No wonder Nancy Johnson has been running those lame attack ads on Murphy. She's in a bit of trouble and No More Nancy has the details.
A new internal poll conducted by the Murphy campaign shows the fifth district race in a dead heat. The same poll showed Johnson with a nine point lead back in June. Clearly, voters are responding to Murphy's positive message of change and aren't buying into Nancy Johnson's fear mongering.
Murphy's 41 towns in 41 days tour definately had a positive impact and his quick rebuttal to Johnson "Battlestar Galatica inspired" attack ad didn't seem to win her any new fans.
Who would you vote for if the election were held today? (June results)
Murphy: 42% (34%)
Johnson: 42% (43%)
Undecided: 12% (21%)
Will you definitely vote for Murphy/Johnson, or might you change your mind before the election?
Murphy: 78% Definite, 21% Might Change
Johnson: 68% Definite, 31% Might Change
In short, people want a change in Washington and Nancy Johnson needs to exit stage right. Her tenure in Congress has only help her deep pockets as she rakes in the money from special interest groups and voters want someone who will go in a new direction.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
