidate is telling the truth about them. I won’t be afraid to lead on structural reform – and to stand up right away for working families and the middle class who need a break and cannot wait. First Biennial Budget
Second Biennial Budget
Finding Savings for the Tax Plan Here are some of the cost-saving measures over the next four years that will make a meaningful and responsible middle-class tax cut possible:
These cost savings range from $305 million to $375 million and will responsibly fund meaningful property tax relief for the middle class. Building a Fair Economy Why I support equal pay for equal work Equal pay for equal work can contribute to ending Connecticut’s fiscal woes. Annually, women who are employed full time in Connecticut lose a combined total of $15 billion to the wage gap. This is why I support passing legislation that will prevent employers from salary questions, including the legislation currently raised before the Connecticut legislature. Why I support Paid Family and Medical Leave We need to increase the number of workers in our state who will have access to paid family and medical leave. This will make us a more attractive state to modern workers. According to a study done by the Connecticut Campaign for Paid Family Leave “more than 38% of millennial workers said that they would not only move state’s but move to another country for better parental benefits.” We need to protect against harassment in the workplace A second chance A strong labor movement Why I support a $15 minimum wage Increasing the minimum wage to $15 is also a tool that will help close the wage gap between men and women in our state. More than 60% of minimum wage workers in Connecticut are women, and a significant population of those women are women of color. In our state Latinas and black women make 47¢ and 58¢ respectively for every $1.00 paid to white, non-Hispanic men. This disparity is even more troubling when coupled with the reminder that more than 170,000 households in Connecticut are headed by women. Median annual income for single female-headed households in Connecticut with children under eighteen is $30,795, while the same for single male-headed households with children under eighteen is $45,986. That’s a difference that puts single mothers behind single fathers in their ability to pay for child care, cover tuition fees, put food on the table, pay the mortgage or cover their rent. Fixing the DMV It doesn’t have to be that way. The DMV touches almost all Connecticut residents. It’s one of the most common interactions between Connecticut families and their government – and our DMV is stuck in the past. I will take it into the 21st century. Cloud-based technologies customers expect in other states and other sectors could transform the DMV. Like New Yorkers, our residents should be able to renew a license from the comfort of their homes. Like Californians, they should be able to schedule all DMV appointments over their phones. And like customers at other crowded businesses such as airline check-in counters and popular restaurants, those who visit DMV service centers should be greeted by modern and efficient technologies: kiosks that allow them to bypass long lines for simple services and the option of receiving a text message when a window is ready. Many of those transformative technologies can be rolled out from day one. Others require we finally get serious about updating and integrating the DMV’s three principal computer systems. Those systems – a 40-year-old licensing mainframe, a distributed registration platform, and an online payment and scheduling tool for learners permits and road tests – have different code bases, and don’t talk to each other well. For too long, the DMV has focused on patchwork solutions rather than on creating a unified architecture. If we don’t act now, we’ll continue to fall further and further behind. We all watched as the DMV botched its initial effort to unify those computer systems. Residents grew frustrated. Wait times skyrocketed to as long as eight hours. The images of lines out the doors of the branches were startling. Connecticut watched as the DMV went back and forth with its vendor, and as the agency struggled to adapt to a new system. Even today, years after that partial roll-out, wait times at the DMV routinely exceed two hours. It has to change. I will implement a common-sense plan to make the DMV more efficient. By limiting how often people have to visit the DMV, reducing the amount of time each visit takes, and thinking strategically about how to move its computer systems into the future, I will bring efficiency and change to an agency that has frustrated people and defied politicians for decades – saving Connecticut money and saving our residents time. I have an eight-step plan to improve our system: Less Time at the DMV
The simplest and most cost-effective way to improve your interactions with the DMV is to reduce your interactions with the DMV. Although many states allow their residents to go eight years between new licenses, our legislature recently refused to extend Connecticut licenses beyond six years. I’ll extend the length of your license by a third. I’ll also extend the length of your registration by half, to three years –the length of most car leases –instead of two. Those changes will decrease visits and improve wait times for everyone.
We’ve all been there – you wait in line for an hour only to be placed in a second one to fill out another form, and then another. You get in line, take a number, sit-down, only to stand back up, show your paperwork, and sit down again to wait for another window. There are simply too many steps in the process for customers – and the sheer number of steps within a branch to complete a single transaction results in a poor customer experience full of confusion and frustration. It’s driving up wait times. I will charge the commissioner with cutting out unnecessary bureaucratic steps, revamping processes so that they’re simple and straightforward, and making sure staff are trained to use any new software up front, rather than having to learn it on the fly.
Connecticut residents shouldn’t have to go to a DMV location for simple services. Until recently, they didn’t have to: AAA offices in eight municipalities processed 150,000 annual renewals. Since those offices closed, wait times have spiked. One proven solution is making better use of an existing resource: our 169 town halls. By opening DMV Express Centers staffed by experienced DMV employees in twenty of those halls and by deploying kiosks to additional businesses, we’ll be able to provide simple, effective services to residents across the state and reduce lines inside agency branches at a relatively low cost.
As we open local centers across the state, we also need to tear apart service-as-usual and completely reinvent, rethink, and revamp the way the DMV flagship branches do business. Right now, there are 8 hub offices, 5 limited service locations, three appointment-only offices, and one “other service” location. That means we have 17 locations with varying and limited degrees of service. Instead, we need to modernize our hub offices into new supercenters, well served by public transportation, that are thoughtfully designed, equipped, and staffed to offer a best-in-class customer experience – during business hours convenient for those customers. That will streamline service provision and save money down the line. Bring the DMV into the 21st Century
Modern conveniences perfected in other states, and by banks and other private companies, need to be introduced across the Connecticut DMV. That begins with everyday expectations like remote renewals so that residents will rarely need to visit a branch in person. It includes more pioneering customer-centered technologies, like a recent Louisiana program that allows residents of that state to carry a validated digital copy of their license on their phones and tablets. And it ends with a better experience for every DMV customer in the state. We also need to publicize which services are currently available online, because one in every three DMV visitors is there to accomplish an errand that can already be done remotely.
It’s not just our customer-facing software that’s fallen behind the times. DMV computers rely on a decades-old mainframe and a patchwork of other systems that cause glitches, create inefficiencies, and waste time. We need to modernize and integrate those systems to provide a seamless customer experience and 21st-century services to Connecticut residents. That’s why I will complete the long-standing project to overhaul the DMV’s software. Accountability
The last time the DMV tried to modernize its systems, Connecticut residents spent $26 million on a lemon. 3M, the company hired to do the job, didn’t live up to its end of the bargain. As a result, wait times spiked, registrations were cancelled, and confusion ensued. We need stronger claw back standards on the books and in our contracts so that taxpayers know their money is being well-spent on quality services – and that their money will be returned if companies don’t follow through on their promises. In the middle of a fiscal crisis, we cannot let vendors get away with doing a poor job or find ourselves in prolonged legal battles over shoddy service. Instead, we need to be clear that if you want to do business with the State of Connecticut, we expect best-in-class service – and our money back if we don’t get it. We also need to ensure we have full and instant access to the code written by the vendors we hire.
