A lot of towns that are usually safe for Republicans voted in a Democrat in 2006. A lot of that has to do with national events and the particular dynamics of that race (i.e., Nancy Johnson blew it while Murphy ran a great campaign), but the fact remains that these towns aren’t nearly as “safe” as Republicans might have hoped. To illustrate the point, Murphy won Avon by almost 500 votes. Avon. Not exactly a hotbed of liberalism!
So does that mean the political dynamics of this district are changing? In some places, I think they are. The Farmington Valley has been becoming ever more Democratic for most of this decade. But I think that what’s really happening here is history re-asserting itself. This district, which comprises most of the old 6th and 5th districts from before the 2000 merger and reorganization, has a history of electing both Republicans and Democrats. Until 2002, Democrat James Maloney represented the 5th district, while Nancy Johnson represented the 6th as a longtime incumbent. They faced each other in a very Republican year when the districts were merged, and Johnson won.
That, of course, means that most of the district is not averse to voting for a Democrat, despite other Republican-leaning tendencies, when the need for change strikes them. The 5th district has had higher turnover than any other district over the past fifty years, and since 1970 incumbents in that district have served an average of only three terms. National events seem to have a bigger impact here, as well. For instance, Johnson defeated Maloney in a very Republican year nationwide. Maloney himself came to power on Bill Clinton’s coattails in 1996, while John Rowland won in 1984 with the help of Ronald Reagan.
[...]
This district is very winnable for the right Republican in the right year.
Is that year this year? Is David Cappiello that Republican? …Probably not. 2008 is shaping up to be a good year for Democrats nationwide, and neither the 5th nor the old 6th district have kicked out a one-term incumbent since 1946. The numbers seem to favor Murphy.
Please make sure to check out Genghis' full analysis (including his trademark maps) over at the Connecticut Local Politics site.
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.
