The latest Quinnipiac University poll on key Connecticut political races demonstrates two things, most voters are not paying attention — and who can blame them, it’s March and the election is in November — and those who do make a choice appear largely influenced by name recognition.

In the governor’s race the big winner is undecided, capturing a whopping 50 percent of the responses in the Republican nomination race and 44 percent on the Democratic side.

After undecided, the preferred Republican gubernatorial candidate is businessman and former ambassador Tom Foley, with 30 percent. A millionaire, he also happens to be the only candidate for the nomination running TV commercials already. No other candidate is advertising and none top 4 percent.

On the Democratic side Ned Lamont, who in 2006 won a high profile primary race against Sen. Joe Lieberman and then lost a high profile race in the general election to Lieberman, benefits from the resulting name recognition to get 28 percent in the poll. Former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy, who lost a lower profile primary for governor in 2006, gets but 18 percent. The lesson: You get more name recognition from being a losing candidate in a high-profile contest than from being a successful mayor.

In the race for the Senate Democratic nomination Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who has had so much air time on state TV news programs in the past two decades that he probably qualifies for an actor’s guild card, leads little-known Merrick Alpert 81 to 6 percent.  

Finally, on the Republican Senate side, former wrestling executive Linda McMahon has moved ahead of former congressman Rob Simmons in the race for that nomination 44-34 percent. Businessman Peter Schiff has 9 percent.

McMahon, who is spending her WWE fortune to try to win the election, is, like Foley, the only candidate in the race advertising on TV. That gave her name recognition and the lead. Simmons, as a former House member, has the second most name recognition and so, second place. Schiff has little name recognition and last place.

Issues? Experience? Ability? That doesn’t have much to with the candidate standings, at least not at this point.

When, or should I say if, the public becomes engaged, things will change. And I’d like to think voters will actually look at the issues and the quality of the candidates, not just the ability to pay for a lot of slick TV advertisements. Because if it is just about who can afford to spend the most to get elected, maybe we should just skip the whole thing and award offices to the highest bidders. It could help the debt.

To check out the Quinnipiac polls go here.