Paddi LeShane, Co-Founder & CEO

The election is over. But 50 years from now, when someone looks back at the historic defeat of a sitting Connecticut congressman in a primary, what will they read about August 11? “Political earthquake?” “Progressive wave?” “Generational shift?”

The words we use now may become the historical narrative, and this election was far more complicated than any one of those labels.

Okay, I turned in my blue lobbying badge several sessions ago. And as someone who works at the crossroads of media, government, politics, and business, I still follow the ins and outs, and I engage on issues and with elected officials when I have a personal reason to do so.

I spend my days as a strategic communicator, and I began thinking about all the references to Connecticut’s August 11 primary as a “political earthquake.”

Maybe. But that feels too simple for what actually happened Tuesday.

The results were dramatic, but they didn’t point uniformly left, right, anti-establishment or anti-incumbent. In fact, the two marquee Democratic results almost contradict one another. Gov. Ned Lamont decisively defeated progressive challenger Josh Elliott, taking about 68% of the vote, while Luke Bronin defeated 14-term Congressman John Larson by roughly 20 points.



Rather than an earthquake, I’d call it a political recalibration.

Other descriptions work: a changing of the guard, generational reset, selective revolt, leadership reset, political warning shot. But “recalibration” captures something important: Democratic voters didn’t reject the establishment wholesale. They seemed to be reassessing who fits this moment—and who they believe should lead them into the next one.

A lot of people I’ve talked with since the Tuesday Primary are calling it a progressive wave. Some down-ballot results certainly demonstrated progressive organizational strength, but the overall results don’t support that broad conclusion. Elliott offered Democratic voters a clearly more progressive alternative to Lamont, and they overwhelmingly stayed with Lamont.

So, what did voters say? And what did my favorite political pundits talk about on the Wednesday and Thursday morning, noon, and evening news?

First, they voted candidate by candidate, not simply by ideology. The same electorate that overwhelmingly returned an establishment governor was willing to replace one of the state’s longest-serving members of Congress. Connecticut’s Democratic electorate may be considerably more pragmatic—and less “groupthink”—than the national narrative sometimes suggests.

Second, experience still matters, but longevity alone may not be enough. Larson had decades of accomplishments, seniority, endorsements and deep institutional relationships. Bronin successfully shifted the question from “What has Larson accomplished?” to something closer to “Who should represent us for the next decade?” That is a very different question for any longtime incumbent.

Third, generational change may be more important right now than ideological change. Bronin isn’t an ideological revolutionary. His victory may instead signal that voters might be increasingly comfortable switching out familiar leaders for a next generation that still somewhat operates within the Democratic mainstream.

And finally, we shouldn’t overlook who actually makes these decisions. Primary turnout remains low. A relatively small number of voters can determine nominations—and, in many Connecticut districts, effectively determine who will ultimately hold office. That deserves considerably more attention, including the emerging debate about whether expanded early voting is actually increasing participation enough to justify its cost.

So, I’m not convinced Connecticut experienced a political earthquake.

The electorate didn’t say, “Throw everybody out.” It didn’t say, “Move dramatically left.” And it certainly didn’t say experience doesn’t matter. The message may have been much simpler:

Show us why you are still the right person for what is coming down the road.

And that brings me back to the discussion about age. The lesson shouldn’t be that “old politicians are finished.” Lamont is 72 and just overwhelmingly defeated a 42-year-old challenger. Voters appear capable of distinguishing among age, longevity and perceived relevance. Those are three very different things.

That may be the most interesting Connecticut political story coming out of August 11.

So, for anyone already thinking about a run in 2028: Don’t just prepare to tell voters what you’ve done—or what you’re against. Be ready to answer the question they increasingly seem to be asking: Why you, and why now?

Dan Tapper, Senior Director



Anthony Branciforte is the opinion editor at the Waterbury Republican-American. He previously worked as a reporter for the Manchester Journal Inquirer, where he won a Connecticut Society of Professional Journalists award for investigative work. Before entering journalism, he was a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.

How long have you been at the Republican-American, and in print journalism? What attracted you to this career, and what do you like most about it?

I joined the Republican-American a little more than four years ago as an editorial writer. Before that, I was a reporter at the Journal Inquirer for about five years. Writing was always my strong suit, but unlike a lot of members of my generation, I wasn't interested in popular fiction like Harry Potter. As a teenager, I found myself getting drawn toward politics, but I never envisioned a career working on campaigns or anything like that. So it became obvious at about 15-years-old that journalism was the natural path for me.

Can you talk about your role on the editorial board and as an opinion writer, and how the Republican-American joining the Hearst CT family has enhanced that role?