The DMV should not make Connecticut residents stand in line all day, and then make them pay some of the country’s highest fees for driver’s licenses, road testing, and other services. I commit to a thorough review of the fees at the DMV and to making sure that fees for non-commercial services like driver’s licenses are no more than the regional average. Non-driver photo IDs, which are required to unlock so many public and private services, should be free to all our residents. And we should incentivize improved performance by allowing anyone forced to wait an undue amount of time for a straightforward service to get what they came for without paying a dime. Fixing the DMV is about more than respecting our residents’ time. It’s about restoring their confidence in government. I will do both – and then I will take the lessons we learn streamlining the DMV and roll them out to other state service providers that also subject residents to undue delays. Investing in Education I have visited educational institutions all over the state hearing from driven students and passionate educators, and I am proud of the hard work that Connecticut has done to improve our educational system over the past few decades. Our teachers and educators are incredibly hard-working and I thank them for their dedication to the well-being of our children and adult-learners alike. Critically, some of the ideas below represent tangible solutions that have little or no additional cost to the state, such as encouraging partnerships similar to the one between Goodwin College, Pratt and Whitney and local technology companies to grow our students’ skillsets. A strong and vibrant education system designed for the needs of individuals of all ages and aligned with employers’ needs will help drive our state’s economic recovery, as employers will be able to hire Connecticut residents for Connecticut jobs, and be confident in growing in Connecticut. That’s why I will strengthen our education system by focusing on: Child Care & Early Education In additional to the developmental and educational benefits for children and increased income for child care providers, having quality and consistent child care means parents can reenter the workforce or better retain their jobs. As governor, I will prioritize:
K-12 Education & Vo-Tech For example, in fiscal year 2019, Waterbury’s Education Cost Sharing Grant will be underfunded by more than $60 million, according to the Connecticut School Finance Project. During fiscal year 2019, Waterbury is slated to receive $136.6 million in Education Cost Sharing funding – $22.5 million is in the form of an Alliance Grant. Waterbury is not alone: many rural, suburban and urban communities now have different student populations and different needs than they did in decades past, but state funding has not been adjusted to support these communities, and the lack of transparency with how funding is dispersed further impedes fair distribution of funding. By implementing the education funding formula as it was written – based on need – we can begin to address the disparities that are present in our educational system. The education achievement gaps between our districts is heartbreaking, because it means that some of our children are being left behind. The increasing segregation of our classrooms is distressing. And we must do more to make sure that we don’t slip further behind Massachusetts or other states in K-12 education quality. As we continue to address the education achievement gap that is present across the state, we need to look at what public school systems like Macdonough Elementary School in Middletown are doing to foster a better teaching and learning environment. During the 2017-18 academic year, Macdonough Elementary School faced the possibility of closure to offset a cut in state and municipal aid. As one of 33 Alliance Districts in the state, the Middletown public school system has taken critical steps to close its achievement gap by focusing on improving test scores, increasing instructional time and creating a more diverse staff that is reflective of the student body. Macdonough has also worked to prepare our students for a 21st-century economy by teaching them problem-solving skills and how to think critically through the school’s Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics program. Macdonough’s STEM program targets students in grades four and five with a hands-on, inquiry-based approach to learning. STEM-related careers are among the fastest-growing jobs in Connecticut. We need to encourage all students – regardless of their race or gender – to pursue a STEM education so we can create a more diverse talent pool. As governor, I will work tirelessly on my first day and every day to improve educational access, equity and outcomes in the state. I am proud to support a comprehensive education reform platform to expand access to childcare and early childhood education; to improve K-12 education; to expand workforce development programs; and to make college accessible to all. That’s why as governor, I will prioritize:
Affordable Higher Education But to make sure graduates are competitive for jobs, we’ve got to make sure our wonderful institutions are aligned with the needs of employers, and students are not weighed down by mountains of debt, putting them at a significant disadvantage when they graduate and begin working. It’s no secret that Connecticut faces serious fiscal constraints, but a lack of money shouldn’t keep driven, qualified students from going to college. Studies show the incredible benefits that students gain by earning a college degree. From higher competitiveness for jobs to better lifelong earning potential, the benefits of a degree cannot be overstated. We know too that benefits extend beyond better financial prospects: Those with postsecondary degrees are healthier, and have lower unemployment rates and lower poverty rates than those without college degrees. That said, I am committed to also supporting programs that are the best fit for Connecticut residents, including apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs, career schools and two-year community colleges. All of this adds up to a better educated, diversely skilled, and more competitive workforce that will attract and retain employers to Connecticut. That’s why as governor, I will prioritize:
Vo-Tech, Job Training & Workforce Development In our interviews with thought leaders -- academics, labor leaders & CEOs -- we asked about future skill needs of their industries, strategies to address current and future gaps, and the role of the government, business and labor in moving our state forward. On the campaign trail, I’ve seen many examples of educational programs aligning to meet future skill needs of Connecticut industries, ensuring their graduates get good Connecticut jobs, but we must do more and need a coherent strategy. Six years ago, the city of Waterbury built the Waterbury Career Academy to meet the needs of the community. The vocational technical high school focuses on the health, human services and manufacturing fields, preparing students to go on to pursue a higher education at top-tier colleges and universities, apprenticeship programs or launch their careers. This year, the Vo-Tech high school is graduating its second class and has a 98.5 percent graduation rate. Like I saw in Waterbury and like I did with the CT Workforce Assessment, I’ll keep bringing our employers together with our educational institutions to make sure we understand what employers want, and in turn understand how to keep Connecticut residents competitive for well-paying Connecticut jobs. That means creating an environment where our people can succeed. That means empowering people with the skills they need to be competitive for the jobs of today and tomorrow. And that’s one reason that I was proud to convene the group of business leaders from Travelers, the head of Aetna, the head of Hartford HealthCare, the head of Stanley Black and Decker, and together we helped convince Infosys to build their new training and innovation hub right here in Hartford. That was the best day I’ve had in Connecticut in a long time because it means we’re investing in our people. I plan to continue this type of partnership as governor, and I will:
Access to Quality Healthcare For Connecticut, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has meant increased access to healthcare, lower cost and better-quality care for residents. The ACA has expanded health access to hundreds of thousands in Connecticut, including to more than 110,000 residents through Access Health CT. The ACA has been directly responsible for reducing Connecticut’s uninsured rate by 45 percent statewide, with even greater progress in some communities. Without the ACA, there would be nearly twice as many uninsured residents under the age of 65 in New Haven and Waterbury. Similarly, but for the ACA, Bridgeport would have 50 percent more uninsured nonelderly residents while Hartford’s uninsured rate would be 60 percent higher. Despite this progress, President Trump continues to seek to dismantle the ACA. Here in Connecticut, we must resist these attacks and meet the demand for quality and affordable healthcare by building on the progress of the ACA. I am proud of the work Connecticut has done to protect access to healthcare. This year, we enacted a law to protect the ACA’s 10 essential health benefits and access to birth control with no out-of-pocket costs. Protecting essential health benefits requires insurers to cover maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; and preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management. I am also proud that the General Assembly took steps to help lower healthcare costs for patients by requiring health insurance policies to cover 12-month supplies of contraceptives and holding the pharmaceutical industry and insurance carriers accountable for escalating prescription drug costs. As governor, I will build on these efforts to ensure that healthcare becomes a fundamental right for all Connecticut residents, not a privilege for a select few. This starts with: Fortifying the continuum of care options for those suffering from mental health conditions and substance use disorders and supporting mental health parity laws. Advocating for early intervention and treatment to save lives and help the state contain rising healthcare costs. Taking strong and multipronged action to reduce drug prices. I will hold pharmaceutical companies and pharmacy drug managers accountable by supporting initiatives that require they disclose drug prices, discounts and rebates. I will require drug companies to make their wholesale prices clear in advertising and detailing. I will limit the anticompetitive “coupons” for privately insured patients that Medicaid and Medicare have already done away with.
