Head Scratcher: Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy Raised Taxes, Increased Spending, Demonized Guns. So Why Isn't He More Popular?


Dan Malloy Is Progressives' Dream Governor. So Why Isn't He Winning?

From immigration to gun control and the minimum wage, Connecticut's Dan Malloy signed into law a wish list of lefty priorities. But he's locked in a tie with his Republican challenger.

That's the actual headline and sub-head to a Daily Beast piece about Dan Malloy, the incumbent governor of Connecticut whose re-election is looking pretty shakey.

Higher taxes on the rich? Check. A state earned income tax credit for the poor? Check. A higher minimum wage? Connecticut was the first state to raise it to $10.10 an hour after President Obama called for it. There is more: mandatory paid sick leave, repeal of the death penalty…strict new gun control laws, and massive new spending on public education, higher education, and infrastructure.

Full Beast piece here.

Here's a hint as to why Malloy is in a pickle: Most of the things he did, especially when it comes to taxing and spending more, are genuinely unpopular. Indeed, just 23 percent of Americans (a recent high, by the way) see themselves as liberal.

He's not in a tight race despite his legislative victories but because of them. You know, kind of like the way Barack Obama's first two years of complete free run led to a GOP-controlled House.

NEXT: Report: Police Disrupt School Shooting Plans

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "Just 23 percent of Americans (a recent high, by the way) see themselves as liberal."

    Liberals hate the American people--because the American people don't love their fellow man.

    1. I would guesstimate that the number of proggies and the number of libertarians in the USA is roughly about the same. Maybe 15-20% or so. Proggies might enjoy something like and advantage of 5% over libertarians, but I doubt it's more than that.

      Seems odd then that the proggies basically have complete control of the media, our education system, and a lot of other important institutions.

      I guess the only way to feel good about that is to realize the progs have been at it for 100+ years, but libertarians are a relatively new thing on the scene. I think the original classic liberals went extinct shortly after Jefferson and Adams both took a dirt nap. So how far back does the modern libertarian movement go? Maybe 30 years at most? And for most of that time, in fact, until just the last year or two, most people never even heard of the term or knew it was a thing, and you never heard about libertarians in the media, ever.

      1.'re the pot-smoking, open-borders, ass-sex guys....


        1. They are just conservatives who like to smoke dope and have ass sex.

          1. don't ever forget their unquenchable thirst to hang with Mexicans.

            1. There is this great Mexican restaurant in town - if I could eat there everyday, I would.

              Now those are the kind of Mexicans I want - and the ass sex and dope.

            2. Both times we've done a Boston area meetup (at a non-Reason event), we went to a Mexican restaurant...

            3. Don't forget people exposed to Ebola - we love 'em.

              1. Free to spread their infection across the fruited plain.

          2. So....yeah.

          3. Even among libertarians I am an outcast!

      2. I agree with that. The Progs are just deadly effective because unlike Libertarians they are utterly ruthless and obsessed with winning at any cost and, since they are totally obsessed with politics, have managed to take over nearly every major civic and cultural institution in America and co-opt it into supporting their politics.

        Libertarians fighting Progressives is really the equivalent of some nerdy kid trying to beat up the Klitschko brothers.

        1. Also, controlling the media is more helpful in getting people to listen to you than controlling the tech industry.

          1. Media and entertainment. It allows progs to control what issues are discussed and what language is used to discuss those issues. With that power they have managed to get millions of people to think that the only way to show concern for the less fortunate is to vote Democrat.

          2. The problem is that if a Libertarian becomes say a film maker or a TV show writer, they will not necessarily make everything about politics. They will just write whatever they think is good. And they certainly won't make any effort to run people who disagree with them out of the industry.

            Contrast that with a Prog. A prog will immediately make everything they do in some way support and reinforce their ideology. And they also will take whatever actions are necessary to eliminate anyone with different politics from the industry.

            Given the contrast between the two, what chance does the Libertarian have? Every organization that is not explicitly and exclusively for the Right will inevitably become co-opted by the Left.

            1. Not only that, but progs are much more willing to work incrementally and in coalitions. They rarely say "I won't support this left-wing Democrat because he only agrees with me 75% of the time." They'll take what they can and keep pushing. Libertarians are too often obsessed with purity and ideological consistency.

              1. Yes. They are utterly relentless and obsessed with politics. They are not normal people. Normal people have other interests and get bored and don't want to spend their lives fighting about politics. Progs do.

