Posted on 02/12/2007 12:49:15 PM PST by Reagan Man
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is poised to trump all comers in New York's presidential primary and general elections in 2008, according to a Crain's New York Business poll.
The survey of 600 registered voters across the state also found that Rudy Giuliani would handily win a Republican primary but lose the state in a final race for the White House. In addition, the results show that Mayor Michael Bloomberg, if he runs as an independent, would be little more than a long shot.
The results reflect the advantages enjoyed by Ms. Clinton, who is fresh off a $30.8 million re-election campaign in which she drew 67% of the vote and is the only New Yorker to have announced a presidential bid. In a prospective Democratic primary, the second-term senator was favored by 54% of party members, far ahead of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., at 18%, and John Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, at 5%.
In one-on-one matchups with Republicans, Ms. Clinton outpolled Mr. Giuliani 53% to 32% and Sen. John McCain of Arizona 55% to 26%.
The poll is a snapshot of the present, not a forecast, and does not guarantee an easy ride for the state's junior senator.
"For Clinton, her strength is broad and impressive, but the real question is, How deep is it?" says Craig Charney, president of Charney Research, which conducted the poll from Jan. 22 to Jan. 25. "How well will it hold up in the give-and-take of a presidential campaign?"
Experts say that early polling favors Ms. Clinton because it is heavily influenced by name recognition, and that the Democratic race in New York will get tighter as voters become more familiar with Mr. Obama. By the same token, Mr. Giuliani has less potential to gain support because he's already well-known here.
Mr. Giuliani would trounce Mr. McCain in a state Republican primary, according to the poll. But in a hypothetical general election he lagged not only Ms. Clinton, but also Mr. Obama — by 42% to 31% in a head-to-head matchup.
"I'm surprised; I thought Rudy would actually do better," says Jerry Skurnik of Prime New York, a Manhattan company that crunches election data. "It just shows what bad shape Republicans are in in this state."
Blue state Analysts attributed Mr. Giuliani's poor showing to Democrats' dominance in New York. In the poll, twice as many respondents identified themselves as Democrats than as Republicans. Mr. Giuliani did win two mayoral elections in heavily Democratic New York City, but voters tend not to cross party lines in presidential races. Nonetheless, one commentator who believes that Mr. Giuliani could win the presidency notes that the former mayor's focus has been elsewhere.
"Rudy has been very active politically, but not in New York state. He's been traveling throughout the country," says Steven Malanga, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a think tank close to Mr. Giuliani. "If Rudy were ever to face Obama in a general election, he would do much better once the actual campaign began in New York. Once he reacquainted himself with New Yorkers in a campaign, his numbers would rise."
Lately, though, Mr. Giuliani has been moving to the political right to head off red-state criticism that he's too liberal on gun control, abortion and homosexuality. That may be backfiring in New York, a solidly blue state where even Republicans tend to be moderates. "Rudy has worked to associate himself with Bush and the national Republican Party," says former Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal, editor and publisher of Pollster.com.
The Crain's poll does not augur well for a run by Mr. Bloomberg. In a hypothetical three-way race, Mr. Bloomberg tallied just 7%, compared with 49% for Ms. Clinton and 27% for Mr. Giuliani. "The mayor is focused on continuing to move the city forward, not polls on a race he has no plans to enter," says a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg. Rumors of his candidacy were triggered by comments from a former campaign adviser and by his appearances in California and Washington, D.C.
The poll results were particularly discouraging for George Pataki's prospects, and may explain recent signals from the former governor that he won't enter the race. A meager 7% of Republicans said they would vote for him in a primary, while Mr. Giuliani was favored by 54% and Mr. McCain by 16%. "If I were hired to offer advice, I might ask, `What is your base?' " Mr. Blumenthal says.
Packing up
Mr. Pataki has closed his New Hampshire office, postponed a decision on joining the race, and told supporters to consider other candidates if they didn't want to wait for him.
Ms. Clinton, in contrast, has no shortage of fans. One TriBeCa resident, Eric Oatman, 67, says he answered the poll questions, "Hillary all the way" because "she seems to be more committed to universal health care than the other candidates. Certainly she knows more about it."