Addressing Climate Change & Expanding Renewable Energy I applaud the steps that Connecticut has already taken to transition to a sustainable energy future and counter the adverse effects of climate change. Our state has committed to the Paris Agreement even as the Trump administration has pulled out, and Connecticut along with 175 other governments has pledged to reduce emissions by 80 percent by 2050. However, I know that we can and must do more, which is why I will commit Connecticut to a further reduction in carbon emissions from current levels of 35 percent by 2030, 70 percent by 2040, and carbon neutral by 2050. These targets are tougher than required under the Paris Agreement but are achievable, measurable goals that will guide our state’s energy and environmental policy. Further, our transition to a sustainable energy future will create thousands of new jobs in the green economy – not destroy jobs as the Trump administration alleges. We know this because across our country the states with the least carbon-intensive economies, like Washington state and Massachusetts, have had some of the highest economic growth rates. We have already seen good-paying jobs created in the fuel cell, solar installation, and home weatherization industries, and I am proud that New London will become a new manufacturing and assembling base for offshore wind turbines. As the sustainable energy transition continues, I believe our state’s growth in jobs in fuel cells, solar power, and resiliency construction will pave the way for even greater growth in this area. I will make sure that many more green jobs are created. This will require bringing multiple stakeholders to the table, including industry, labor, and our fine academic institutions, and promoting innovative solutions such as the state’s recent long-term contracting in order to promote the the offshore wind project out of New London. I have spoken to many families throughout this campaign and have heard so much about how difficult it is for families to afford their energy needs, particularly during the winter. I will work diligently to bring energy costs down through a variety of steps, including investments in energy efficiency, peak shaving, more competitive bidding, and smart metering. I am a strong proponent of shifting homes away from home heating oil to much cleaner alternatives like natural gas, even better such advanced technologies efficient electric heat pumps and thermal loops. And as more renewable energy comes online in our state, we will reduce our dependence on the spot-price of natural gas which so often drives up our cost of electricity. Lastly, I pledge to seek out and be sure that science, facts, and transparency are inherent in our decision-making. I will have the state work in closer partnership with all our cities and towns to ensure sea-level rise and resiliency are more deeply imbedded in our planning and zoning processes. I myself will be, and will have all state agencies remain, open to new ideas, and be more receptive to how best to conceptualize and implement new policies and regulations with respect to climate change. I will never support a budget that diverts money from our Energy Efficiency Fund, the Green Bank, and other dedicated funding sources. These programs are funded by ratepayers and make important investments in energy efficiency, conservation, and the development of new renewable energy markets. It is simply short-sighted to shortchange these programs since they are crucial to our state’s response to climate change, and to our development of a renewable energy platform essential for the energy independence of our citizens. In order to continue Connecticut’s transition toward sustainable energy sources, to increase employment in the green economy, and to lower energy costs, I will: Resiliency Against Rising Sea Levels Our coastline is one of our most important drivers of economic growth, particularly because several of our key cities are located along our shore. Furthermore, our beautiful shoreline is one of many reasons people are attracted to live and work in Connecticut. Protecting our coastline by hardening our communities against the impacts of climate change like sea-level rise will be an important component of my resiliency strategy. Invest in Sustainable Transportation I support tolls on large tractor trailers to reduce highway congestion and to reduce dirty diesel emissions. I support the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, zero emission vehicles, and stronger emission standards in the state, and I will protect the CHEAPR tax credits for electric vehicles. I will not allow the Trump administration to weaken our vehicular emissions laws, and I strongly oppose the recent loosening of regulations on dirty glider trucks. I will put Connecticut at the forefront of the electric car revolution by working closely with manufacturers and utilities to build out the nation’s leading electric car charging infrastructure. Connecticut’s participation in the regional Transportation and Climate Initiative is important to helping meet our clean air goals and emission goals regarding transportation. Pursue Energy Conservation Energy conservation will reduce homeowners’ bills and spare us from having to fund large infrastructure projects like pipelines and transmission lines that crisscross the state.
Modernize Our Grid Expand Renewable Energy
Pursue Regional Solutions
Creating Jobs We cannot afford to have our 160,000 manufacturing jobs — nearly 10% of our workforce — look for work in other states. Connecticut’s 4,000 manufacturers will need to hire more than 13,000 workers by the end of 2018. We can’t afford to have employers looking for those 13,000 workers in other states. Experience in Small Business Fighting for CT Jobs While I was working as a professor at Central Connecticut State University, I worked with the Yale School of Management as an alum and led the CT Workforce Assessment -- a project that met with 17 of the Connecticut’s largest employers from the state’s key industries: manufacturing, insurance and finance, healthcare and bioscience, green technology, tourism and digital media. We also included the state’s core economic and industry boards and research organizations. CT Workforce Assessment Here are the problems we face, and the solutions I believe in:
Investing in Infrastructure From riding the Hartford Line between New Haven and our capital city on its opening weekend to discussing commutes with CT Transit riders and visiting Tweed Airport, I know we can overcome our infrastructure challenges and achieve faster, more reliable, better connected air, train and bus service and safer, less congested roads. Better connected cities and towns will create jobs and grow our economy because employers will be better able to hire and retain our talented workforce. But we can’t have a 21st century economy with a deficient 20th century transportation system: we must repair and modernize our infrastructure to improve and repair roads and services that employers and employees count on to get to work on time and move goods throughout the state. Moving Connecticut forward and growing our economy depends on strong cities and vibrant towns, and this cannot happen without sustainable investments inbetter infrastructure that reliably connect Connecticut’s communities to each other, the region and the world. The challenges before us are great. The situation today is that:
It’s time to take on these problems head on and we’ve got the solutions ready to make a difference. As Governor, I will focus on the areas below. Proposing these changes gets us nowhere unless we have a reliable source of revenue to keep the Special Transportation Fund solvent, and dedicate the Special Transportation Fund (STF) to infrastructure repair and development alone. I will not accept any budget that takes from the STF to pay for non-infrastructure related projects, and I strongly support the transportation lockbox amendment. I have been disappointed by the many Republican candidates for governor in this race, who in their zeal to emulate Donald Trump at every turn have proposed a variety of pie-in-the-sky tax cuts but have been cryptically silent on how they would pay for infrastructure investments. I know that improvements to roads, bridges, trains, airports, public transit, and broadband will help catalyze our state’s economic growth, so I recognize that the people of our state cannot not afford to make these investments. That is why I support electronic tolling on heavy trucksthat are coming in from out of state, which useour roads tollfree and createsignificant wear-and-tear. So next time you hear a Republican candidate promise tax cuts and new infrastructure spending, make sure you ask: where’s the money? Creating a Strategic Plan to Promote TOD Investing in Universal Broadband Access Improving Air, Rail, and Bus Service
Funding Transportation Projects Combatting the Opioid Epidemic New London has made addressing the opioid crisis a top priority. At a visit to New London’s Homeless Hospitality Center, I met with first responders, treatment providers, non-profit leaders involved with certifying and operating sober homes, “recovery navigators,” and people themselves in recovery from opioid use disorder. Everybody in that room was part of a group effort to help those suffering from opioid use disorder. This interdisciplinary “Opioid Action Team” brings together the diverse areas of expertise needed to combat the opioid crisis in a collaborative way. To address the opioid crisis that has touched all of our communities, we not only need a coordinated and collaborative approach involving families, first responders and health professionals, but we also need to increase funding for and expand access to treatment facilities. It’s crucial that the state adopt a comprehensive approach like New London’s that focuses on prevention, treatment and harm reduction. New London’s Opioid Action Team has developed one of the only action plans in Connecticut, working to increase best practice treatment services, reduce stigma and implement support services for families and communities. As governor, I would recognize that addiction is an illness and not a moral failing, and the only way to address the opioid epidemic is to treat it as what it is: a true public health emergency. In addition to studying and expanding on New London’s success, I will take the following steps to combat the opioid epidemic:
Preventing Gun Violence We have learned first hand the cost of unregulated gun ownership. As Governor, and as a parent and educator, I will make sure that we continue to lead the nation in gun safety, and I won’t let Republicans and the NRA push us backwards. Connecticut is a leader on...