              2. How could the progs even be obsessed with ideological consistency when they don't have an ideology to be consistent about?

                1. Progs are obsessed with ideological conformity.

                2. Well, they have a group of feelings that coalesce around a solution (more government). So they want a consistency around those things.

        2. but we have our secret weapon: Warty

          1. Isn't that more like a Doomsday Device?

            1. They may win the war, but we will win the apocalypse.

              1. Well, sure, you will. I don't have a horde of fanatical and masked followers at my disposal!

      3. I think the reason why things are the way they are is because proggies and other statists seek positions of power within gov. so they can lord over everyone with the power of the gun. Libertarians/anarchists just generally want to be left alone so they don't often seek positions of power due to having different interests than the pursuit to lord over the gen pop.

        1. It is not that. It is that Progs are totalitarian and thus think all aspects of life are political. If they just sought power in government, it wouldn't be so bad. It is that wherever they seek power, it is always done in support of their politics. So whenever a Prog runs a newspaper, that newspaper will operate for the single purpose of furthering Prog ideology. Wherever a prog runs a movie studio or a college or anything else, the organization will be subverted into being a tool for politics.

          Libertarians and conservatives don't generally do that because they see politics as something separate from art or industry. So they when they run a symphony or a sports team or a college they don't subvert it to become a tool to advance their politics. This makes fighting the Progs very hard to do.

          1. If I learned anything else from being in college, progressives fight incredibly dirty. If they can't battle you using facts, they will use ad hominems and false premises with a mixture of sophistry. Trying to have a reasoned argument with a lot of them is damn near impossible because they are emotionally invested in their beliefs.

            Like Bastiat said, if you don't support the government doing soemthing, socialists will say that you are against whatever their pet cause is at the moment.

            1. And they are relentless. They won't just agree to disagree. They will take whatever action necessary to either bully you into remaining quiet or running you out of the organization altogether.

        2. I think one of the problems for libertarians is that when they do win, they don't dole out goodies to their supporters.

          How many fellow travelers of the Progs are supporting their movement because they are cynical bastards who are counting on getting a lucrative government contract? Or a cushy no show job? Or run a non-profit that will get a big grant to eliminate global warming?

          Hard to get help taking over the government when your promise is to take away all those goodies.

      4. Hard to influence education and the media from re-education camps.

      5. Didn't the progressive movement accomplish more in its first 30 years, though? I'm not a historian but my impression is they did.

        It seems to me like there are two significant possibilities why libertarians remain mostly powerless.

        1) Americans genuinly hate libertarianism.
        2) Libertarians are bad at organizing and communicating in ways that lead to political victory.

        Certainly, some Americans hate libertarianism with a passion, but I don't think it is a majority. I think 2) is the main reason.

        The lesson I take away from this is that libertarians would do well to research and implement some of the tactics of the early progressives, where doing so is not totally counter to principles.

        1. See my post above. Progs have had so much success because the subvert any institution they touch and thus have over time made every major civic institution in the country into nothing but a tool for pushing Prog politics. Libertarians, because they are not evil, don't think that way and thus have much less influence.

          1. I read it, but I don't take the "they're evil and we're not" argument seriously. I'm not trying to be a dick saying that, but it is just too self-congratulatory. It's a cop out.

            Taking power isn't always evil. Being vocal about what you believe in and reflecting that in your work isn't always evil. Being an activist isn't always evil. Not enough libertarians engage in those things.

            1. Call it what you like. But if you take an organization no matter how benign, lets say a little league baseball league, and have it run by libertarians and conservatives it will be about kids playing baseball. Put a critical mass of progs in the organization, it won't be about kids playing baseball anymore. It will be about doing community service and teaching the kids prog values and building their self esteem and everything but baseball. It is what they do and why they destroy any organization they touch.

        2. How about; it's a little early for Libertarianism to dominate. The Progressives were just getting into their stride in the 1930's. they'd had some victories as early as Teddy Roosevelt's term, but the Progressivism of TR and the Progressivism of Barak Obama are poles apart.

          It took a long time for the Proggies to run all their ideas into the ground. The long march back is just beginning.

          1. That is not true. The progressives utterly dominated from TR right up through the Wilson administration. They also completely destroyed their brand such that they stopped calling themselves that and instead called themselves liberals.

