Posted on 01/21/2006 10:16:15 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
ALBANY, N.Y. - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton remains strong for her re-election bid this year, and a majority of New York voters think she would make a fine president, a statewide poll showed Friday.
New Yorkers are not nearly as well disposed to the notion of Republican Gov. George Pataki running for president, according to the poll. Pataki, who is considering a run for the White House, announced in July he would not seek a fourth, four-year term this year.
The poll, from the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, found Democrat Clinton sporting 2-1 leads over her best-known potential challengers for this year’s Senate race, with better than 3-1 leads among female voters.
Asked how she would be as president, 14 percent of New York voters said the former first lady would be “great” and 37 percent said “good.” Twenty percent said Clinton would make a “so-so” president, and 22 percent said she would be “bad.”
Clinton leads national polls among potential Democratic contenders for the 2008 presidential nomination.
“Senator Hillary Clinton says she’s not thinking about 2008, but she might as well be,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Hamden, Conn.-based polling institute. “She doesn’t seem to have any political problems in 2006.”
2-to-1 leads The poll showed Clinton ahead of former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer, 60 percent to 30 percent, and Manhattan lawyer Edward Cox, a son-in-law of President Nixon, 60 percent to 29 percent. Seventy-five percent of voters said they didn’t know enough about Cox to form an opinion about him. Eighty-four percent said that about Spencer.
On Pataki, just 6 percent of New York voters and 14 percent of Republicans said they would definitely vote for him if he ran for president in 2008. One in five Republican voters said they would definitely not vote for him.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Is it too late to sell NY to Canada?
"winkies" for above post, btw. ;)
Lawyer Who Dropped Out of (NY)Senate Race May Drop Back In (Ed Cox)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562603/posts
I wish him well but it don't look flash...
New Yorkers like to get used.
That being the case, they've hit the jackpot with Hitlery "representing" them!
"Merely confirms that a lot of New Yorkers have a real problem!"
And Californians.
God help us in these states.
We should all work against her now as the beginning of the effort to keep her and other Democrats out of the White House.
My recollection is that both States voted for The Great Ronald Reagan in 1980 and again in '84. What's happened since?
I assume this poll was BEFORE she made a Plantation out of herself?
GONE WITH THE WIND
(miss hillary's 'plantation' blunder)
"My recollection is that both States voted for The Great Ronald Reagan in 1980 and again in '84. What's happened since?"
My first vote was cast for Reagan. I have been voting for the republicans ever since in California.
Los Angeles County and the Bay area nearly dictate all here. The islands of Orange County and San Diego county, and some others are not enough to overcome the liberal masses concentrated in those areas.
Yes, it was. If Hillary makes more remarks like that plantation one she could be in trouble. We had it happen to one of our own, when Bunning made some dumb comments and his challenger was as unknown as Spencer, his challenger got forty nine percent of the vote and lost because Bunning got coat tails. I would also like to point out that due to the extremely low voter turnout of midterm elections, if Spencer was able to get a good amount of everyone who voted for Bush, he would definitely win. As for Cox running, I don't think it's a good idea, he has that terrorist tie to his lawfirm, he also wimped out and is waiting for Pataki's endorsement. Anyone who can't stand up to an unpopular lameduck rino, can't stand up to Hillary. Cox also spent one million dollars of his own money on his campaign and didn't move a single percent in the polls.
Rot!
These "liberal masses" voted for TGRR?
I have no problem with her winning in NY again...
For one thing, I don't live in NY..
Plus, Senators notoriously do terrible in POTUS races..and she would be running from a Senate position.
NOW, if she were to lose...she would have 2 years to campaign, but wouldn't have to put her "vote" on the line...to pin her down on certain subjects...
So...all in all...I would rather have to commit herself as a Senator...while running for POTUS...
A bigger problem we all seem to have is types like you shilling for the likes of Mrs. Clinton, Aussie Dog.
And here we thought you wuz our friend.
And maybe you are. It's just your agenda is showing old Bucko!
"These "liberal masses" voted for TGRR?"
Times change. And they will again.
Reeeeal early to be crowing about unbeatable when her opponent hasn't even been decided. It will be closer than the MSM thinks.
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.