But, I will ensure we do more: Every other day someone dies as a result of gun violence in Connecticut. We must build strong partnerships between our police and first responders and our communities to be proactive in preventing the conditions that lead to violence before it occurs. As governor, I will tighten our existing gun laws and close existing loopholes. This includes mandating that guns always be stored safely and limiting the number of firearms that may be purchased at once. I also support banning “bump stocks” and tightening the loopholes that allow for weapons to be upgraded to rapid fire. As governor, I will expand gun buyback programs like the one that has had success in New Haven. In 2017, students in New Haven helped connect national nonprofit Gun by Gun with the New Haven police department and the Yale New Haven Hospital to organize a gun buyback exchange. It yielded 141 weapons this past December, and I plan on actively supporting any future buyback programs shown to reduce the number of weapons in our communities. As governor, I will preserve and seek to expand funding for efforts like Project Longevity, a program launched in 2012 operating in New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport that has helped reduce rates of gun violence by intervening before violence occurs. A formal impact evaluation in New Haven of the first 18 months Project Longevity, published by a researchers from Yale University, showed a 21% decrease in total shootings per month. The researchers found a decrease of 53% in gang or group-related shootings per month “directly attributable to” the project. As governor, I will review and support implementation of policies that have had success in Connecticut and neighboring states, including Trauma-Informed Community Response in which communities, mental and social services and other health services and law enforcement work together to help communities heal from gun violence and understand how to prevent future gun violence. Violence takes its toll on a community in so many ways, we need to focus on healing the whole community and providing the supports that prevent future violence. As governor, I will be a continuous and vocal advocate for smart, common sense legislation; work with our federal delegation, regional leaders and state-based advocates to be on the right side of history putting the safety of our communities first, and be a consistent, strong voice demanding national change such as ending the federal ban on gun violence research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Investing in Arts and Culture I was horrified when Donald Trump proposed to cut all funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities last year. Unlike the President, I have a profound respect for the foundational role of the arts in our state’s civil society. I will work closely with our state’s Congressional representation to block any further Republican attempts to defund the arts, and I will categorically prevent defunding here at the state level. Further, I will work closely with local and legislative leaders to protect and grow dedicated funding streams for arts and culture. Investing in our Children I believe that all children in the state should have the opportunities to explore the arts – just as I did. I support integrating arts education at all levels of our K-12 educational system. I also strongly support nonprofits like Music Haven and the New London Youth Talent Show that empower youth through the arts and reduce the opportunity gap in urban areas. Diversity and Inclusion Did you know that Connecticut has a state troubadour? (Yes, really!) Because of READI, our state was able to reach and attract non-traditional artists, and for the first time awarded the “troubadourship” to a soul singer. I can’t wait to invite Nekita Waller to perform at my inauguration. I also strongly support efforts to reduce or eliminate entrance fees for low-income families at our state’s cultural institutions. For example, many states and communities including Massachusetts, Colorado, and Philadelphia provide free or discounted entry for SNAP recipients and their families to address income inequality and increase access to the arts. Similarly, I support programs like Blue Star Museums that increase access to the arts for our military families. However, because these free and discounted access programs are costly to our cultural institutions, I will work closely with them to make these programs more financially sustainable. Revitalizing Cities and Towns For instance, I would study the impact of UNLOAD, a nonprofit which linked a gun buyback program in Hartford with artists to get guns off the streets, or ConnCAT in New Haven, which trains and educates youth and adults with afterschool arts programming and job training programming. I am heartened by the following example, which took place in a small town in Minnesota, after the state made a commitment to dedicate and sustain funding for the arts: "When [Mayor] Gossman took office in 2008 “everything was going down the toilet,” he said. The recession had weakened a local economy in flux with the consolidation of family farms. The grocery store had closed, and the hardware store was about to. For-sale signs hung in Main Street windows." "Today, not a single empty storefront remains. Galleries and gift stores line the compact downtown. On a recent Sunday, a sign outside Goat Ridge Brewing Co. advertised brews and “pickin.’” Inside, a handful of musicians sitting in a circle played a Tom Petty tune on banjo and guitar." “There’s a rising awareness of the benefits of investing in the arts and culture, even in the smallest towns,” said Sheila Smith, executive director of Minnesota Citizens for the Arts. “People want … amenities to draw young people, especially in places where they’re losing people to the big cities." “Having a vibrant arts and culture community contributes to the life of a town.” Support Economic Development and Tourism
|
” |
| —Ned for CT[33] | ||
Bob Stefanowski
Stefanowski's campaign website stated the following:
| “ | Rebuild our Economy Connecticut is in absolute crisis. High Taxes – We have the highest tax burden in the nation. We in Connecticut have to work four weeks longer than the average American just to cover our tax bills! We need to work until May 21 – vs. April 23 on average (as reported by the Tax Foundation) Out of Control Spending – Despite five tax increases since 1992, we have a growing, $3.5 billion budget deficit and a pension plan which is underfunded by $74 billion. Job Losses – Since introducing a state income tax in 1991, we have had the slowest job growth in the entire nation – with 6,600 jobs lost in October 2017 alone. Decline Population – More people are leaving Connecticut than any other state (except West Virginia). In the last 10 years, we have lost $6 billion in adjusted gross income from people moving to Florida alone! A Dysfunctional Government – the current fiscal year budget was 117 days past due, and it included $881 million in “unidentified savings” and was already more than $200 million out of balance only a month after it was signed into law. Connecticut Democrats have followed a policy of “Tax & Spend”.
Bob’s Five-Step Plan to Rebuild Connecticut
Step 1: Phase out corporate income tax and business entity tax over 2 years
We need a bold statement – a bona fide competitive advantage – to get businesses to start here, expand here, and relocate to Connecticut – and quickly – so that the number of jobs, number of businesses, and labor force participation all start moving in the right direction again. Step 2: Phase out state income tax over 8 years
Step 3: Eliminate the gift and estate taxes immediately
We want our retirees to stay here! They create jobs, pay taxes, donate to charities, buy goods and services and sustain our state’s economy. Step 4: Embrace zero-based budgeting to reduce spending
Step 5: Enact a Taxpayer Bill of Rights
It Can Work Lower individual taxes will increase disposable income, resulting in more consumer demand and businesses will expand to meet that demand. Eliminating the gift and the estate tax will stop the exodus of high tax paying residents to Florida and other low tax states. Zero-based budgeting will force a fresh perspective on what costs are truly needed and what can be eliminated. A Taxpayer Bill of Rights will ensure accountability around government officials to best represent their constituents or be removed from office. Help Small Businesses We can lead the nation again in job growth, but only if we lower our taxes, and reduce our regulatory burden to make people and businesses WANT to move here. Bob has formed an Economic Advisory Council of small and medium-sized business owners to ensure his plan will work to grow jobs in Connecticut. Modernize Our Infrastructure Streamlining the approval process for major construction programs Spend money where it counts! Encourage Connecticut financial institutions to be part of the solution Investigate using public-private partnerships to help rebuild our crumbling infrastructure Other states have used this model to improve the quality of their infrastructure – faster, cheaper and better than the state government has any chance of doing. With the proper supervision and a business person experienced in negotiating these partnerships, PPP’s can be a very efficient way to rebuild our state. Bob has successfully worked on a wide variety of projects around the world and can bring that expertise to the governor’s office. It will take all the tools at our disposal to repair years and years of neglect to our roads and bridges. But we have many assets to draw on and with the proper leadership, we can begin the process of rebuilding our state now! Keep Retirees We lost $1.3 billion in reported adjusted gross income in Connecticut for 2015 alone! Connecticut is the ONLY state in the country to have BOTH a gift and estate tax. Under Bob’s leadership, the “death tax” will be removed day one, stemming the outflows of people, jobs and tax revenues from our state. We will reduce the burden of Connecticut’s state income tax over time making it easier for our retirees to afford to stay in the state they love with their family and friends. As the articles below show, Connecticut retirees are feeling the pain. We need to provide a better economic environment for all of our residents:
Retain Our Graduates The business climate in Connecticut is not attractive for young workers. Bob wants to build businesses, grow our economy, and bring in new workers. Starting with a welcoming business climate, he wants to bring innovative and startup jobs to Connecticut. Keeping more of our graduates will help ensure a bright future for Connecticut.[32] |
” |
| —Bob for Governor[34] | ||
Social media
Twitter accounts
Tweets by Ned Lamont Tweets by Bob Stefanowski
Facebook accounts
Click the icons below to visit the candidates' Facebook pages.
