Now we know. It has.

In the last week and a half, federal immigration agents detained more than 50 people in Danbury, with additional arrests reported in Stamford and Bridgeport. Residents described masked agents patrolling neighborhoods, waiting near places where day laborers gather and detaining parents as children prepared to board school buses. During one arrest, an ICE agent used a Taser on a man who was later taken to the hospital.

Let us be clear up front: this activity is immoral, if not lawless. These are neighbors, parents, colleagues, and human beings who deserve dignity and have basic human rights regardless of their status according to our broken immigration system. We should also be clear about who is being affected. The recent operations have included day laborers, parents and longtime residents. Federal authorities have not disclosed the criminal histories of everyone detained, but national reporting found that fewer than four percent of people arrested by ICE in July had been convicted of a violent crime.

Connecticut was not entirely unprepared for this. Passed back in 2013, The TRUST Act limits when state and local law enforcement can hold someone for ICE or share certain information with federal immigration authorities. In 2025 and 2026, state leaders adopted additional protections restricting civil immigration arrests in courthouses, schools, hospitals, places of worship and other protected locations without a judicial warrant. The newer law also generally prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing masks while interacting with the public and requires them to display badges and name tags.

Those policies matter, but they have also exposed the limits of state authority. The TRUST Act regulates Connecticut agencies; it does not prevent federal agents from carrying out lawful federal duties. ICE has openly said it will not comply with the state’s mask prohibition, and the Department of Justice is challenging Connecticut’s restrictions in federal court. When residents confronted them about the law, one agent reportedly responded, “Who’s going to arrest me?”

That question, however provocative, captures the dilemma now confronting state and local leaders.

People understandably want their government to stand up and enforce the protections it enacted. Allowing federal agents to disregard state law without challenge risks normalizing conduct we have already determined is dangerous. Those closest to the work understand this risk, and their leadership should guide the response.

Local organizers have spent months teaching people their rights, preparing emergency custody documents, recording arrests and helping families locate loved ones. Rapid-response volunteers are trained to remain at least six feet from agents while gathering enough information to identify the person being detained and notify their family. But volunteers in Danbury reported being approached and pushed by federal agents while documenting the recent arrests, and one recorded encounter showed an agent advancing toward an advocate filming the operation. As federal tactics grow more aggressive, even the work of observing and documenting arrests has become more dangerous.

During Wednesday’s “Day Without an Immigrant,” more than 1,000 people marched through Danbury and more than 60 local businesses closed. The demonstration made visible both the fear gripping the city and the economic and civic contributions of its immigrant community.

The effects of these operations will remain long after ICE vehicles leave. Children are missing school because families are afraid of arrests near bus stops. Students who do attend are carrying fear into their classrooms. When a parent or wage earner is detained, a household can lose income overnight while taking on legal expenses and struggling to pay for food, housing and childcare. During an affordability crisis already straining families across Connecticut, ICE detention can push a household into immediate financial distress.

Connecticut cannot control federal immigration policy, but it can continue defending its laws in court, fund legal assistance and emergency support for affected families, protect access to schools and public services, limit state and local cooperation with federal operations, document misconduct and demand transparency. Our congressional delegation can pursue oversight, challenge federal funding and press for an immigration system grounded in due process rather than fear.

For everyone else, this moment is a reminder that showing up matters. Elections determine who writes immigration policy, who appoints judges, who controls enforcement agencies and whether government power is constrained or encouraged.

A government willing to disregard legal limits rarely confines that disregard to one group forever. It often begins with people who have the least political power and the fewest resources to fight back. The threat is first and most immediate for immigrant families, but the erosion of accountable government threatens all of us.

ICE is in town. What Connecticut does next will tell us what our laws, our elections and our claim to be the Constitution State are worth.

Having won his primary convincingly, Lamont enters the general election as the clear favorite. He’s personally popular and is running for re-election on a landscape where Democrats have won every single statewide federal and gubernatorial election in Connecticut for nearly two decades.

But Democrats might be wise to not take that advantage for granted because races for Governor in Connecticut are actually more competitive than our coastal blue-state reputation suggests. Three of the last four were decided by roughly three points or less: Malloy won by less than a point in 2010 and 2.6 points in 2014, while Lamont won his first term by just over three points in 2018. Lamont’s nearly 13-point reelection victory in 2022 (on the heels of the pandemic and broader mail-in voting) was the exception.

That history makes the underlying mood of the electorate worth paying attention to. And our latest polling suggests Connecticut voters are sending a remarkably consistent message about what they want this election to be about: the cost of living.

When we asked voters to name the three most important issues influencing their vote, 58% chose inflation and the cost of living - more than any other issue.

Taxes ranked second at 49%. Energy and utility costs were third at 43%. Healthcare was fourth at 39%. Housing costs came in at 28%.

Put differently, five of voters’ eight highest-ranking concerns are directly connected to what it costs to live, work and raise a family in Connecticut.

That should shape how both candidates think about the next two months.

For Fazio, the strategy is fairly obvious.

A Republican running statewide in Connecticut faces significant structural challenges, and Fazio will need voters who don’t typically support Republican candidates to give him a serious chance in a challenging environment nationally for Republicans. But, affordability gives him an opening to make that case.

Fazio has already emphasized electricity rates, taxes and the broader cost of living which are among the dominant concerns of the entire electorate, not just Republicans.

Still, recognizing a problem and persuading voters that you can solve it are two different things. Fazio will need to convince voters who may be frustrated by Connecticut’s cost of living that replacing Lamont with a Republican governor would actually make their lives more affordable. That is a much higher bar.

Lamont faces almost the opposite challenge. While he has significant advantages, he cannot afford to treat voters’ legitimate and persistent economic anxiety as disconnected from his record simply because Connecticut’s fiscal condition has improved during his tenure.

Balanced budgets, strong reserves and tax cuts are meaningful accomplishments. But voters don’t experience the economy through the state balance sheet. They experience it in their everyday lives when they open their electric bill, pay their property taxes, look for a house or apartment, buy groceries or pay for healthcare.

For Lamont, the opportunity is connecting the state’s improved and stable fiscal position to the ability to urgently tackle the costs families are still struggling with every day in another term.

Finally, there’s another number Fazio has to worry about.

In our poll, 32% of voters identify as strong Democrats, compared with 21% who identify as strong Republicans. Once you factor in weaker partisans and independents who lean toward one party, the electorate is 51% Democratic or Democratic-leaning, compared with 38% Republican or Republican-leaning.

Fazio cannot simply consolidate Republicans and hope general dissatisfaction with the cost of living does the heavy lifting for him. He needs to win pure independents, hold virtually all Republican-leaning voters and make meaningful inroads among voters who would historically lean Democratic.

That is a substantial hill for any Republican nominee to climb, let alone one in a tough national political environment for the party. Donald Trump remains an unavoidable part of the political landscape. Should Fazio separate himself enough from an unpopular national Republican brand to appeal to Connecticut’s large bloc of Democratic-leaning and unaffiliated voters? Will that risk alienating the Republican voters he needs as his base? Will he incur Trump’s personal wrath?

Lamont, meanwhile, has an opportunity to make the election a choice by contrasting Connecticut with Trump’s Washington and still keeping his campaign grounded in the economic concerns voters say matter most.

So, where does that leave things with just over two months until Election Day?

Voters are clear the cost of living is their defining issue, and no ideological argument comes close.

Lamont needs to argue that he’s making a difference on affordability issues that are largely driven by Trump while not letting Fazio detach himself from the head of his party.

And for all the attention that will inevitably be paid to Trump, immigration, crime and the daily back-and-forth of the campaign, Connecticut voters are telling us pretty clearly what they want their next governor focused on: make it less expensive to live here.

Well, we’re on the other side of the Election and the results actually offer evidence of each, although none captures the night in its entirety.

Start at the top of the ticket, where it was a great night for Gov. Ned Lamont. He defeated Josh Elliott 68% to 32%, carried nearly every town and received more than twice as many votes as his challenger. Despite tightening polls, including our own, and what appeared to be building momentum for Elliott, the race did not materialize to the level many observers, including us, expected. Once they reached the ballot box, Democratic primary voters strongly supported the incumbent.

