By CHRIS POWELL
Connecticut Republicans caught a huge break last week as former New Britain Mayor Erin Stewart, the leader for the party’s nomination for governor, withdrew just hours ahead of their state nominating convention, having realized that negotiating a plea bargain for the financial fraud in which she had just been exposed would interfere with campaigning.
Audit shows college system is even worse than its chancellors
1st CD primary: Young vs. old or Mayberry vs. Greenwich?
A great candidate in theory but a disaster in practice
Apparently many convention delegates were sticking with Stewart even after she said she would not answer questions about her extensive misuse of a city government credit card until after the convention, because, she said, she needed time to gather documents. While this was comic, some delegates seemed to take it seriously. It was as if Stewart didn’t already know that the clothing, groceries, makeup, children’s party supplies, expensive club membership, and other things she had charged to the city and had shipped to her home had been for personal use.
New Britain city government’s quick release of an audit about her fraud exploded Stewart’s silly gambit just in time for the Republicans to avoid what would have been an embarrassment for the ages.
So the party’s nomination for governor easily went to Stewart’s main rival, Greenwich state Sen. Ryan Fazio, with the third aspirant in the race, former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, receiving too few votes to qualify for a primary in which she likely would have tried to defeat Fazio by accusing him of not being enthusiastic enough about President Trump. Her victory in a primary would have doomed Republicans everywhere in the state in November.
Most people probably will forget the Stewart scandal over the summer, but Fazio will have to help them forget — not just by showing mastery of the issues of state government, with which he is familiar by virtue of his five years in the Senate, but also by offering insight, particularly as to why Connecticut has not been improving despite ever-increasing government spending and why poverty is exploding in the state anyway.
If mere throwing money at problems was the solution, Connecticut wouldn’t be losing population relative to other states, its economy would be growing instead of stagnant, and people wouldn’t be clamoring for more welfare.
Insight requires challenging the special interests that long have controlled state government, along with detailing the failures and scandals of the current Democratic state administration. Of course that would make enemies. But Republicans in Connecticut, reduced to a small minority in the General Assembly and winless in statewide elections for 20 years, have nothing to lose. A Republican candidate for governor needs people to admire him for the enemies he makes.
As for the Democratic state convention, the challenger to the renomination of Governor Lamont, far-left Hamden state Rep. Josh Elliott, won 25% of the delegates, far more than the 15% needed to qualify for the primary he now will wage.
Elliott advocates much more state government spending, higher taxes, and welfare, and his delegates chanted “tax the rich” as if the rich already don’t pay most state taxes. His supporters — state government’s insatiable dependents — are motivated and sure to vote in the primary, while the governor may have trouble motivating ordinary Democrats who are not on government’s payroll or welfare. That’s his challenge.
The primary with Elliott could help Lamont for the election by making him look more moderate and responsible — if, as expected, Elliott sticks to pressing for higher taxes, spending, and more welfare. But what if Elliott also expands his range by stressing the many scandals of the Lamont administration? While leftism is mostly a demand for enlarging government, there is no rule that leftists cannot also favor honesty, efficiency, and measurement of results.
Under Lamont the state colleges and universities system is providing plenty of scandal and incompetence. There is corruption in the state police and Correction Department and serious trouble in child protection. Last year the governor’s former deputy budget director was convicted of corruption.
Might such things mean something to ordinary Democrats, or are most of them just apologists for government no matter what?
Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)
Chris Powell column 
I hope these ChatGPT comment are helpful and not simply annoying. Anyway, here goes:
“What are three campaign issues for the gubrenatorial election in CT this year?
Three likely campaign issues in Connecticut’s 2026 gubernatorial election are:
This is already a top issue. Republican Ryan Fazio has made lowering electric bills a central campaign theme, including criticism of the public benefits charge and state clean-energy costs. State regulators recently approved changes expected to lower average electric bills, which will keep the issue visible.
Fazio is campaigning on lowering income taxes, capping property taxes, and reducing electric rates. Gov. Ned Lamont, meanwhile, has emphasized tax cuts, rebates, fiscal stability, and help for working- and middle-class families.
Rising rents, housing supply, rental assistance, and homelessness prevention are likely to be major issues. Lamont has proposed funding to maintain Rental Assistance Program vouchers, and the state recently released additional homelessness-prevention money.
A fourth issue just beneath those is party direction and leadership style: Lamont faces a Democratic primary challenge from Josh Elliott, who is pushing a more progressive economic-fairness message, while Republicans have consolidated behind Fazio after Erin Stewart left the race.
Which positions on these issues seem most attainable?
I’ll separate “attainable” into what a governor can realistically influence, what needs the legislature, and what depends on outside forces such as energy markets or federal policy.Thought for 7s
Of the three, housing is probably the most attainable, targeted energy-bill relief is partly attainable, and big tax/property-tax promises are the hardest.1. Most attainable: housing supply and homelessness prevention
A governor and legislature can actually pass zoning incentives, fund affordable housing, expand rental assistance, and support homelessness-prevention programs. Connecticut has already been moving in that direction: Lamont signed a 2025 housing bill aimed at encouraging more housing development, and the state budget included large capital support for housing development and assistance.
The catch is that housing supply takes years. The most attainable short-term pieces are rental assistance, homelessness prevention, state grants, and easier permitting. The least attainable piece is quickly making homes cheap in high-demand towns.2. Partly attainable: lower electric bills
Some reductions are attainable because Connecticut can move state-policy costs around. PURA recently approved changes that nearly removed the public benefits charge from bills, cutting average Eversource bills by about $30 per month and United Illuminating bills by about $34 per month.
But campaign promises like “cut bills 20%” are harder. Electric bills are affected by wholesale power markets, transmission costs, storm costs, utility rate cases, and regional energy infrastructure. Eversource is already seeking a future base-rate increase, which shows how quickly one reduction can be offset by another cost category.
So the attainable position is: scrutinize utility costs, shift or reduce public-benefit charges, improve procurement, and provide targeted rebates. The less attainable position is: guarantee permanently low electric bills by gubernatorial action alone.3. Hardest: broad tax and property-tax cuts
Connecticut can cut some state taxes, and Lamont did sign major income-tax reductions that took effect in 2024. But broad new cuts run into the state’s fiscal guardrails, pension/debt obligations, education costs, Medicaid, special education, and town aid. Lamont’s 2025 budget proposal was already described as trying to fit new spending and a modest $50 income-tax cut within tight fiscal limits.
Property taxes are even harder because they are set mainly by towns. The state can increase municipal aid or expand property-tax credits, but it cannot easily force every town to lower mill rates without shifting costs somewhere else. Recent town budgets still show local tax pressure even when state aid helps.
My ranking would be:
Most attainable: housing funding, permitting incentives, homelessness prevention
Moderately attainable: targeted electric-bill relief
Least attainable: sweeping income-tax or property-tax cuts without service cuts or new revenue elsewhere
LikeLike