Ned Lamont
Bob Stefanowski
Other 2018 statewide elections
This race took place in one of twenty-two states that held elections for both governor and U.S. Senate in 2018.
A table of where these elections occurred, the names of incumbents prior to the 2018 elections, and links to our coverage of these races can be viewed by clicking "[show]" on the banner below:
Pivot Counties
- See also: Pivot Counties by state
One of eight Connecticut counties—12.5 percent—is a Pivot County. Pivot Counties are counties that voted for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012 and for Donald Trump (R) in 2016. Altogether, the nation had 206 Pivot Counties, with most being concentrated in upper midwestern and northeastern states.
| Counties won by Trump in 2016 and Obama in 2012 and 2008 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| County | Trump margin of victory in 2016 | Obama margin of victory in 2012 | Obama margin of victory in 2008 | ||||
| Windham County, Connecticut | 7.78% | 13.28% | 14.68% | ||||
In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton (D) won Connecticut with 54.6 percent of the vote. Donald Trump (R) received 40.9 percent. In presidential elections between 1900 and 2016, Connecticut voted Republican 53.33 percent of the time and Democratic 46.67 percent of the time. In the five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016, Connecticut voted Democratic all five times.
Presidential results by legislative district
The following table details results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections by state House districts in Connecticut. Click [show] to expand the table. The "Obama," "Romney," "Clinton," and "Trump" columns describe the percent of the vote each presidential candidate received in the district. The "2012 Margin" and "2016 Margin" columns describe the margin of victory between the two presidential candidates in those years. The "Party Control" column notes which party held that seat heading into the 2018 general election. Data on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections broken down by state legislative districts was compiled by Daily Kos.[35][36]
| In 2012, Barack Obama (D) won 120 out of 151 state House districts in Connecticut with an average margin of victory of 30.3 points. In 2016, Hillary Clinton (D) won 105 out of 151 state House districts in Connecticut with an average margin of victory of 30.9 points. Clinton won 32 districts controlled by Republicans heading into the 2018 elections. |
| In 2012, Mitt Romney (R) won 31 out of 151 state House districts in Connecticut with an average margin of victory of 8.6 points. In 2016, Donald Trump (R) won 46 out of 151 state House districts in Connecticut with an average margin of victory of 11.6 points. Trump won seven districts controlled by Democrats heading into the 2018 elections. |
| 2016 presidential results by state House district | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Obama | Romney | 2012 Margin | Clinton | Trump | 2016 Margin | Party Control |
| 1 | 92.49% | 6.77% | D+85.7 | 89.51% | 7.51% | D+82 | D |
| 2 | 51.55% | 47.37% | D+4.2 | 50.60% | 44.71% | D+5.9 | R |
| 3 | 93.57% | 5.98% | D+87.6 | 90.54% | 7.47% | D+83.1 | D |
| 4 | 92.54% | 6.94% | D+85.6 | 88.06% | 9.25% | D+78.8 | D |
| 5 | 86.69% | 12.67% | D+74 | 84.70% | 12.67% | D+72 | D |
| 6 | 88.20% | 11.40% | D+76.8 | 85.82% | 11.88% | D+73.9 | D |
| 7 | 96.89% | 2.76% | D+94.1 | 94.49% | 3.74% | D+90.8 | D |
| 8 | 55.13% | 43.29% | D+11.8 | 46.51% | 47.31% | R+0.8 | R |
| 9 | 67.00% | 31.94% | D+35.1 | 62.68% | 32.97% | D+29.7 | D |
| 10 | 76.58% | 22.61% | D+54 | 69.78% | 27.16% | D+42.6 | D |
| 11 | 74.13% | 24.75% | D+49.4 | 68.65% | 27.19% | D+41.5 | D |
| 12 | 66.56% | 32.04% | D+34.5 | 61.42% | 33.32% | D+28.1 | D |
| 13 | 60.43% | 38.23% | D+22.2 | 59.26% | 35.40% | D+23.9 | R |
| 14 | 56.37% | 42.40% | D+14 | 55.67% | 39.58% | D+16.1 | R |
| 15 | 81.61% | 17.90% | D+63.7 | 81.29% | 16.01% | D+65.3 | D |
| 16 | 49.87% | 48.82% | D+1.1 | 56.13% | 38.43% | D+17.7 | D |
| 17 | 47.47% | 51.38% | R+3.9 | 52.15% | 42.98% | D+9.2 | R |
| 18 | 68.94% | 29.85% | D+39.1 | 74.69% | 20.99% | D+53.7 | D |
| 19 | 57.66% | 41.43% | D+16.2 | 66.20% | 29.38% | D+36.8 | D |
| 20 | 68.52% | 30.32% | D+38.2 | 69.47% | 26.31% | D+43.2 | D |
| 21 | 50.75% | 48.05% | D+2.7 | 53.47% | 41.89% | D+11.6 | D |
| 22 | 61.25% | 37.50% | D+23.8 | 49.25% | 46.39% | D+2.9 | R |
| 23 | 54.11% | 44.83% | D+9.3 | 52.45% | 43.51% | D+8.9 | R |
| 24 | 70.27% | 28.84% | D+41.4 | 63.41% | 32.86% | D+30.6 | D |
| 25 | 84.83% | 14.40% | D+70.4 | 78.83% | 18.44% | D+60.4 | D |
| 26 | 71.82% | 27.05% | D+44.8 | 63.33% | 32.51% | D+30.8 | D |
| 27 | 60.13% | 38.56% | D+21.6 | 54.67% | 40.90% | D+13.8 | R |
| 28 | 54.92% | 43.86% | D+11.1 | 52.42% | 43.20% | D+9.2 | D |
| 29 | 55.94% | 42.86% | D+13.1 | 53.94% | 41.63% | D+12.3 | D |
| 30 | 49.89% | 48.85% | D+1 | 42.33% | 53.52% | R+11.2 | D |
| 31 | 50.61% | 48.25% | D+2.4 | 55.31% | 39.59% | D+15.7 | R |
| 32 | 55.04% | 43.64% | D+11.4 | 48.68% | 46.17% | D+2.5 | R |
| 33 | 68.45% | 30.17% | D+38.3 | 62.44% | 32.43% | D+30 | D |
| 34 | 52.37% | 46.13% | D+6.2 | 45.22% | 49.75% | R+4.5 | R |
| 35 | 53.54% | 45.30% | D+8.2 | 47.56% | 48.30% | R+0.7 | R |
| 36 | 56.48% | 42.32% | D+14.2 | 51.77% | 43.33% | D+8.4 | R |
| 37 | 56.45% | 42.30% | D+14.2 | 52.15% | 43.02% | D+9.1 | R |
| 38 | 56.59% | 42.00% | D+14.6 | 48.17% | 46.43% | D+1.7 | R |
| 39 | 81.86% | 16.53% | D+65.3 | 74.88% | 19.98% | D+54.9 | D |