Elliott still received nearly 60,000 votes and almost a third of the statewide vote despite beginning the race last winter with limited name recognition, and lacking institutional support from Democratic leaders. That is meaningful for a challenger who was asking voters to reject a two-term governor with strong approval ratings. Elliott’s campaign demonstrated that there is a sizable constituency within the state’s Democratic Party that wants to see more decisive action on electricity rates, property taxes and the broader cost of living.

Lamont, however, did more than survive; he won convincingly, and is entering the general election in a strong position.

So, what should he take with him into November?

The temptation may be to shift toward center-right issues in pursuit of unaffiliated voters and moderate Republicans. There will be room for Lamont to emphasize Connecticut’s positive fiscal position during his tenure, especially against Republican nominee Ryan Fazio. But Tuesday offers little reason to move away from the affordability concerns that dominated the primary. Elliott’s strongest arguments focused on the costs families encounter every month, and Fazio has already begun making his own case around electricity rates, property taxes and affordability. Lamont’s strongest general-election message may combine his record on fiscal management with a more direct path to make Connecticut less expensive for working and middle-class families.

Another significant challenge for Fazio to overcome is the drag Trump clearly is on the Republican Party brand, across the board. It will be interesting to see how Fazio deals with that dynamic, and whether the usually mild-mannered Lamont tries to exploit it.

Further down the ticket, the 1st Congressional District produced a different judgment. Luke Bronin defeated John Larson 53% to 33%, an overwhelming victory in a four-way race against a 14-term incumbent. In fact, Bronin carried 25 of the District’s 27 towns; Larson only carried his hometown of East Hartford (and not by much), and tiny Hartland.

A disclosure is warranted here: ImpactCT participated in the 1st District primary through an uncoordinated independent expenditure effort supporting Bronin.

Bronin’s victory has already become part of national headlines about longtime members of Congress losing to younger challengers. It also carries some particular lessons for Connecticut. Bronin first defeated Larson for the party endorsement at the Convention, and then won decisively among primary voters, making a sustained argument for new leadership, greater urgency and generational change at the federal level.

Unlike many races this primary season, this was not an intraparty ideological race. Bronin did not run as a significant departure from Larson on most major Democratic priorities, and Larson’s attempts to recast the race as an ideological fight did not persuade enough voters. The result shows that a challenger can defeat an incumbent by arguing that familiar Democratic values require new energy and more effective leadership. Voters can want change without demanding a wholesale shift in the party’s ideology - at least in Connecticut.

Tuesday was also a win for self-described progressives. Maryam Khan won the 2nd Senate District primary over Ayana Taylor and incumbent Doug McCrory. Khan combined progressive priorities with the party endorsement and a message centered on affordability, utility accountability and public trust. In New Haven, Eli Sabin defeated 21-term state Rep. Pat Dillon and DSA-backed Justin Farmer. Sabin received about 44% of the vote, compared with 36% for Dillon and 20% for Farmer.

Tuesday was a very good night for Lamont, a good night for progressives and an especially strong night for candidates who made a convincing case for new leadership. It’s tempting to declare that a trend has developed based on Election results. But races are usually decided on their own merits. Here in Connecticut this primary season, voters supported candidates from different parts of the Democratic coalition who successfully connected their campaigns to recognizable concerns in their communities and persuaded voters that they could address them.

By now, campaigns have made their cases and primary Election Day is within clear sight. Tuesday will test whether several national political currents have reached Connecticut, and the results will tell us what kind of change Democratic voters want, how urgently they want it and which political organizations are capable of delivering it. It will shed light on many questions we’ve been pondering through the summer: Is there a broad anti-incumbent mood, or are voters making case-by-case judgments? Can Progressives organize and convert enthusiasm into votes? Is there a reasonable measure of success for a challenger who does not win?

Anticipation is mounting, so let’s dive in.

First up, the unexpectedly competitive governor’s race. For the first time since 1978, a sitting Connecticut governor is facing a primary challenge. That earlier contest grew out of the difficult political relationship between Gov. Ella Grasso and Lt. Gov. Robert Killian. But this year’s race appears to be a disagreement over what Connecticut Democrats should do with power. Our latest poll has Lamont leading Elliott 48% to 27%, down from 58% to 20% in May. As a two-term incumbent, Lamont remains the clear favorite, but Elliott has become better known, narrowed the gap and prompted the governor’s campaign to answer him directly. Lamont’s decision to air two negative ads in the final week suggests his campaign sees value in defining Elliott before more voters do at the ballot box.

How will Elliott’s performance be judged even though Lamont is most likely to win? A result for Elliott above 35% would demonstrate a meaningful progressive constituency within the party’s most reliable voters, while above 40% would send a warning and be a bonafide accomplishment for a candidate who was largely unknown statewide only months ago.

The map will matter as well. Strong results in Hamden and New Haven are expected for Elliott: he’s the hometown guy and should be able to rely on his base. But competitive results in suburban, urban and working-class communities across the state would indicate broader reach and suggest that his critique of the governor has resonated beyond voters who were already inclined to support a progressive challenger.

The 1st Congressional District offers another measure of the appetite for change between candidates from different generations. John Larson, 77 and in office since 1999, faces former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin, state Rep. Jillian Gilchrest and Hartford Board of Education member Ruth Fortune. Bronin’s 10-vote convention victory showed that the succession argument had already won over a lot of party activists. Larson’s campaign has since spent valuable airtime attacking Bronin and recasting a generational challenge as an ideological fight. The decision to run those ads cannot tell us who is ahead, but they show that Larson considers Bronin a threat who must be disqualified rather than simply outlasted.

Gilchrest and Fortune also matter, despite their unviable paths to victory, because their campaigns speak to similar demands for greater urgency and responsiveness to CT issues in Washington. What’s more, their vote shares may determine whether support for change consolidates or fragments. A Bronin win would strengthen the case that generational change has become a force in Connecticut politics.

Another issue defining Democratic primary campaigns across the country is the strength of the democratic socialist movement. As we wrote earlier this summer, many voters see DSA core issues as ordinary Democratic values and believe elected Democrats have praised those priorities without delivering enough tangible progress. Tuesday will test whether that frustration has developed any electoral organization of its own here at home.

The clearest tests of DSA’s organizational strengths are further down the ballot. In New Haven, Justin Farmer is challenging 21-term state Rep. Patricia Dillon in a three-way primary that also includes former Alder Eli Sabin. In the 2nd Senate District, DSA member and party-endorsed state Rep. Maryam Khan faces longtime Sen. Doug McCrory and Windsor Board of Education Chair Ayana Taylor. Farmer must consolidate voters seeking both ideological and generational change, while Khan is testing whether progressive organizing can combine with conventional party support to notch a win.

The temptation after any primary is to swiftly declare that a wave has arrived or an insurgency has failed. But we’re looking to see if these races reveal or match a broad anti-incumbent mood, a demand for generational turnover, growing progressive organization or any combination of the three. Connecticut Democrats may want change while remaining highly selective about who represents it, what it requires and whether a challenger has built the coalition needed to deliver it.

We hope you make your own voice heard on Tuesday and come back here next week to unpack the results. Click here to find where you can vote on or before Tuesday.

This week we released another poll by Change Research of 859 Democratic primary voters showing that Governor Lamont maintains a commanding lead, but that Elliott has tightened the race and could have a narrow path. Elliott’s campaign has tapped into something in the electorate since our last poll in May.

The big question now is whether there’s enough runway left for Elliott to close the gap entirely.

As Mark Pazniokas said about our poll, the race is still favorable to Lamont but includes meaningful caveats: his support has fallen below 50 percent and his lead has narrowed by 17 points since May, while Elliott has expanded his name recognition and support as he enters the final stretch with public financing and new advertising. Elliott still faces a 21-point deficit and an unforgiving calendar, but 24 percent of voters remain undecided and the informed ballot narrows to 11 points, leaving him a plausible but quite narrow path if he can quickly convert greater awareness into votes.

Lamont remains the clear favorite, and if the election were held today, he would win. But this is no longer the same race; the final stretch will show whether Elliott has only narrowed the margin or actually built a coalition capable of changing the outcome.

We encourage you to explore the toplines and crosstabs. For more coverage of our poll, see here.

Six days later, a Connecticut editorial board made the opposite case, warning that local moratoriums could deepen Connecticut’s anti-business reputation, sacrifice jobs and tax revenue, and turn the physical infrastructure behind the AI economy into an undeserved political villain.