What about Mr. Giuliani? "He was good after 9/11, but before that he was not my man. He just appears to be a very unpleasant man," Mr. Oatman says. "He's liberal enough, but for the national stage I just don't think he's proven himself by his actions here."
GETTING AN EARLY JUMP
If the 2008 general election for president were held today and the candidates were Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, Republican Rudy Giuliani and independent Michael Bloomberg, for whom would you vote?
Hillary Rodham Clinton 49%
Rudy Giuliani 27%
Michael Bloomberg 7%
Additional results:
1% Would not vote
2% Other
14% Don’t know/No response/Refused to answer
Based on 600 responses. Source: Charney Research
RUDY TRAILS
If the 2008 general election for president were today and the candidates were Democrat Barack Obama andvRepublican Rudy Giuliani, for whom would you vote?
Barack Obama 42%
Rudy Giuliani 31%
Additional results:
5% Would not vote
2% Other
19% Don't know/No response/Refused to answer
Based on 600 responses. Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: Charney Research
She is SO unlikable!!! I was listening to her speech over the weekend, she was yelling as usual with that abrasive voice and it really seems people will get tired of her fast. She can't hide now, and when they see a lot of her they simply don't like her. The "packaging" by the media and the Dems is lost when she's out there on her own, facing the electorate.
nyc electorate: Come on, rudy's not so BAAAAaaaaaad.
Rudy's too conservative for NY state.
A report from a focus group conducted by this polling outfit and what one observer had to say about it.
....I was hiding out behind a one-way mirror, watching a focus group run by superpollster Craig Charney, who has sampled voter opinion for everyone from Bill Clinton to Nelson Mandela......In the end, only two group members said they were committed to the hometown candidate.
You can’t overgeneralize about one focus group, but this early reading of Hillary’s base suggests her support may be a mile wide — but, surprisingly, only an inch deep.
Bullseye
So, now you're saying that Rudy's a scumbag?
Yep, as expected, Rudy's not quite left enough so the witch wins by a whisker.
So on one hand, ya'll are saying Rudy will put NY, NJ, PA and California in play for the GOP. And then you turn around and say he's too conservative for NY State.
Please make up your mind. This situational analysis is making the rest of us folks dizzy.
Rudy's too conservative for NY state.
No doubt many NYers long for Dinkin's Time.
LMBO WOOHOO!
Bullseye
If Rudy can't carry NY, (I'm just sayin) where would he run strong?
So Hillary! cleans up in what is arguably the most 'Rat-infested state in the country? Big shock there.
If you believe this, I have a bridge you might like to buy...
Hillary strikes fear into the hearts of her enemies. Never underestimate the power of fear. Saddam understood it well.
Here's a poll question I'd like to see answered, even a state poll of 600 likely New York voters:
Would you vote for a person who ignored the threat of terrorists for 8 years while she was co-president?
Would you vote for a person who ran away from any opportunities to reform and extend the major "entitlements" so many in the middle class depend upon (Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid)?
Would you vote for a person who allowed government secrets to be given away to Red China in exchange for campaign donations? Who sold overnights in the Lincoln bedroom for political support? Who repaid donations with presidential pardons?
Would you vote for a person who was co-president when we opted for a nuclear arms treaty with North Korea (only to find that they started violating it 24 hours after the ink was dry)?
Would you vote for a person who tried (and failed) to come up with a nationalized healthcare plan that would have put Canada to shame? What if I told you that her investment advisor (managing her "blind trust") was shorting the stocks of pharmaceutical companies and health management companies while she was planning the takeover of the health care industry?
Would you vote for the person who "wants to take all the profits from the oil companies" and give it to government bureaucrats to "come up with alternative energy sources"?
That's the poll I would like to see taken.
Kind of like choosing your own form of execution. "Well Sir shall it be the Hangman's Noose, The Marksman's Rifle, or the Garote?"
I'm sorry. I meant to say that he's...
a northeastern-corridor, inner-city, gun-grabbing, abortion-supporting, liberal RINO SCUMBAG.
Hope that made things more clear for you.
I always thought that was the case in the last election because more people voted for Hilliary than voted for W. That means someone who voted for Bush had to also vote for Hilliary at the same time, and can you imagine anyone who wanted Bush ALSO voting for Hilliary
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.