| 40 | 57.78% | 40.50% | D+17.3 | 50.42% | 42.21% | D+8.2 | D |
| 41 | 62.63% | 35.97% | D+26.7 | 59.86% | 35.06% | D+24.8 | D |
| 42 | 51.47% | 46.82% | D+4.7 | 43.33% | 50.62% | R+7.3 | R |
| 43 | 56.83% | 41.64% | D+15.2 | 52.51% | 42.78% | D+9.7 | D |
| 44 | 54.23% | 43.73% | D+10.5 | 36.16% | 57.01% | R+20.9 | R |
| 45 | 52.33% | 45.60% | D+6.7 | 34.94% | 58.76% | R+23.8 | R |
| 46 | 68.64% | 29.50% | D+39.1 | 58.38% | 35.58% | D+22.8 | D |
| 47 | 52.23% | 46.02% | D+6.2 | 38.68% | 54.73% | R+16.1 | R |
| 48 | 56.08% | 42.14% | D+13.9 | 47.81% | 45.96% | D+1.9 | D |
| 49 | 73.67% | 24.87% | D+48.8 | 63.83% | 30.75% | D+33.1 | D |
| 50 | 49.83% | 48.43% | D+1.4 | 42.53% | 51.72% | R+9.2 | D |
| 51 | 51.10% | 46.82% | D+4.3 | 37.72% | 55.77% | R+18.1 | D |
| 52 | 47.99% | 50.41% | R+2.4 | 37.65% | 57.14% | R+19.5 | R |
| 53 | 53.61% | 44.77% | D+8.8 | 47.47% | 45.79% | D+1.7 | R |
| 54 | 74.44% | 22.99% | D+51.5 | 73.43% | 20.23% | D+53.2 | D |
| 55 | 51.04% | 47.60% | D+3.4 | 47.12% | 47.50% | R+0.4 | R |
| 56 | 60.67% | 37.75% | D+22.9 | 53.61% | 40.46% | D+13.2 | D |
| 57 | 50.28% | 48.34% | D+1.9 | 43.86% | 51.08% | R+7.2 | R |
| 58 | 58.16% | 40.10% | D+18.1 | 48.03% | 46.50% | D+1.5 | R |
| 59 | 54.00% | 44.54% | D+9.5 | 43.77% | 50.61% | R+6.8 | R |
| 60 | 60.09% | 38.49% | D+21.6 | 54.41% | 40.52% | D+13.9 | R |
| 61 | 47.86% | 50.91% | R+3.1 | 46.44% | 48.03% | R+1.6 | R |
| 62 | 46.32% | 52.24% | R+5.9 | 42.91% | 51.10% | R+8.2 | R |
| 63 | 45.24% | 53.11% | R+7.9 | 35.91% | 59.22% | R+23.3 | R |
| 64 | 58.49% | 40.18% | D+18.3 | 55.25% | 39.96% | D+15.3 | R |
| 65 | 50.51% | 47.54% | D+3 | 39.91% | 54.86% | R+15 | D |
| 66 | 44.89% | 53.81% | R+8.9 | 42.18% | 53.32% | R+11.1 | R |
| 67 | 50.13% | 48.38% | D+1.8 | 44.87% | 50.51% | R+5.6 | R |
| 68 | 38.36% | 60.44% | R+22.1 | 31.77% | 64.70% | R+32.9 | R |
| 69 | 47.56% | 51.44% | R+3.9 | 47.18% | 48.90% | R+1.7 | R |
| 70 | 49.43% | 48.89% | D+0.5 | 39.65% | 55.54% | R+15.9 | R |
| 71 | 44.04% | 54.99% | R+11 | 41.39% | 54.93% | R+13.5 | R |
| 72 | 78.99% | 20.44% | D+58.6 | 71.22% | 26.33% | D+44.9 | D |
| 73 | 59.14% | 40.12% | D+19 | 53.73% | 43.11% | D+10.6 | D |
| 74 | 60.54% | 38.37% | D+22.2 | 55.35% | 41.21% | D+14.1 | R |
| 75 | 82.13% | 17.29% | D+64.8 | 75.49% | 22.22% | D+53.3 | D |
| 76 | 42.30% | 56.16% | R+13.9 | 35.72% | 59.35% | R+23.6 | R |
| 77 | 57.96% | 40.82% | D+17.1 | 47.28% | 48.37% | R+1.1 | R |
| 78 | 49.31% | 49.34% | R+0 | 37.09% | 59.43% | R+22.3 | R |
| 79 | 62.13% | 36.79% | D+25.3 | 50.65% | 44.76% | D+5.9 | D |
| 80 | 39.96% | 59.03% | R+19.1 | 31.66% | 64.81% | R+33.2 | R |
| 81 | 52.24% | 46.34% | D+5.9 | 43.60% | 51.71% | R+8.1 | R |
| 82 | 61.74% | 37.01% | D+24.7 | 51.60% | 43.65% | D+8 | D |
| 83 | 57.43% | 41.64% | D+15.8 | 48.30% | 47.77% | D+0.5 | D |
| 84 | 78.63% | 20.21% | D+58.4 | 68.42% | 27.38% | D+41 | D |
| 85 | 58.63% | 40.00% | D+18.6 | 49.49% | 45.95% | D+3.5 | D |
| 86 | 50.94% | 47.93% | D+3 | 41.45% | 55.07% | R+13.6 | R |
| 87 | 51.00% | 47.91% | D+3.1 | 43.00% | 53.54% | R+10.5 | R |
| 88 | 64.84% | 34.33% | D+30.5 | 63.09% | 33.50% | D+29.6 | D |
| 89 | 45.88% | 52.83% | R+7 | 41.73% | 53.94% | R+12.2 | R |
| 90 | 49.50% | 49.27% | D+0.2 | 44.92% | 50.42% | R+5.5 | R |
| 91 | 71.02% | 28.05% | D+43 | 68.79% | 28.01% | D+40.8 | D |
| 92 | 90.04% | 9.26% | D+80.8 | 88.23% | 8.87% | D+79.4 | D |
| 93 | 94.04% | 5.26% | D+88.8 | 92.21% | 5.63% | D+86.6 | D |
| 94 | 89.09% | 10.11% | D+79 | 86.85% | 10.34% | D+76.5 | D |
| 95 | 93.24% | 6.45% | D+86.8 | 87.85% | 10.25% | D+77.6 | D |
| 96 | 80.44% | 18.19% | D+62.3 | 77.99% | 18.82% | D+59.2 | D |
| 97 | 79.86% | 19.36% | D+60.5 | 71.03% | 26.02% | D+45 | D |
| 98 | 58.10% | 41.10% | D+17 | 59.59% | 36.92% | D+22.7 | D |
| 99 | 58.20% | 40.74% | D+17.5 | 43.42% | 53.68% | R+10.3 | D |
| 100 | 68.37% | 30.20% | D+38.2 | 59.83% | 34.70% | D+25.1 | D |
| 101 | 50.24% | 49.15% | D+1.1 | 52.73% | 42.75% | D+10 | R |
| 102 | 59.07% | 39.83% | D+19.2 | 54.29% | 42.07% | D+12.2 | D |
| 103 | 49.87% | 48.93% | D+0.9 | 47.42% | 48.09% | R+0.7 | D |
| 104 | 61.67% | 37.00% | D+24.7 | 48.24% | 47.64% | D+0.6 | D |
| 105 | 47.47% | 50.85% | R+3.4 | 36.71% | 58.78% | R+22.1 | R |
| 106 | 46.91% | 51.93% | R+5 | 49.00% | 46.32% | D+2.7 | R |
| 107 | 46.14% | 52.69% | R+6.6 | 45.69% | 50.22% | R+4.5 | R |
| 108 | 46.63% | 52.18% | R+5.6 | 43.14% | 52.59% | R+9.5 | R |
| 109 | 59.30% | 39.85% | D+19.5 | 54.64% | 41.59% | D+13.1 | D |
| 110 | 69.46% | 29.43% | D+40 | 66.40% | 29.93% | D+36.5 | D |
| 111 | 46.72% | 52.32% | R+5.6 | 55.72% | 39.70% | D+16 | R |
| 112 | 43.53% | 55.23% | R+11.7 | 42.08% | 53.69% | R+11.6 | R |
| 113 | 45.59% | 53.06% | R+7.5 | 38.93% | 56.85% | R+17.9 | R |
| 114 | 52.24% | 46.77% | D+5.5 | 51.57% | 44.86% | D+6.7 | R |
| 115 | 69.14% | 29.79% | D+39.4 | 57.47% | 38.78% | D+18.7 | D |
| 116 | 82.99% | 16.24% | D+66.8 | 75.09% | 22.25% | D+52.8 | D |
| 117 | 54.80% | 44.05% | D+10.8 | 46.58% | 49.79% | R+3.2 | R |
| 118 | 56.74% | 41.72% | D+15 | 50.06% | 45.44% | D+4.6 | D |
| 119 | 49.33% | 49.44% | R+0.1 | 46.15% | 50.19% | R+4 | R |
| 120 | 52.66% | 46.17% | D+6.5 | 49.00% | 46.86% | D+2.1 | D |
| 121 | 69.58% | 29.53% | D+40.1 | 63.75% | 32.86% | D+30.9 | D |
| 122 | 43.71% | 55.48% | R+11.8 | 40.56% | 56.27% | R+15.7 | R |
| 123 | 46.02% | 53.07% | R+7.1 | 47.40% | 48.87% | R+1.5 | R |
| 124 | 92.91% | 6.85% | D+86.1 | 88.21% | 10.08% | D+78.1 | D |
| 125 | 38.12% | 60.99% | R+22.9 | 54.45% | 40.22% | D+14.2 | R |