Locally, Groton, Morris and West Haven have already used moratoriums to pause or reshape data-center development, and other municipalities are considering similar restrictions. It seems like we are caught between two impulses: visceral, flat-out rejection or welcoming with open-arms and throwing caution to the wind. Some communities hear the words “data center” and see red: enormous electricity demand, water use, noise, traffic and new infrastructure costs. Others see green: construction jobs, host-community payments and a potentially valuable addition to the local tax base.

This is the kind of issue that becomes easier to navigate in campaign rhetoric than it is in government. AI data centers are an almost perfect electoral villain in 2026. They’re the new “Bad Guy,” the way Big Banks, Pharma, and health insurance companies have been. They are enormous, unfamiliar, connected to powerful technology companies and associated with high electricity use, water demand, fears about automation, and for those living close by, noise. Opposition can fit neatly into a campaign message, while governing amidst their proliferation requires a more difficult calculation.

Governor Ned Lamont has often argued that Connecticut cannot ignore the economic choices of neighboring states. For example, his administration explicitly cited regional competition when it moved to modernize online gaming, arguing that Connecticut should not surrender revenue and economic activity to surrounding states. Data centers test that instinct from the other direction. If New York and communities in Massachusetts are applying the brakes, should Connecticut follow their caution, or hit the gas to compete for the projects they leave behind?

At ImpactCT, our starting point is not reflexive opposition to development, but we do take seriously the evaluation of whether development advances fair treatment and full participation for people across Connecticut. That requires asking who receives the benefits, who bears the costs and whether affected communities have a meaningful role in decision-making.

Taxpayers and ratepayers should not be required to underwrite private growth while private companies capture the upside. Before approving a project, Connecticut should require data-center developers to pay for the grid, water, road and public-safety costs they create, disclose their resource demands, commit to enforceable community benefits and give residents a meaningful role in siting decisions.

The answer is not to slam on the brakes or floor the accelerator; it is to establish rules of the road before more projects arrive. We should not chase data centers simply because neighboring states are turning them away, and we should not reject them because they have become an electorally useful villain, or make for great campaign slogans. Each proposal should face a clear test: Will it strengthen the local tax base and produce durable public value without making electricity, housing, healthcare or essential services less affordable or less secure?

Connecticut can be open to innovation without allowing unchecked cost-shifting. Economic development is not a public benefit merely because a developer or elected official calls it one; it becomes a public benefit when the people and communities asked to host it are protected from the costs and share meaningfully in the gains.

Katz helped introduce Platner as rugged, authentic, and capable of leading an economic populist movement. He also knew about Platner’s lack of vetting, transgressions and shortcomings and, nevertheless, forcefully pressed on. The Bangor Daily News reported that Katz warned former aide Genevieve McDonald that she would be accused of lying and sabotage if she cooperated with reporters investigating sexually explicit messages Platner had sent to women. What happened next for Platner is now campaign history.

What happens next for Katz is still to be determined, though he’s clearly tarnished goods.

It’s also a cautionary tale. What happens when success arrives at a young age? Is the person ready for the spotlight and responsibilities that come with it? And is early success as promising as it appears? Vanity Fair reported that Katz had represented himself as two years older than he really is because an early client worried that someone so young would not be taken seriously.

Connecticut has its own history of young political stars whose success curdled into entitlement or criminal conduct.

John Rowland entered the state legislature at 23, Congress at 27, and the governor’s office at 37. He later resigned after accepting gifts and favors from state contractors, and pleaded guilty to a federal corruption charge. He then did close to a year in jail and, upon reentering society, proclaimed himself a changed man. But not really: he again was convicted of political corruption (involving campaign finance violations), the precursor to a second stint in prison.

Philip Giordano was 32 when he became mayor of Waterbury. A municipal corruption investigation exposed his repeated sexual abuse of two girls, ages eight and ten, for which he received a 37-year federal prison sentence.

Joe Ganim was 32 when he was elected mayor of Bridgeport and was later convicted of receiving more than $500,000 in benefits in exchange for steering city contracts. Ganim served seven years in prison, and upon reentering society promptly was reelected as Bridgeport’s Mayor.

More recently, Erin Stewart became Mayor of New Britain at 26 and spent 12 years as a rising Republican leader. We examined that rise extensively here. Her gubernatorial campaign collapsed after an outside investigation alleged that most of the more than $200,000 charged to her city credit card was improper because it was for personal items. Federal authorities have opened a criminal investigation.

None of this is to suggest that all successful, young candidates and operatives run into problems, nor is it to suggest that older candidates and operatives never cross the criminal line. But it is worth exploring why young political stars often seem to be the ones who get in trouble.

Politics may be too eager to celebrate the wunderkind without asking whether the person has developed the restraint, maturity, accountability, and perspective required to hold power.

There is also something to be said for having suffered defeats early in one’s political career; lessons get learned, and humility becomes part of that person’s character. And sometimes maturity and wisdom accrue as a result.

It’s also the case that chief executives elected young are quickly surrounded by older, wealthier individuals who seek to attach themselves to power. For some, exposure to the elites leads to a sense of entitlement.

It’s clear there is an appetite for change and a new guard of political leadership in 2026. Younger candidates and operatives can bring fresh instincts, much-needed urgency and practical solutions that are not entangled in the bureaucracy of longtime politicking. But fresh ideas are not necessarily better when they have not been tested, and confidence is not the same as judgment, institutional knowledge, or basic moral clarity.

If success comes early, the answer is not to perform or project greater certainty than you possess. It is to learn quickly, invite disagreement, respect institutional guardrails, and stay humble enough to understand that winning power does not prove you are ready to use it well.

The point of generational change should not be to replace one entitled political class with a younger one.

Before you jump to envisioning a political landscape in the Nutmeg state where large numbers of Connecticut Democrats become card-carrying Democratic Socialists, let’s levelset that DSA is far from a dominant force in our politics. Yes, CT DSA membership is reportedly growing and the organization describes itself as a statewide chapter with an electoral working group focused on electing socialists. But, CT DSA lacks a powerful infrastructure, a defining leader, or a statewide political brand.

The question we’re exploring is whether CT DSA is a proxy for something bigger: frustration with the Democratic establishment and impatience with leaders who speak the language of Democratic values but have not delivered enough on the issues shaping people’s daily lives. So, could DSA-style politics become the vehicle for a broader anti-establishment mood inside the Connecticut Democratic Party?

Obviously Connecticut does not have the same conditions as DSA hot-beds. Our population is older and our political culture is historically more cautious and managerial. But we do have deep affordability pressure, a visible fight over tax fairness, anger over housing costs and availability, frustration with utility costs, concerns about healthcare, and a Democratic Party that often sounds more progressive than it is perceived to govern.

The frustration that gives DSA its opening elsewhere is also present here: anger at the Democratic establishment and a growing appetite for candidates who challenge the status quo. There is space for candidates and voters alike to argue that the party is perhaps not living up to its own stated values.

Taxing the rich, universal healthcare, stronger tenant protections, public services, labor power, and affordability are all connected to values Democrats regularly claim: fairness, dignity, economic security, and a government that works for ordinary people. Many Democratic politicians affirm these values, then retreat, compromise, delay, or explain why delivery is too complicated. Josh Elliott, who has not been endorsed by DSA, is trying to tap into some of that frustration. He’s already keyed into some of these same grievances and the concern that Connecticut’s Democratic values are being affirmed but not delivered.

It’s not that voters are actively seeking socialism, but they’re looking for someone who sounds less caught up in the system that is failing them, and is more willing to challenge it.

Connecticut is clearly not on the verge of becoming a DSA state right now. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the Democratic establishment is secure. Movements grow when existing institutions stop feeling responsive to voters. MAGA did not grow only because of a detailed policy theory about trade, immigration, courts, or executive power; it grew because many Republican voters believed the party establishment had failed them, lost important fights, and become stale. The ideology mattered, but the movement also became a vehicle for anger, disruption, and rejection of party elites.

Democratic socialism may serve a similar function on the left - not because the movements are morally or ideologically equivalent, but because both can become shorthand for “the people running the party are not delivering.” DSA does not need every CT voter to adopt its full ideology; it only needs enough voters to see it as the faction of the party willing to say clearly what other candidates soften.

The ingredients for a DSA presence are here. The unanswerable question is whether anyone in Connecticut can turn them into a durable political movement that challenges the establishment. Preserving the status quo may feel safe to institutions, party insiders, and operatives - but it can alienate future voters. If every anti-establishment critique is viewed as unserious, too ideological, or too risky, we may miss the reason those critiques are gaining traction in the first place.