            Progressives were all powerful under Wilson and the result was complete disaster for the country and Coolidge winning the largest landslide in US history in 1920.

            1. Correction, Warren G. Harding won in 1920. Coolidge took over in 1923 when Harding died.

      6. Liberals and Progs have social instincts that make them very good at infiltrating power structures and directing them. Social signalling especially but that's not all. That's why they hate creative destruction: it would destroy the institutions they take over and use most critically universities.

        1. The long march through the institutions.

          1. Burn the institutions.

            1. Sadly, that is the only choice these people leave us. They are like plague infested rats.

        2. "We will take America without firing a shot ... we will bury you!"

          "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism."

          "We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within."

          Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev.

          There are still people working towards this goal. We call them "Professors".

  2. When proggies actually get what they say they want, they realize that something isn't right. They just can't figure out what it is. I mean it can't possibly be that they were wrong about things. Ok, strike that, since they don't have any original independent thought of their own let me restate it. Their leaders who decided on what the hive mind should think cannot possibly be wrong. Therefore, it must be an evul rethuglican trick of some kind. Solution? More of the same!

    1. When results don't match intentions, it's time to try harder.

      That's how we pave the road to hell.

      1. I wrote a letter to Bush about that regarding the No Child Left Behind Act in High School. (We had to write a letter to a public official, and I figured that was mostly likely not to be published in the local paper, like so many others were.)

        Pretty sure I'm on some list(s) now.

        1. If you weren't on a list before, be assured that you are now since posting here.

          1. Could be worse, I guess.

            I could've had my name crossed out because I'm no longer active in my dissent.

            1. Don't worry, you'll have all of us nice folks here for company in the camps.

            2. Your name was crossed out the moment you posted here, because you're no longer active relevant in your dissent (descent?).

    2. I suspect Connecticut is like California. Hell, a lot of those people in Connecticut make their money on Wall Street. It isn't about the economy, really. It's about cultural stuff. They didn't understand the Tea Party--it looked like a bunch of rednecks to them.

      Massachusetts is weird that way, too. There are plenty of Irish Catholics, there, who could give any Tea Party redneck a run for their money on cultural conservatism. They've just been roped in by public money and the idea that their cultural identity is wrapped up in the Democratic machine.

      A lot of people were pissed off about the Iraq War, so they voted for Obama.

      A lot of people were pissed off about Obama, so they voted for the Tea Party.

      A lot of people were freaked out by the Tea Party, so they reelected Obama.

      They're pissed off at Obama again, so now they're going to vote Republican?


      Stop freaking swing voters out on stupid, culturally conservative shit that doesn't have anything to do with the economy; otherwise, people are going to get freaked out by the Republicans again, and we're gonna end up with President Hillary Clinton and her Treasury Secretary is going to be Liz "Class War" Warren.

    3. Clearly, this was Market Failure? and an obstructionist Congress in Washington.

      Also, fried chicken.

      1. And video games?

  3. None of these policies are popular and none of them produce anything but misery for the public at large. The Democrats manage to win anyway because they convince voters that voting Democrat is a way of showing people they are intelligent and tolerant. That is really all there is to it.

    1. That and because Republicans are going to repeal RvW and put gays in jail.

      1. That is right. So if you vote anything but Democrat, be that L or R, you are just telling the world you hate gays, science and black people. The only way you can prove that you are smart and tolerant and not one of the under class redneck racists is to vote Democrat.

        That is the entire political pitch of the Democratic Party. Though it sounds laughable it is deadly effective.

        1. Did you watch the Rock the Vote video in the earlier thread? Someone's reason for turning out was "racial equality". There of course were some stuff about gays, and climate change (which I assume they would consider to be pro-science), but the racial one really surprised me.

          1. It would have been one thing if they discusses how the War on Drugs hit blacks and minorities the hardest but instead they actually believe that voting Democrat helps black people. They don't know why but yet say this all the time.

          2. No. But that doesn't surprise me.

            1. Looking at my friend's Facebook pages, it seems as though this is an election of a lifetime.

              1. This election, like the one that came before it, and the one that will come after it is the Most Important Evar.

                Also: How many FB pages does your friend have?

                1. I meant to say statuses.

            2. It being a subconscious factor wouldn't have surprised me, but being so blind to the racism of it that you'd list that as your only reason for voting?