| 126 | 87.89% | 11.69% | D+76.2 | 82.05% | 15.49% | D+66.6 | D |
| 127 | 73.75% | 25.71% | D+48 | 70.48% | 26.91% | D+43.6 | D |
| 128 | 93.61% | 5.92% | D+87.7 | 88.85% | 9.56% | D+79.3 | D |
| 129 | 77.69% | 21.51% | D+56.2 | 74.21% | 22.70% | D+51.5 | D |
| 130 | 92.36% | 7.37% | D+85 | 87.37% | 10.56% | D+76.8 | D |
| 131 | 43.13% | 55.42% | R+12.3 | 35.63% | 60.28% | R+24.7 | R |
| 132 | 49.34% | 49.72% | R+0.4 | 56.65% | 39.38% | D+17.3 | R |
| 133 | 57.75% | 41.06% | D+16.7 | 59.87% | 35.88% | D+24 | D |
| 134 | 45.32% | 53.75% | R+8.4 | 50.73% | 45.11% | D+5.6 | R |
| 135 | 49.88% | 49.04% | D+0.8 | 58.64% | 36.95% | D+21.7 | R |
| 136 | 56.68% | 42.57% | D+14.1 | 69.50% | 26.62% | D+42.9 | D |
| 137 | 66.76% | 31.99% | D+34.8 | 66.51% | 29.67% | D+36.8 | D |
| 138 | 51.38% | 47.42% | D+4 | 50.31% | 45.50% | D+4.8 | R |
| 139 | 58.71% | 39.40% | D+19.3 | 46.27% | 47.70% | R+1.4 | D |
| 140 | 80.35% | 18.77% | D+61.6 | 76.93% | 19.96% | D+57 | D |
| 141 | 39.54% | 59.82% | R+20.3 | 56.05% | 38.27% | D+17.8 | R |
| 142 | 52.46% | 46.56% | D+5.9 | 56.93% | 39.06% | D+17.9 | R |
| 143 | 49.54% | 49.41% | D+0.1 | 57.08% | 38.35% | D+18.7 | R |
| 144 | 55.71% | 43.34% | D+12.4 | 57.85% | 38.43% | D+19.4 | D |
| 145 | 82.37% | 17.09% | D+65.3 | 80.19% | 17.15% | D+63 | D |
| 146 | 66.49% | 32.45% | D+34 | 70.69% | 25.77% | D+44.9 | D |
| 147 | 50.78% | 48.18% | D+2.6 | 57.96% | 38.09% | D+19.9 | D |
| 148 | 69.33% | 29.79% | D+39.5 | 68.87% | 27.90% | D+41 | D |
| 149 | 42.34% | 56.81% | R+14.5 | 54.38% | 41.72% | D+12.7 | R |
| 150 | 48.35% | 50.82% | R+2.5 | 61.39% | 34.60% | D+26.8 | R |
| 151 | 43.49% | 55.63% | R+12.1 | 55.81% | 39.53% | D+16.3 | R |
| Total | 58.08% | 40.75% | D+17.3 | 54.65% | 40.99% | D+13.7 | - |
| Source: Daily Kos | |||||||
Election history
2014
- See also: Connecticut Gubernatorial election, 2014
In the 2014 gubernatorial election, incumbent Dan Malloy (D) defeated Tom Foley (R).
| Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut, 2014 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
| Democratic |  Dan Malloy/Nancy Wyman Incumbent |
50.7% | 554,314 | |
| Republican | Tom Foley/Heather Somers | 48.2% | 526,295 | |
| Independent | Joe Visconti/Chester Harris | 1% | 11,456 | |
| Nonpartisan | Write-in votes | 0.1% | 708 | |
| Total Votes | 1,092,773 | |||
| Election results via Connecticut Secretary of State | ||||
2010
- See also: Connecticut gubernatorial election, 2010
In the 2010 gubernatorial election, Dan Malloy (D) defeated Tom Foley (R).
| Governor, Lieutenant Governor, 2010 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
| Democratic | Dan Malloy & Nancy Wyman |
49.5% | 567,278 | |
| Republican | Tom Foley & Mark Boughton | 49% | 560,874 | |
| Independent | Thomas E. Marsh & Cicero B. Booker, Jr. | 1.5% | 17,629 | |
| Total Votes | 1,145,781 | |||
Wave election analysis
- See also: Wave elections (1918-2016)
The term wave election is frequently used to describe an election cycle in which one party makes significant electoral gains. How many seats would Republicans have had to lose for the 2018 midterm election to be considered a wave election?
Ballotpedia examined the results of the 50 election cycles that occurred between 1918 and 2016—spanning from President Woodrow Wilson's (D) second midterm in 1918 to Donald Trump's (R) first presidential election in 2016. We define wave elections as the 20 percent of elections in that period resulting in the greatest seat swings against the president's party.
Applying this definition to gubernatorial elections, we found that Republicans needed to lose seven seats for 2018 to qualify as a wave election.
The chart below shows the number of seats the president's party lost in the 11 gubernatorial waves from 1918 to 2016. Click here to read the full report.
| Gubernatorial wave elections | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | President | Party | Election type | Gubernatorial seats change | Elections analyzed[38] | |
| 1970 | Nixon | R | First midterm | -12 | 35 | |
| 1922 | Harding | R | First midterm | -11 | 33 | |
| 1932 | Hoover | R | Presidential | -10 | 35 | |
| 1920 | Wilson | D | Presidential | -10 | 36 | |
| 1994 | Clinton | D | First midterm | -10 | 36 | |
| 1930 | Hoover | R | First midterm | -9 | 33 | |
| 1938 | Roosevelt | D | Second midterm | -9 | 33 | |
| 1966 | Johnson | D | First midterm[39] | -9 | 35 | |
| 1954 | Eisenhower | R | First midterm | -8 | 33 | |
| 1982 | Reagan | R | First midterm | -7 | 36 | |
| 2010 | Obama | D | First midterm | -7 | 33 | |
State overview
Partisan control
This section details the partisan control of federal and state positions in Connecticut heading into the 2018 elections.
Congressional delegation
- Following the 2016 elections, Democrats held both U.S. Senate seats in Connecticut.
- Democrats held all five U.S. House seats in Connecticut.
State executives
- As of August 2018, Democrats held six of 12 state executive positions, the remaining six positions were officially nonpartisan.
- The governor of Connecticut was Democrat Dan Malloy. The state held elections for governor and lieutenant governor on November 6, 2018.
State legislature
- Democrats controlled both chambers of the Connecticut General Assembly. They had a 80-71 majority in the state House and a 18-18 majority in the state Senate.
Trifecta status
- Connecticut was one of eight Democratic trifectas, meaning that Democrats controlled the office of the governor, the state House, and the state Senate.