Opinion writing is a lot of fun. That's the one thing I've always bragged about -- I have a fun job. At the same time, it's a lot of responsibility. As a reporter, you never want to get anything wrong, but most mistakes are taken in good faith. When you're staking out a political claim as an opinion writer, you always want to be extra vigilant. That's basically what we do as an editorial board: Conduct research, arrive at a clear position, and do our best to make our case. Sometimes our writing reaches people in power. My colleague and former editor, Steve Macoy, wrote an editorial on Connecticut's bottle-deposit policies this year. When I was reading updated legislation to write a follow-up piece, I realized whoever wrote the new legislation essentially lifted many of Steve's recommendations almost verbatim.

Hearst has benefited us in many ways, but primarily through the ability to gauge audience engagement through various tools, including social media. It's dangerous to simply chase clicks, so we don't do that, but we have a much better understanding of what topics the audience is interested in and what kinds of headlines draw readers' attention. That's been huge for expanding our audience, and I'm very appreciative of the kind of sophistication and collaboration Hearst brings to the table.

What are your favorite topics to cover in your role?

Criminal justice and public safety, K-12 and higher education, and immigration. I like the kitchen-table issues, the things that most people come into contact with one way or another. My background is working-class -- I'm the first person in my family to go to college -- so I try not to get too bogged down in the abstract. I'm always asking, "How would this or that policy affect the average voter?"

Finally, what role does a longstanding local newspaper like the Republican-American play in keeping the public informed, and why is that so important?

It's funny. People will say, "Newspapers are having a tough time because everyone gets their news online." And people do get local news online -- including on Hearst Connecticut Media's website, CT Insider. But when people say "news is online," what they really mean is national news! You won't find local news on CNN's website or something like that. So papers like ours are sort of the last bastion of civic engagement at the local and state level. Without us, there'd be little substantive oversight or published criticism of politics at that level, which means politicians would start behaving very differently.

Brian Flaherty, Executive Vice President

1.The headline says everything, yet nothing: AI loves jam-packed headlines that sound profound and say nothing. Saying your client just opened a new branch office is so much better than saying it “launched a community expansion initiative.” AI quotes often sound robotic, as well, and as I wrote in March, “Good quotes sound like real people.”

2. No heartbeat: AI doesn’t know that your client built their worldwide company in a loft apartment in New Haven, that the CEO tears up every time they talk about their first employee. Those are the heartbeat of your client’s story.

3. The em dash epidemic: This one kills me, because I LOVE the em dash. Nowadays, the only place I’ll use it is in a speech to emphasize where the speaker should pause. AI uses em dashes at three to five times the rate of human writers—when a comma would do the job just fine. (See what I did there?) A paragraph overloaded with em dashes has probably not been touched by a human hand.

4. The AI cadence: AI tends to write in a repetitive rhythm: “The company announced an initiative. The initiative will support customers. The program will enhance services. The effort reflects the company’s commitment.”

5.It lacks a reporter’s hook. Do you want your press release to be a story people will read? Make sure it’s got a hook that someone will want to write about. AI is pretty good at producing a press release that satisfies a communications department, but often misses the reason a reporter should care. A reporter covering affordable housing wants to know how many units, at what price point, and what specific need it solves where it’s being built. Tell that story!

I’ve had some fun with this, but in a way, the PR industry is part of the problem. After all, AI has learned from decades of good and not-so-good press releases to create its templates.

This month’s tip: Reporters can smell a templated release immediately, and we all know what that’s like when the reporter takes a pass on a release. 

Your client’s story deserves a human voice. Give it one. 

Randi Sussman, Senior Manager, Integrated Communications

"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion."
— W. Edwards Deming, American engineer, statistician, and management consultant

Successful public relations starts with good data. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) provide measurable insights that help organizations understand what's working, what isn't, and how to make better communications decisions.

Data-driven insights serve as the foundation for strategic recommendations. As communications professionals, we should be monitoring KPIs to better understand how target audiences engage with our content, identify what is working, and make informed decisions that strengthen our public relations strategies.

Far too often, organizations focus on the numbers that are easiest to see, such as likes, impressions, and follower counts. These metrics provide valuable information. However, they do not always tell the full story of whether communications efforts are achieving their intended goals.

In today's world, we have access to countless metrics that help us better understand what is working and what isn't. Whether it's social media performance, website analytics, or media coverage, understanding what is happening behind the scenes is essential to building an effective public relations strategy. KPIs provide a snapshot of audience behavior and help you refine messaging, measure success, and build more effective communications campaigns.

I regularly review KPIs to evaluate the performance of Sullivan & LeShane Public Relations' external communications. I also track that data over time so I can see how our results change from month to month and year to year. Having historical data allows us to identify trends, measure progress, and make more informed communications decisions.

I use a simple process to evaluate our own communications that helps us understand the role KPIs play in measuring the success of a campaign. For example, I look at the time of day our newsletters receive the highest open rates, as well as the types of LinkedIn posts and articles that generate the most engagement. That information helps guide our strategy by showing us what is working, what may need to be adjusted, and where we should focus our efforts moving forward.

The goal isn't to collect more data. It's to collect the right data. When communications are measured against clear objectives, organizations can make smarter decisions, adapt more quickly, and demonstrate the true value of their public relations efforts.