For now, let’s hope for governance that makes the insurgency less necessary.

To start, we have to be brutally realistic about our political and electoral goals. What do we actually need our candidates to do? Do we need, or even want, nearly perfect people running and governing? No, we don’t.

We can’t look to a single candidate to change the course of the city, state or country. We need to elect leaders who represent enough of us, strive to be among the best of us, can win, and can govern reasonably and responsibly. Candidates, like all people, contain multitudes and two things can be true. A candidate can be qualified and still fail to connect with voters (See: 2024). And perhaps more commonly, a candidate can have real vulnerabilities and flaws and still be the person voters choose.

Maine’s U.S. Senate race illustrates this tension. At the behest of Chuck Schumer, national Democrats initially lined up behind Janet Mills, a former governor with the kind of résumé party leaders covet: tested, experienced, vetted, and familiar to institutional players. Young veteran, oyster farmer, and political outsider Graham Platner was unconventional but offered something different and caught fire in Maine and beyond, so much so that Mills’ fundraising dried up and she had to suspend her campaign.

Heading into the primary, Platner had momentum, a sharp outsider profile, and an appeal that seemed more connected to the mood of a primary electorate frustrated with conventional politics. But it turns out that not only is Platner less than perfect, his past (and a not-too-distant one at that), in some people’s eyes disqualifies him as a candidate.

And this is not a question of a candidate being properly vetted; many, though not all, of the issues now swirling around him were in fact known to his campaign team prior to him entering the race.

If the goal for Democrats in Maine is to unseat Susan Collins, then coalescing behind the candidate who can actually win voters over may be the practical move. But that cannot mean pretending the concerns about Platner do not exist because a primary win does not erase legitimate questions about character, discipline, honesty, or readiness to govern.

Furthermore, Platner’s primary win does not mean voters do not care about character - they do. Even in the Trump era, voters across parties still do care. But many voters are making choices under conditions that make politics feel less like an exercise in ideal selection and more like a search for someone who will actually notice them, fight for them and understand the pressures shaping their lives. For someone worried about rent, healthcare, child care, schools, public safety, or whether their wages are keeping up with inflation, a candidate’s personal flaws and relationship history may matter, but not in the same way they matter to donors, consultants, editorial boards, or party committees.

There is a certain privilege in treating politics primarily as a search for an aspirational figure and many, if not most, voters do not experience elections that way. They are not asking whether a candidate satisfies every symbolic expectation placed on public life. They are asking whether the candidate seems capable of addressing the problems that are making their lives harder, and this helps explain why the institutional standard and the voter standard can diverge.

Furthermore, the outsider label that has been affixed to candidates like Platner is applied unevenly. A wealthy businessperson with no government experience is often treated as unconventional but credible, especially if he or she speaks the language of management, efficiency, or private-sector competence. A candidate with a working-class background, organizing experience, community leadership, or a less traditional path to politics is more likely to be treated as unserious or unprepared. Take AOC, for example - or, more recently, Zohran Mamdani.

So when we say a candidate lacks “real experience,” we should be more precise. Do we mean experience crafting budgets, managing staff, negotiating policy, and making decisions under pressure? Or do we mean the résumé and credentialing looks unfamiliar or lackluster? Lived experience is worth a lot and it can translate to street smarts and effectiveness. Sure, relatability is not a governing plan, but traditional credentials are not enough either.

If every flaw becomes disqualifying, every unconventional background becomes suspicious, and every candidate outside the institutional pipeline becomes unserious, the party narrows the pool of people treated as credible enough to participate in public life. If we focus too much on whether a candidate followed the most traditional path to office, we risk losing touch with voters. And we risk electing cookie cutter candidates who fail to reflect the mosaic that is the American people.

We cannot require candidates to be likeable, electable, ideologically sound, personally uncomplicated, professionally credentialed, emotionally disciplined, and still expect to win. We need candidates who will become leaders who can earn trust, tell the truth, understand the people they seek to represent, build a coalition, withstand pressure, make decisions, and hold power with discipline.

So let’s try holding them to standards aligned to realistic goals instead of just righteous ones.

For Democrats, questions of character often become morality tests. The party can seem split over whether the goal is winning seats or upholding standards around conduct, inclusion, honesty, and respect for vulnerable communities. For Republicans in the Trump era, the standard has shifted in a different direction. Conduct that once might have ended a political career is often treated by party leaders and the right wing media ecosystem as background noise, a partisan attack, “fake news,” or even proof that the candidate is willing to fight.

That asymmetry has pushed politics into a situation where one party often struggles over whether enforcing standards is principled or self-defeating, and the other has learned that rejecting accountability is itself a political posture.

Consider the recent controversies involving Jadon MacCormack and Erin Stewart here in Connecticut, and the one still engulfing Graham Platner in his campaign against Susan Collins in Maine. In each, problems were discovered long after a candidate had supposedly been vetted and the campaign was already underway.

Candidate vetting used to be more standardized. A competent campaign manager would ask basic but uncomfortable questions at the start of the relationship. Have you ever been arrested? Are there lawsuits, debts, workplace issues, tax problems, or public records we need to know about? Is there anything in your personal life that could become an issue? What have you said publicly? What would an opponent find if they were trying to damage you?

That checklist is more complicated now because every candidate has a longer and deeper public trail. Social media posts, Reddit comments, podcasts, texts, photos, deleted accounts, screenshots, and old public statements can all become part of the record. A serious campaign now has to do opposition research on its own candidate before the opposition or the media does, and decide whether, how, and when to get ahead of a negative narrative.

The harder question is whether the candidate has enough self-awareness to understand what their own record reveals. Can the candidate explain their own conduct honestly? Do they understand why it matters? Have they changed in a way that is visible and credible? Or are they hoping that voters, endorsers, and party leaders will treat every concern as a distraction once the campaign becomes competitive?

No party should expect perfect candidates or perfect people. If there even is such a thing as a “perfect person,” would we really want him or her to represent us? Or are we better off with imperfect people as candidates, the theory being that they share lived experiences with their constituents?

A serious political culture has to allow for growth, remorse, and change. But there is a difference between a mistake and a pattern, between immaturity and conduct that raises legitimate questions about whether someone can earn trust and represent the public with respect.

Parties and campaigns cannot treat vetting as a problem only until the primary is over. Party establishments often oppose a candidate early, then close ranks once that candidate wins and the campaign turns toward the general election (see: Texas, where that’s exactly what’s happened with winner of the Republican primary for US Senate, Ken Paxton). The consequences of losing elections are real. But parties should be honest about the tradeoff. If the only vetting standard is readiness and electability, then endorsements signal only that the candidate is useful first and responsible or aligned second.

Candidate vetting should not be a purity test, and it should not be a tool party insiders use to block every unconventional candidate. It should be a baseline process for determining whether someone seeking public power is capable of winning it, and has the judgment, honesty, and discipline to hold it.

Jadon MacCormack, the Republican candidate in the 50th State House District, recently posted abhorrent anti-LGBTQ comments online, drew bipartisan condemnation, and was disavowed by Connecticut Republican leaders, including House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora. MacCormack doubled down. CT Insider reported that Republicans were trying to primary their own nominee after the backlash.

Connecticut Republican leaders know there is a line they cannot cross.

MacCormack undoubtedly went too far and absolutely earned and deserves the backlash. But inside a party still shaped by Donald Trump, the clarity of the so-called line seems more blurred than ever. And will the party’s coalition, and voters, let them hold that line in do-or-die election cycles? It’s a growing challenge for Republican candidates to distance themselves from hateful MAGA rhetoric without divorcing themselves from the national political ecosystem that draws attention, draws in donors, and makes candidates like MacCormack attractive to some.

For a long time, Connecticut Republicanism had a statewide identity that could plausibly separate itself from the national party. Before Gov. Malloy was elected in 2010, Connecticut had a long period of Republican executive leadership like John Rowland and Jodi Rell from 1995 to 2011. Go back further and you find Prescott Bush, the Bush family’s Connecticut political anchor, who represented Connecticut in the U.S. Senate from 1952 to 1963. Then there’s Lowell Weicker’s maverick Republicanism, including his willingness to challenge Nixon during Watergate, before winning the governorship as an independent in 1990.