2018 elections
- See also: Connecticut elections, 2018
Connecticut held elections for the following positions in 2018:
- One U.S. Senate seat
- Five U.S. House seats
- Governor and lieutenant governor
- Four lower state executive positions
- 36 state Senate seats
- 151 state House seats
Demographics
| Demographic data for Connecticut | ||
|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 3,584,730 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 4,842 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 77.3% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 10.3% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 4.2% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.2% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 2.8% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 14.7% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 89.9% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 37.6% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $70,331 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 12.2% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Connecticut. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
As of July 2016, Connecticut's three largest cities were Bridgeport (pop. est. 146,579), New Haven (pop. est. 131,014), and Stamford (pop. est. 130,824).[40][41]
State election history
This section provides an overview of federal and state elections in Connecticut from 2000 to 2016. All data comes from the Connecticut Secretary of State.
Historical elections
Presidential elections, 2000-2016
This chart shows the results of the presidential election in Connecticut every year from 2000 to 2016.
| Election results (President of the United States), Connecticut 2000-2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
| 2016 | 54.6% | 40.9% | 13.7% | ||
| 2012 | 58.1% | 40.8% | 17.3% | ||
| 2008 | 60.6% | 38.2% | 22.4% | ||
| 2004 | 54.3% | 43.9% | 10.4% | ||
| 2000 | 55.9% | 38.4% | 17.5% | ||
U.S. Senate elections, 2000-2016
This chart shows the results of U.S. Senate races in Connecticut from 2000 to 2016. Every state has two Senate seats, and each seat goes up for election every six years. The terms of the seats are staggered so that roughly one-third of the seats are up every two years.
| Election results (U.S. Senator), Connecticut 2000-2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
| 2016 | 63.2% | 34.6% | 28.6% | ||
| 2012 | 54.8% | 43.1% | 11.7% | ||
| 2010 | 55.2% | 43.2% | 12% | ||
| 2006 | 49.7% | 39.7% | 12.2% | ||
| 2004 | 66.4% | 32.1% | 34.3% | ||
| 2002 | 63.2% | 34.2% | 29% | ||
Gubernatorial elections, 2000-2016
This chart shows the results of the four gubernatorial elections held between 2000 and 2016. Gubernatorial elections are held every four years in Connecticut.
| Election results (Governor), Connecticut 2000-2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
| 2014 | 50.7% | 48.2% | 2.5% | ||
| 2010 | 49.5% | 49% | .5% | ||
| 2006 | 63.2% | 35.5% | 27.7% | ||
| 2002 | 56.1% | 43.9% | 12.2% | ||
Congressional delegation, 2000-2016
This chart shows the number of Democrats and Republicans who were elected to represent Connecticut in the U.S. House from 2000 to 2016. Elections for U.S. House seats are held every two years.
| Congressional delegation, Connecticut 2000-2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Republicans | Republicans (%) | Democrats | Democrats (%) | Balance of power |
| 2016 | 0% | 100% | D+5 | ||
| 2014 | 0% | 100% | D+5 | ||
| 2012 | 0% | 100% | D+5 | ||
| 2010 | 0% | 100% | D+5 | ||
| 2008 | 36.8% | 100% | D+5 | ||
| 2006 | 20% | 80% | D+4 | ||
| 2004 | 60% | 40% | R+1 | ||
| 2002 | 60% | 40% | R+1 | ||
| 2000 | 40% | 60.0% | D+1 | ||
Trifectas, 1992-2017
A state government trifecta occurs when one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.
Connecticut Party Control: 1992-2025
Fifteen years of Democratic trifectas • No Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.
| Year | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Governor | I | I | I | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D |
| Senate | D | D | D | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D |
| House | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D |
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Connecticut lieutenant governor election 2018. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
|
Connecticut government: |
Elections: |
Ballotpedia exclusives: |
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Ned Lamont for Governor, "Lamont on Primary Night: Believe in Connecticut," August 14, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Ned Lamont for Governor, "Home," accessed September 13, 2018
- ↑ CT Post, "Stefanowski, Lamont repeat political jabs in second debate," September 17, 2018
- ↑ Bob for Governor, "Home," accessed September 13, 2018
- ↑ Bob for Governor, "Issues," accessed September 13, 2018
- ↑ Reclaim CT, "Lamont v. Stefanowski is Not Really About Lamont v. Stefanowski," August 29, 2018
- ↑ Hartford Courant, "Six Revealing Moments From The First Debate Between Ned Lamont And Bob Stefanowski," September 12, 2018
- ↑ Bob for Governor, "Debate Taxes Splash Page," accessed September 18, 2018
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Oz for Connecticut, "Why We're Running," accessed November 5, 2018
- ↑ Oz for CT, "Home," accessed November 5, 2018
- ↑ OpenSecrets.org, "Outside Spending," accessed September 22, 2015
- ↑ OpenSecrets.org, "Total Outside Spending by Election Cycle, All Groups," accessed September 22, 2015
- ↑ National Review.com, "Why the Media Hate Super PACs," November 6, 2015
- ↑ WNPR, "GOP Governors Association Sees Connecticut As Top Chance For Gaining Seat," August 29, 2018
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 The CT Mirror, "Stefanowski is on the trail, looking for money and votes," September 4, 2018
- ↑ NBC Connecticut, "Outside Money Already Making Its Way Into Governor's Race," August 22, 2018
- ↑ Miami Herald, "National GOP investing in Stefanowski, hoping to win seat," October 5, 2018
- ↑ The CT Mirror, "With RGA helping Stefanowski, the TV air war is roughly even," October 9, 2018
- ↑ Hartford Courant, "Republican Governors Group Pumps $3M Into NYC Ad Blitz To Help Bob Stefanowski," October 31, 2018
- ↑ The CT Mirror, "Stefanowski goes positive, leaving attacks to a GOP super PAC," October 16, 2018
- ↑ CT Post, "PAC money streams in for last week," October 31, 2018
- ↑ Hartford Courant, "Union Spends $300K To Help Canvass For Ned Lamont," September 24, 2018
- ↑ Inside Elections also uses Tilt ratings to indicate an even smaller advantage and greater competitiveness.
- ↑ Amee LaTour, "Email correspondence with Nathan Gonzalez," April 19, 2018
- ↑ Amee LaTour, "Email correspondence with Kyle Kondik," April 19, 2018
- ↑ Amee LaTour, "Email correspondence with Charlie Cook," April 22, 2018
- ↑ The Connecticut Post, "Editorial: Ned Lamont for governor," October 28, 2018
- ↑ Hartford Courant, "Editorial: The Courant Endorses Oz Griebel For Governor," October 28, 2018
- ↑ CT Post, "Trump endorses Stefanowski for governor in a tweet," August 15, 2018
- ↑ Hartford Courant, "Barack Obama Endorses Ned Lamont For Governor, Jahana Hayes For Congress," October 1, 2018
- ↑ WTNH 8, "Biden endorses Lamont in Connecticut gubernatorial race," October 11, 2018
- ↑ 32.0 32.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Ned for CT, "On the Issues," archived September 15, 2018
- ↑ Bob Stefanowski for Governor, "Issues," accessed September 13, 2018
- ↑ Daily Kos, "Daily Kos Elections' statewide election results by congressional and legislative districts," July 9, 2013
- ↑ Daily Kos, "Daily Kos Elections' 2016 presidential results for congressional and legislative districts," February 6, 2017
- ↑ Connecticut Secretary of State, "2010 General Election Results," accessed January 8, 2013
- ↑ The number of gubernatorial seats up for election varies, with as many as 36 seats and as few as 12 seats being up in a single even-numbered year.
- ↑ Lyndon Johnson's (D) first term began in November 1963 after the death of President John F. Kennedy (D), who was first elected in 1960. Before Johnson had his first midterm in 1966, he was re-elected president in 1964.
- ↑ Cubit, "Connecticut by Population," accessed August 30, 2018
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Quickfacts Connecticut," accessed August 30, 2018
| |||||||||||||
 |
State of Connecticut Hartford (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||