        2. That's pretty damn close to the truth, actually. I've got a number of acquaintances that are as blue as a Catholic priest's balls, and they'll tell you flat out that in their opinion, Republicans are racist, homophobic, uneducated morons with guns. The subject has a tendency to change when I mention that I'm a Republican-voting Neolibertarian with an EE degree, I specialize in intelligence, I own an arsenal, I ride a Harley, and I spend every other weekend performing some sort of charity. You can literally see the confusion come over them, as the mental box they've constructed splits at the seams. They really do have this mental box that people other than them go into.

          1. HA! I notice you didn't say anything about performing gay weddings! Stereotype confirmed!

            1. That's covered under the "homophobe" clause of the Republican oath of fealty.

          2. Jay Nordlinger always talks about how often liberals act so shocked that someone who is educated and knowledgeable could be a conservative. He calls it their "gee you don't sweat much for a fat chick" compliments.

            1. I think the subject that causes the most confusion when I talk to my liberal/dem friends, is that in spite of where my job sometimes takes me, I'm for the legalization of all drugs...the very minute that drug addicts are held responsible for their choices, welfare is abolished, and drug addicts are allowed to die in the gutter, if they so choose. I personally don't care if someone wants to inject battery acid into their left eyeball, as long as they don't expect me to pay for their disability, or pay to raise their kids. Invariably, the concept of "personal responsibility" leads to a discussion about how people are helpless, and need the government to intercede on their behalf, except when it comes to substance abuse. It's quite amusing to witness the actual bending of logic.

      2. Don't forget bring back the Klan and even slavery. I mean that sounds silly, but they actually did say that.

        1. Don't forget the rape camps that will be the result of the literal war on women.

          1. I don't know if this was already written about here, but did you guys see that Cathy Young has the proud distinction of being one of Salon's "7 women working tirelessly to attack equal rights for women"?


            If Salon denounces her, she can't be all bad!

            Good work, Cathy Young.

            1. I wouldn't click that link if you paid me, but what does the article offer in way of an exploration of the motives of these badthinkers for their unforgivable deviation from Salon-approved dogma?

              1. yes they are selfhating shills for men. you should read it, it's pretty funny.

            2. You guys always try to think you don't fight the culture war but you do. This is an example of it. This is the left trying to do to anyone who stands up for due process what they did to anyone who objected to gays.

              If you think men accused of rape are entitled to due process of law, you just hate women's equality. This is how the left operates. They are constantly fighting a culture war to make exile their opponents' arguments from the public sphere.

            3. I clicked through some of the links into that story to this list of tweets that Marcotte considers to be harassment. Is it just me or do they seem, well, not that awful? I mean, they are mean, sure, but they mostly seem to revolve around her complaining that people can't afford birth control, and some of them make decent points (for Twitter), even if they do inject v itriol into it.

              Are people really this thin-skinned?

              1. She specifically highlights this one

                @AmandaMarcotte should SPACKLE that thing up if she can't afford $7 a month. #OrSkipStarbucks

                for being

                Too prissy to use the word "cunt", but still so hateful he thinks it's appropriate to wish extremely disturbing violence on the organ he is afraid to name.

                Does spackle have some meaning I don't know about? Does she actually think this is a serious suggestion or threat?

          2. The first time I read through this comment I thought of "camps" like summer camp or band camp.

            1. That's just the Kock-funded propaganda fliers.

              1. EDIT BUTTON

                1. We all know where you get your funding, hmmm?

            2. Is it just me, or would the Libertarian re-education camp be the worst?

              Imagine trying to get libertarians lined up for roll call. And you know that the unfettered free market in rat meat would lead to price gouging.

              The riot that would break out when dysentery broke out over whether to quarantine the victims would kill more than the gas chambers.

  4. They'll find an excuse. Progressives have the overwhelming majority on their side. If that's not reflected in vote numbers, it must be due to some kind of corruption. We know the Kochs are responsible in some way.

    1. The First Rule of Progressive Club is that the people always want what we want.

      The Second Rule of Progressive Club is that when the people don't want what we want? see The First Rule of Progressive Club.

      1. It's pretty hilarious to see Progressives not understand why anyone would want to vote against their policies. They usually ask," Why do people vote against their own interests?"

        That sort of remark really rubs me the wrong way because who in the fuck are you to know what someone's interests are?