Not to get nostalgic, but Connecticut Republicanism once had a statewide tradition that was electable because it looked pragmatic, locally rooted, and distinct from the hard edge of the national party.

Today, being an electable Republican in Connecticut requires a head-spinning balancing act. Candidates have to avoid alienating the MAGA base, avoid looking hostile to Trump, and still remain acceptable to general-election voters in Fairfield County, the shoreline, suburban Hartford, and other places where the national Republican brand is toxic. Swing too far right and you’re in tin foil territory with the likes of Alex Jones. Take a step too far to the center and you’re a liberal, or worse.

Ryan Fazio, Republican nominee for governor after winning 92% of the vote at the GOP convention following Erin Stewart’s implosion, has to define himself for a general election without either embracing Trump too tightly or visibly running away from him. How will he walk that tightrope? Will Fazio seek Trump’s endorsement, avoid it, or try to blur the issue? Will he think about bringing Trump to Connecticut to campaign for him? Gubernatorial candidates often bring Presidents of their own parties to the state to do just that - you may remember Obama came here for Gov. Malloy in 2010 and 2014.

Gov. Lamont benefits when moderate Republicans and unaffiliated voters want permission to reject the national Republican brand - he gives them a place to go, even if they never become enthusiastic. Does he become the default option for voters who are fiscally cautious, socially moderate, and exhausted by national Republican politics?

Of course Connecticut Republicans can condemn rhetoric like MacCormack’s, and many have. But how long can they keep depending on the same base politics that produce candidates like him while trying to convince general-election voters that they represent something different?

Maybe we’ll find out after August 11 when that question moves from theory to campaign reality.

As Dan Haar wrote, the core finding is that Lamont is well ahead overall, but Elliott, who is expected to qualify for public financing in the next few days which would give him close to $4 Million to spend, has a clear opening with younger voters. Before voters received any information about the candidates, Lamont led Elliott 58% to 20%. After respondents read balanced, positive and negative descriptions of both candidates, Lamont’s lead narrowed to 47% to 30%. Haar’s piece goes on to emphasize that turnout will likely be a big obstacle for Elliott, because older voters are far more likely to participate in the August primary, giving Lamont a structural advantage despite Elliott’s strength with younger Democrats.

Our poll suggests that Elliott’s path is narrow but real: he would need to dramatically raise awareness, define the race around economic affordability and tax fairness, and mobilize younger voters who are historically unlikely to vote in a late summer primary. Lamont’s advantages are his broad favorability, older-voter strength, and financial capacity.

As we’ve been saying since before the Convention, Lamont remains the favorite. Now that the stage is set, will he treat Josh as a minor distraction, a cautionary signal, or a legitimate rival? And can Josh build an affordability brand and convert voters?

62 days and counting.

Zooming out, last week there was the debacle about the DNC’s 2024 autopsy. A year and a half after the election, the autopsy report was finally made public, and the roll out and report itself were arguably disastrous. The Associated Press reported that the DNC released the report only after internal pressure, that DNC Chair Ken Martin had said it was “not ready for primetime,” and the document was rife with annotations and disclaimers saying portions were incomplete or unsupported.

Precipitating the release was Rob Flaherty’s piece in The Bulwark where Flaherty, Deputy Campaign Manager for Biden then Harris 2024 and one of the few campaign insiders the autopsy team actually interviewed, details his own version of what happened, how it happened and what comes next. Flaherty suggests (and we would agree) that the Harris campaign’s core failure wasn’t tactics but was instead the absence of a coherent brand. Everything Trump did pointed to one story (she’s focused on liberal stuff, not you) while the Harris campaign punched in multiple directions at once. Flaherty describes that even though Harris’s campaign and PAC digital ads tested well, nothing gelled.

Democrats keep treating messaging as if it can solve a deeper trust problem. But it’s clear that national Democrats have a brand problem, not just a messaging problem. When voters do not know who you are, what side you are on, and what fight you are choosing, even good messages can feel disconnected. A strong brand lets a campaign say less because voters already understand the story. But without a brand, winning is a longshot.

So, back to the Connecticut gubernatorial primary. Elliott’s primary campaign will test whether voters’ economic frustration can be channeled into a brand, a governing argument and a turnout operation in 77 days. The opportunity is there: affordability is a real crisis, everybody feels the pinch at the pump, property taxes are painful, and many voters believe Connecticut works better for the wealthy than for everyone else. Can Elliott build a primary brand effectively and activate parts of the Democratic electorate that are not complacent or content?

By contrast, Governor Lamont’s brand is stability, competence, fiscal caution, and anti-Trump seriousness. Lamont is asking Democratic voters to value steadiness in an uncertain national moment and to rebuke Elliott’s riskiness.

Elliott has begun messaging around what an affordable Connecticut could look like, and weaving in class warfare, energy and utilities, healthcare and housing. His core argument is taxing concentrated wealth because, he argues, Connecticut’s tax structure protects the very wealthy while pushing too much responsibility downward through property taxes, local education costs, and underfunded public needs.

But “tax the rich”, while popular and pithy, is not enough by itself. Elliott has to build a broader, practical affordability brand with the heft of a policy agenda by talking to voters about things they care about in ways they understand. And, he must illustrate how he would run a state government that delivers visible benefits to people who feel squeezed. If this is done well, In turn, voters should be able to easily point to who Elliott is, what he stands for and the compelling alternative his leadership and governance will provide. Easy, right?

Elliott seems to be betting that voters are angry enough about affordability and open to blaming Connecticut’s own policy choices, not only Washington, for the pressure they feel. The Massachusetts millionaire’s tax gives that argument a nearby model. A few years ago, Massachusetts voters approved a surtax on income over $1 million, with revenue dedicated to education and transportation. The tax has funded programs including universal free school meals, fare-free regional transit authorities, and free community college for Massachusetts residents.

Two years in, the revenue has materialized, the state has not collapsed, and supporters now have tangible programs to point to. If you were building a political brand riding on a “tax the rich” argument, the conclusion is that the millionaire tax revenue can be tied to things voters experience: school meals, community college, transportation, education funding, and cost relief.

So, can Elliott build a big enough coalition around economic frustration, or is he mostly activating some primary voters who were already inclined to oppose Lamont from the left? Can he give voters an affirmative reason to vote for him, rather than just a reason to register frustration with Lamont? That is the test for Elliott for the next 77 days. The race for the Democrat candidate for governor already has a contrast. The million dollar question is whether that contrast can become a brand, whether that brand can become a coalition, and whether that coalition can become a primary electorate large enough to matter.

Instead, the primary ended before it started.

Stewart suspended her campaign after a report alleged improper personal spending on a New Britain city-issued credit card. McCaughey stayed in through the convention but finished far short of the 15 percent needed to qualify for an August primary. Fazio won about 92 percent of the delegate vote and left Mohegan Sun as the Republican nominee for governor. Matt Corey became the lieutenant governor nominee after Tim Ackert withdrew.

It’s mostly good news for Fazio that Republicans will not have a primary. It gives him something Lamont does not yet have: a clear runway to November. While Lamont has to deal with Josh Elliott, public financing questions, and a Democratic primary electorate, Fazio can start running a general election campaign now.

But, Fazio is no longer trying to persuade Republican delegates that he is a better option than Stewart or McCaughey. He now has to persuade voters who may know very little about him that he is a plausible governor. So, the convention made Fazio the nominee but it did not yet make him a fully defined statewide candidate.

Notably, Republicans left the convention more unified than expected, but the unity came through collapse as much as persuasion. Stewart’s exit removed the party’s most obvious internal conflict. Still, it raises a new question: did Fazio win the party, or did the party land on him because the other options disappeared? And, what does he do now?

The first question is when he starts spending. Fazio has qualified for public financing, so he will not be running a shoestring campaign. The SEEC’s 2026 grant schedule lists a full major-party gubernatorial general election grant of $18,001,704 if the campaign applies by August 24, with lower amounts for later applications. But Lamont is expected to self-fund again, and he spent $25.7 million on his 2022 reelection campaign, so Fazio is still likely to face a financial disadvantage if Lamont spends at anything close to his previous level.

By avoiding a Republican primary, Fazio got party unity and a clear runway to November. But he also lost access to approximately $2.8 million in primary-stage public financing that he could have used over the summer to introduce himself, test messages, and define Lamont before the general election formally begins.

If Fazio spends now, he can introduce himself while Lamont is still dealing with Elliott. He can try to define the race around affordability, electric bills, taxes, and the cost of living before Democrats fully turn to the general election. He can also take advantage of the fact that the Democratic primary may keep Lamont focused inward for part of the summer.

But spending early has risks, too Fazio has finite resources and if he burns through money now, he may need it later when voters are paying more attention. Early spending also gives Lamont and Democrats more time to respond, define him, and nationalize the race around Trump and the Republican brand. If Fazio waits, he preserves money for the fall and avoids peaking too early. But waiting carries its own risk because Lamont is already well known and he is not.

The second question is whether Fazio ignores Elliott and goes straight at Lamont. He probably should, but not head-on. Elliott’s campaign gives Fazio a useful argument: even Democrats are having a fight over whether Lamont has done enough on affordability, taxes, schools, housing, and inequality. Lamont’s convention speech was already more focused on Trump, Republicans, and the general election than on Elliott, which suggests Lamont also wants to run through the primary and look toward November. Fazio just needs to use the Democratic primary as evidence that Lamont’s record is not as settled as the governor wants it to look.

And, the Constitution State’s history is replete with examples of heavy primary favorites who ignored their underdog opponents and paid the price. The most memorable example occurred in the 1994 gubernatorial primary, when heavy favorite John Larson cast aside his opponent, Bill Curry. Curry won by 10 points, in what is still viewed as one of the bigger upsets in the history of Connecticut politics.

The third question is how Fazio handles Trump. A Trump endorsement could energize some Republican voters, but Fazio no longer needs Trump to win a Republican primary, so the value of a Trump endorsement has to be measured against what it buys him in a general election in blue Connecticut. Lamont and Democrats will almost certainly try to nationalize the race. That was already visible at the Democratic convention, where Lamont spent significant time talking about Trump and Republicans. For Lamont, Trump is useful because he turns the governor’s race into a broader argument about stability, values, and national politics. For Fazio, the safer ground is likely Connecticut-specific: electric rates, taxes, property taxes, housing costs, and the feeling that the state is still too expensive despite years of Democratic control.

So, can Fazio turn affordability from a talking point into a case against Lamont? And can he make voters see him as something more than the Republican who was still standing when the convention dust settled? The Republican convention may have ended the primary but it did not end the uncertainty - it just moved all of it to the general election.

Democrats left Hartford with a strong-on-paper incumbent, a validated protest vote, and a primary that is real — even if not yet especially competitive. As expected, Lamont won 1,468 delegates (75%) to 501 (25%) over Josh Elliott. Since Elliott cleared the 15% threshold, Lamont now faces an August 11 Democratic primary. The split was ideological: Lamont ran on fiscal stability, electability and his record; Elliott’s supporters pushed a more progressive “tax the rich” message and argued Democrats need to do more on inequality, schools and affordability.

Last week, we had several questions before the Democratic convention. Some have been clearly answered and many remain or emerged.

Elliott has not yet cleared the hurdle of qualifying for public financing. The current SEEC threshold for governor is $335,500 in qualifying contributions, with at least $302,000 from Connecticut residents, and the primary grant is $3,750,355 for a gubernatorial candidate who did not receive a convention grant. The final application deadline for a primary grant is 5 p.m. on July 17, 2026. He’s close to the threshold now (he says he’s about $30,000 short, but it’s not clear if that includes a much-needed buffer), so will he qualify and go on to run a spirited, progressive campaign that, even if unsuccessful (which is still likely, let’s be honest), solidifies him as a credible anti-establishment force within the Democratic Party who could run a more viable campaign in 2030?

He could become a mildly competitive candidate and really make Lamont work for the Primary win; if that happens, will it force Lamont to move to the left, undermining his moderate, centrist image - something that Fazio could exploit in the general election? The question of how large the anti-establishment ceiling is in the party right now remains.

Can Elliott convert delegate support into voter support? He has already done the insider work and it’s clear his pre-convention vote math was very accurate. His campaign said the day before the convention that it had identified 503 firm supporters; he finished with 501 votes. But now he has to reach voters who did not attend town committee meetings, do not know convention math, and may broadly like Lamont even if they agree with Elliott on taxes, schools, housing, or health care. That is a much harder campaign.

Regarding Lamont, he’s still the favorite and has significant name recognition and will spend from his personal fortune whatever he thinks he needs to spend to win. When will he start spending his substantial campaign funds? What does he spend against? Does he spend against Elliott, which risks elevating him? Does he spend against Fazio, which reinforces the idea that Elliott is a sideshow, and risks offending Elliott’s supporters, who Lamont might need if the general election is competitive? Or does he spend positively, trying to remind Democratic primary voters why they liked him in the first place?

He could push go now and go straight for Fazio, focusing on the likely November matchup and bypassing Josh Elliott. But this runs the risk of also ignoring the momentum Josh has built and the issues central to it. CT Mirror noted that Lamont’s convention speech was already more focused on Trump and Republicans than on Elliott, which suggests the campaign’s instinct is to run through the primary while looking toward November.

Connecticut’s map has changed and Lamont has not had to run this kind of August primary as a sitting governor, against a progressive challenger trying to make urban affordability, school funding, housing, and inequality the center of the race. Primaries are also, typically, lower turnout races than general elections and attract more party loyalists and activists than presidential voters. In August 2024, overall turnout was almost 16% in the 28 towns with Democratic down-ballot primaries and broader primary participation was relatively low.

So, what does that mean for Lamont’s voter engagement strategy? Low turnout does not automatically help the insurgent; it helps the side that can identify and move its voters. Elliott needs a low-turnout electorate that is disproportionately angry, progressive, and engaged. Lamont needs a low-turnout electorate that is older, institutional, loyal, and risk-averse. Can Elliott make Lamont campaign and talk differently to engage the Democratic primary electorate more seriously than he otherwise would have?

Does Elliott propose a debate against Lamont? Does Lamont debate him? Refusing to debate keeps Elliott smaller, but it also gives Elliott an easy argument that the establishment does not want to engage. Debating Elliott would elevate him, but it would also give Lamont a chance to show why most Democrats have been comfortable with him for the last eight years.

And lastly, does the Democratic primary help Fazio define Lamont before Lamont defines Fazio? A Democratic primary about taxes, wealth, schools, and affordability gives Fazio material. But it also gives Lamont an opportunity to sharpen his own affordability message before the general election. The question is whether the primary exposes Democratic division or forces Lamont to get campaign-ready earlier than he otherwise would have.

So, where are we? Elliott cleared the delegate threshold, but his next test is harder: money, message discipline, voter conversion, and whether Lamont treats him as a nuisance, a warning sign, or an actual opponent. Lamont remains the favorite. The August 11 primary is still a hazy vision in the summer heat, and the next two months will determine if Elliott catches fire or simply melts away.

The 15 percent threshold still determines who advances to the primary ballot, and both Erin Stewart and Ryan Fazio have already cleared a separate hurdle by qualifying for public financing. With two viable, resourced candidates, the convention will help clarify not just what is ahead, but what kind of Republican Party is emerging in Connecticut.

We’ll start with Erin Stewart. Conventional wisdom all along has been that Stewart has been in the lead and would get the endorsement but that Fazio would easily qualify. Stewart has already announced her running mate - former State Representative Tim Ackert. Will those predictions hold? Or have the last few weeks of controversies tied to her mayoral record shaken that up? The two most visible examples remain her comment that she had rejected bribes “all the time,” which quickly became the story itself and lingered even after clarification. More recently, she’s been accused of misusing a city-issued credit card, including numerous examples of items that appear to be personal in nature that were sent to her home.

Her initial response was to lean in rather than recalibrate, adopting a more combative posture that might resonate with certain segments of the base but will test general election voters. More recently, she said that she’ll publicly address the credit card issue, but not until after the Convention. In that same news story, one can see the beginning of what might end up being her substantive response. Said Stewart, “I have always taken accountability, and if mistakes were made, they will be addressed, they will be remedied, and we will move forward honestly and responsibly. Leadership is about having the courage to face challenges head on, and while others will choose to obsess over distractions, I remain focused on the people that we are actually here to serve.”

Her candidacy raises one of the more interesting strategic questions of this cycle. In the past, she positioned herself as a center-right executive with crossover appeal who could win a general election. She was first elected mayor of mostly blue New Britain in 2013 at age 26, and went on to win reelection in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021. Stewart was seen by many as part of a newer, more moderate, pragmatic wing of the party.