        1. Or because some people have principles. If there was a politician running who said his first act in office would be to give 100 billion dollars and thousands of sex slave redheads to Auric, I should not vote for him because what he wants to do is wrong. How it benefits me personally is irrelevant.

          1. Exactly.

            When Rand Paul did his filibuster a year or two ago many of my Progressive friends went apeshit because he dared to go against the Mighty Obama and his loyal henchman Eric Holder. If Paul did this to Bush and Ashcroft they would have applauded him.

  5. The twenty-something here just mentioned the Michigan wanna-be Senator Land being controlled by the Koch brothers.

    And this is why we can't have nice things.

    1. controlled by the Koch brothers.

      I wish I lived in this world of Progressives' nightmares sometimes.

    2. Alien parasitic control or something else entirely? I'm fascinated by your co-worker's imagination.

  6. This reminds me of the clueless headlines along the lines of "Why are there so many people in prison, when the crime rate it down?"

    1. Er Reason has put forward many articles that dispute and discredit the utility of mass imprisonment in lowering crime.

      1. I'm not saying our current situation is ideal, just pointing out the idiocy of saying that a lower crime rate somehow indicates, in and of itself, that there are too many people in prison.

  7. Nothing fails like success. At least in politics. I've always said one of the worst things that could happen to the Republicans is to get Roe v. Wade overturned. The number of votes and money that one issue has generated for the Republicans is huge.

    1. I would venture a guess and say that most republicans don't give a shit about Roe v. Wade. There's that small but vocal group that do, but they don't have the influence they once held. If they did, any mention of gay marriage would be the end of any republican politician. Falwell and Robertson are relics of the past.

  8. On the few occasions Republicans actually delivered on promises of less government and taxes, they were wildly popular. Reagan and numerous Governors are the only examples that come to mind. Even in Massachusetts, Weld and Romney were re-elected.

    You would think this track record would indicate an easy way for the party to win national elections, but you would be wrong for some reason.

    1. One of the things that doesn't get mentioned very often is that Republicans now control more state houses and governorships than they have I think in their history.

      The narrative is that the Republicans lose because of they can't get over the culture war. If that is true, I don't see how they could be doing so well at the state level. The worst culture warriors on both sides tend to be at the state level. The national level tends to thin out the loons a bit. Moreover, the culture war issues matter a lot more at the state level than they do the federal level. It is the states that actually deal with abortion and porn and nude dancers and marriage not the feds. So if the Republicans lost on the national level on the culture war, why are they also losing at the state level?

      1. Because Roe v. Wade has conditioned people to see it the opposite way. The national left has spent copious resources trying to correct this view (see Wendy Davis). Also low turnout state elections benefit the right wing party inherently. Republicans should be more successful the lower the voter percentage gets. Finally because Hollywood and Big Media don't really have state level equivalents. No one in Texas cares what Texas Monthtly or Houston Chronicle says about anything. Much less the Waco Telegraph (I'm guessing on this).

        1. Not every state election is low turnout. Most of them happen at the same time as federal elections. And Republicans are winning in states that are often split or even a bit Dem. So your first explanation is not accurate.

          Your point about Hollywood and the Media, however very much is.

          1. Voter participation declines as you go to down the ballot. For instance to go by the first state in alaphabetical order with a competitive senate election in 2012, Arizona, five percent of voters voted for president but not for senator. This non-participation factor is likely to grow as the races get less consequential. Especially since a lot of states have made straigh ticket voting more difficult.

            1. 2 percent not five percent

      2. I think the last election for governor in IL had only four counties go democrat, every other county was red, and we all know how that turned out.

        Ah, here it is, though they reverse the traditional colors.

        1. As a resident of Illinois, I can't wait for the Governor's election to be done. It's depressing that my state no matter what happens tomorrow will be ran by an ass.

        2. traditional colors

          is 14 years a "tradition"?

        3. Blue is thd traditional color of the right and red is the traditional color of the left. The Dems bitched about the connotation until the media alternated and then 2000 happened and it got locked the wrong way.

  9. Alt-text:

    I eat your sandwich. I eat it up!

    1. Better:


  10. Yeah, in this winner-take-all system, we'll see how this shakes on on election night.

    However, my question is, if Dan Malloy brought in such a progressive Dream Team Captain, why isn't he less popular?

  11. If he loses, expect the gun raids to start Wednsday. He's already said he'll take revenge on gun owners if he loses the election. Bullets will fly, cops will die.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.