It was that image that she projected to run for Governor in 2018 before dropping her gubernatorial bid on the eve of the state convention, and decided instead to run for Lt. Governor. In that race she came in second with 33% of the vote, losing by 15 points to the more conservative then-state Senator Joe Markley in what was a three-way race.

And now? Stewart’s rhetoric and presentation have shifted noticeably toward a more Trump-aligned posture, including sharper attacks on the media. That kind of repositioning is not unusual in a primary environment, where candidates often move toward the base to distinguish themselves. It’s reminiscent of John McCain’s 2000 run for President when he ran as a moderate but was crushed by George Bush, only to run again in 2008 much further to the right.

So, is this a tactical adjustment or a deeper realignment of Stewart’s political identity? Is it smart because she’s counting on necessary support in a primary to be on the ballot in November? Delegates are more ideologically engaged and more responsive to partisan signaling than a general election electorate. A strong showing would suggest that her message is landing where it needs to in the short term. But it also raises a longer-term question about viability in a general election in a deeply blue state. Is she just setting herself up for future losses?

The other main contender is Ryan Fazio, who Stewart refused to debate and who has taken a more policy-forward approach. His focus on a tangible outcome, such as reducing electricity costs, aligns with a broader political environment where “affordability” has become a central theme across parties. That framing offers a contrast to Stewart’s more style-driven positioning and gives delegates a different model of how to compete both in a primary and, potentially, in a general election.

Will Fazio announce his running mate at the convention? Some have speculated that he’ll choose Senator Heather Somers, who has served since 2016 and is currently the Chief Deputy Senate Republican Leader. A big surprise would be if Fazio and Stewart put together a ticket. Will the rumors prove true? Or did Stewart’s recent issues bury the idea of a fusion ticket? In this CT Mirror story, Fazio basically called Stewart damaged goods, saying: “Erin Stewart’s conduct is disqualifying. Using taxpayer funds to pay for tens of thousands of dollars in personal expenses — including her husband’s birthday gifts, her own birthday dinner, a personal membership at a Hartford social club and more — is a serious crime and a profound abuse of the public’s trust,” Fazio said Sunday. “If she were the nominee, Democrats would spend millions making sure every voter in Connecticut knows it, and Republicans would suffer devastating losses up and down the ballot.”

So, while stranger things have happened, it seems highly unlikely that the Convention will result in a Fazio-Stewart, or a Stewart-Fazio, ticket.

Finally, one of the under-the-radar things to watch this weekend is not just who wins between the top two, but whether anyone else breaks through enough to complicate the field. Operating from a much different tie is Betsy McCaughey, a Newsmax host and former New York lieutenant governor,who has been active in party circles and participated in candidate forums and debates. Her ceiling is less clear, but conventions can sometimes reward candidates who have done the quieter work of delegate outreach. She also has not qualified for public financing.

This weekend’s Republican convention is not just a checkpoint in the nomination process; it is an early indicator of how candidates are choosing to navigate the tension between winning a primary that spans the spectrum of party ideology and building a coalition that can compete in November.

Before diving into the jockeying, it’s worth a quick refresher on what the convention actually is. The convention is a test of organization and insider strength. It’s not a primary, it’s not open for public input and it’s not a reflection of the broader electorate that will head to the polls in August. As we wrote a few posts back, Connecticut’s nomination system gives substantial power to a relatively invisible phase of party politics, and that phase does a great deal to shape which candidates survive long enough to make their case to voters.

Delegates are selected through local party processes and tend to be the most engaged activists and institutional players in the party. Campaigns are competing for organized and committed support, not passive preference. The key threshold is 15%, which secures a spot on the primary ballot. Clear it, and a campaign becomes real. Fall short, and it’s effectively over. What happens this weekend sets the field and establishes the baseline for everything that follows.

First up, the Democratic convention. In the governor’s race, Governor Ned Lamont is still expected to secure overwhelming delegate support. He’s an incumbent, after all, and early polling showed State Rep. Josh Elliott trailing by a wide margin. Nevertheless, as we’ve written, Josh Elliott has emerged as a legitimate challenger and, by his own recent and notably transparent email updates, believes he is around 25%. The question is whether that reflects an accurate count or an attempt to shape expectations ahead of the vote. Elliott may be optimistic, or he may be playing a long game on expectations, positioning any overperformance as momentum.

Will Elliott reach or even clear 15%? If he clears that, Elliott is on the ballot and the race continues. If he lands in the mid-20s, he establishes credibility. If he pushes toward one third, it begins to suggest a more durable bloc of delegates willing to oppose the party establishment. That 33% number is not arbitrary and has shown up in past cycles, including in 2006 when Ned Lamont first ran for elected office ad challenged then-incumbent U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman. Ironic, to say the least. If Elliott qualifies, it becomes incumbent on the Lamont team to prepare for a genuine primary contest.

Yet even if Elliott does perform well, he still needs to raise about $67,000 of the $350,000 required in donations by July 17 to unlock $3.75 million in public financing. For Elliott, delegate performance only matters if it converts to money because without funding, his ballot presence is functionally irrelevant. If Elliott gets 20-25% but hasn’t qualified for public financing, pressure will mount for him to explain his strategy or succumb to the pressure to drop out.

Another question we’re asking: does Elliott announce a running mate? If Elliott does qualify, the next signal is whether he immediately names a running mate and whether that choice expands his coalition in a meaningful way, either through political capital or access to new donors. Could a running mate announcement before the convention even help Elliott reach his delegate threshold, or should he wait to see convention results first? It would make sense to announce early if he has a strategic partner who either adds delegate support or fundraising capacity, otherwise it could look premature or forced.

Importantly, if Elliott does name a running mate, that person also has to get 15% of the delegates to get on the primary ballot, since in a primary both the Governor and Lt. Governor candidates run as individuals, not as a ticket (as they do in the general election).

One last thing to watch: does the Lamont operation try to strong-arm delegates on the floor of the convention to prevent Elliott from getting his 15%, or do they let the chips fall where they may? Elliott has been alleging for weeks that Lamont’s people have been trying to strong-arm Town Chairs to a) keep him from addressing their town committees, and b) keep delegates from committing to Elliott.

Overlaying all of this is a broader change environment that has shaped races across the country and the world. The open question is how much of that sentiment penetrates a convention electorate that is typically more aligned with party leadership than the people. Is Josh Elliott a symbolic protest candidate, or a credible anti-establishment force within the Democratic Party? How large is the anti-establishment ceiling in the party right now? The convention will ultimately reveal the immediate consequences when the establishment faces a significant internal challenge.

The appeal is intuitive: by initiating investments early and maintaining them over time, you build a durable financial foundation. It is a theory we find compelling. ImpactCT is committed to policies that drive upward mobility for Connecticut residents—particularly for communities historically sidelined from wealth creation. We want to support efforts that expand capital access and work toward narrowing the persistent wealth gap.

However, as is often the case in policy, the devil is in the details. The structure of Trump Accounts reveals a more complicated reality: they not only reflect the inequities of the current economy, they actually exacerbate them. They reward those who already have more. As this TIME analysis observes, growth relies on private contributions and market fluctuations. Families with disposable income can maximize these benefits, while many lower-income households (including a significant portion of the Republican base) simply cannot.

Consider a household capable of investing $5,000 annually. Those savings could mature into a $300,000 asset by the time a child reaches adulthood, thanks to compounding interest and expected annual returns. A family that cannot invest additional funds beyond the $1,000 will likely end up with an asset that is worth just $5,839 by the child’s eighteenth birthday, according to a model by the Council of Economic Advisers. In addition, the family that contributes the maximum amount every year will also realize a tax savings, while the family that cannot contribute additional funds will receive no tax benefit. While $5,839 is certainly better than zero dollars, the disparity between those two figures is stark, to say the least.

In short, instead of closing inequalities,Trump Accounts compound them over time.

Still, the core idea that asset-based growth is a vital ladder is relevant. For many families, even a modest savings account is a foot in the door. This week, Connecticut wrapped up a legislative cycle where affordability was a dominant media topic. Lawmakers passed a $29 billion budget with substantial allocations for childcare, municipal aid, and gun safety regulations. But, bolder ideas like a renter’s tax credit stalled. There’s no major rebate coming, no broad-based tax cut that meaningfully shifts people’s monthly budgets. For a lot of families, there isn’t disposable income to invest - there’s barely enough to cover basic costs.

Contrast the Trump Accounts with Connecticut’s baby bonds program. The latter uses public seeding to build assets for lower-income families rather than relying on personal wealth. Coupled with new requirements for financial literacy in our schools, the state is acknowledging that access to capital only matters if citizens have the agency and resources to manage it. This is an attempt to solve for the same objective as the Trump Accounts, but with an eye toward equity rather than exclusion.

Despite being an awful policy, Connecticut families should still take advantage of Trump Accounts. If our reaction to a flawed federal program is total withdrawal based on its imperfections, those with the least cushion pay the heaviest price. If the goal is to dismantle inequity, the response cannot be disengagement; otherwise, we aren’t fixing the imbalance, we are merely ensuring the status quo remains untouched.

Wealthy families will find other ways to build equity; those without resources are simply left behind.

The result is that campaigns increasingly function as continuous stress tests. Voters may not expect perfection, but they do expect something harder to define: competence and control. When something goes wrong, they watch for signs that a candidate understands the situation and can manage it.

We’ve seen versions of this dynamic play out nationally in very different ways.

Barack Obama’s response to the Reverend Wright controversy remains a useful example of a campaign confronting a crisis that was, at its core, politically manufactured. The episode was driven in large part by what amounted to thinly veiled race-baiting, but that didn’t make it optional. Obama didn’t try to outmaneuver the day-to-day coverage - he slowed the cycle down, addressed the issue at scale, and reframed it on his own terms. The takeaway is less about the specifics of the speech and more about the approach: when a narrative is expanding, you either contain it quickly or redefine it entirely. You cannot simply deny it.

Candidates like Zohran Mamdani have had to navigate the Israel–Palestine issue while running in environments where neutrality is not a viable option.In New York, where the electorate includes large and politically engaged Jewish and Muslim communities, the margin for error is slim. The challenge in those moments isn’t avoiding controversy, it’s sustaining message discipline as best you can while taking positions that will inevitably draw scrutiny. That requires clarity, control, consistency, and an honest understanding that every answer will be interpreted through multiple, often conflicting, lenses.

And then there are the self-inflicted moments of crisis. Former CA Congresswoman and current candidate for Governor Katie Porter’s public exchange with a reporter is a reminder that not all crises originate externally. Porter was asked about redistricting and what she would say to the approximately 40% of Californians who voted for Trump, and she instead threw up her hands and ended the interview. In a media environment that rewards clips over context, a candidate appearing reactive and clearly losing control can become the entire story.

Different contexts, but the same underlying test: can a candidate absorb pressure without compounding the problem? Two recent Connecticut examples—very different in substance—point to how that test is playing out locally.

In New Britain, Mayor Erin Stewart found herself navigating scrutiny tied to a tax collection probe. In a subsequent sit-down, television interview she described having rejected bribes “all the time,” a line that quickly became the story itself. The comment was walked back and clarified, but the clarification didn’t resolve the issue so much as extend it. One assumes she was trying to prove her integrity as it pertained to the tax collection issue, but in this case she “over-tried,” and made a somewhat difficult situation much worse. What may have been intended as a colloquial way to describe routine pressure instead introduced legal and political ambiguity. One can assume she’ll be asked about this, again, in a televised debate (should there be one), which means that a lot of people who might not have heard about it at this still-early stage of the gubernatorial campaign will hear about it.

This is a particular kind of campaign error that doesn’t usually end a candidacy. But it creates a lingering question about judgment. In crisis communications, precision matters more than relatability, and candidates don’t get much credit for what they meant to say.

A different kind of test emerged in the case of Konstantinos Diamantis, a former Lamont administration official who faced federal charges. Governor Lamont moved quickly to fire Diamantis once concerns surfaced, creating immediate distance between the Administration and the conduct.

That distinction matters. Some crises can be clarified or corrected; others can’t be managed through messaging at all and require visible action to change the underlying reality, not just the narrative around it. In those cases, speed is everything.

Taken together, these situations highlight a broader point: the most important decision in a crisis is often not what to say, but what to do. And increasingly, voters are evaluating candidates through that lens.

Looking to the 2026 Governor’s race, the early test for candidates is more than ideological alignment or policy fluency. It is also whether they appear capable of handling moments of uncertainty and pressure - of governing and maintaining stability.

The deeper shift is that campaigns are no longer just vehicles for policy positions. They are, in effect, auditions for crisis leadership. Message discipline, judgment under pressure, and the ability to act decisively are all being evaluated in real time.

For operatives, the lessons are relatively straightforward, even if they are not always followed. Say less, earlier. Avoid improvising when precision matters. Define the issue before it defines you. And recognize the difference between situations that can be corrected and those that must be contained through action. Most of all, never go into an interview with a reporter without a plan, especially when you know the issue that’s dogging you is going to be the subject of the interview. In other words, don’t wing it.

Most of all, operate as if you are already governing. The candidates who succeed in 2026 will not be the ones who avoid every mistake. They will be the ones who demonstrate—early and repeatedly—that they can handle what happens when something goes wrong.

At the center of the Republican case is a claim that has become more politically useful than factual: that large numbers of noncitizens are voting in American elections. In reality, noncitizen voting in federal elections is already illegal, and national reporting has repeatedly found that it is extremely rare. Democrats are right to reject that premise. But if Republicans are advancing a bad-faith solution to an exaggerated problem, Democrats must make the right argument against it.

Too much of the opposition to the SAVE Act collapses two different questions into one. The first is whether it is reasonable to ask a voter to show identification at the polls. The second is whether it is reasonable to require documentary proof of citizenship, often in person, to register or update a voter registration. Treating the two as interchangeable may be politically convenient, but they’re not the same thing.

Under current state practice, Connecticut does not require every voter to show a driver’s license or photo ID at the polls. Voters can use other forms of identification, and in some circumstances they can sign an affidavit instead. Connecticut’s own Secretary of the State has made that distinction plain: under the SAVE America Act, a driver’s license or even a REAL ID would not by itself be enough to prove citizenship for voter registration, and voters would have to present citizenship documents in person for registration changes that today can often be handled online or by mail.

There are real questions about what happens when a federal bill built around suspicion collides with the way states actually run elections. Connecticut has every reason to push back on that. But instead, some are talking as though the very idea of requiring identification to vote is inherently beyond the reach of ordinary people, especially lower-income voters, voters of color, and immigrant citizens. And that is where the rhetoric begins to feel less protective than patronizing.

For a party that touts its beliefs in dignity, agency, and equal citizenship, this is an odd place to land. Most adults already navigate identity requirements in other parts of life. To board a domestic flight, travelers now need a REAL ID-compliant license or another accepted ID such as a passport. To start a job, federal law requires identity and work-authorization documents. Neither of those is a perfect analogy for voting, and shouldn’t be copied wholesale into election law. But they do underscore something basic: identity verification is already a normal part of adult civic life.

The mythology of widespread noncitizen voting is doing political work for Republicans whether the facts support it or not. Still, Democrats do themselves no favors when they answer that mythology by suggesting that the voters they claim to represent are uniquely unable to meet basic civic expectations.

In Connecticut, the inconsistency becomes harder to ignore. Lawmakers are comfortable imposing identity-related requirements in other contexts when they think fraud or abuse is a concern. Under a 2025 Connecticut law, redemption centers that accept more than 2,500 containers from one person in a day must record that person’s name, vehicle plate number, a copy of the person’s driver’s license, and other information related to the redemption. That law applies to high-volume redemptions, not ordinary bottle returns. But it still reveals something about how selectively identity requirements are discussed. In some settings, documentation is treated as a routine accountability measure. In others, verification is described as an unjust burden.

A better Democratic argument is available. Republicans are exaggerating a problem that is not widespread in order to justify a bill that goes well beyond the commonsense question of whether a voter can identify himself or herself at the polls. The real danger lies in the broader architecture of the bill: documentary proof of citizenship, in-person requirements, and administrative hurdles that could make registration and participation harder in ways that are unnecessary and, in some cases, plainly ideological.

It is reasonable and smart for Democrats to oppose the SAVE Act. But their opposition shouldn’t diminish the very voters they say they trust. There is a real difference between protecting ballot access and assuming ordinary voters cannot meet ordinary civic expectations.