NY1 Poll: Hillary far and away frontrunner in NY, both nomination and general...

[SaveElmer]

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=68544

Among Democrats
Clinton 49%
Obama 17%
Edwards 11%
Richardson 2%

Would defeat Guiliani by 14 points...

Hillary 53
Guiliani 39


Interesting that the folks that would have the most opportunity to evaluate the performance of the candidates would overwhelmingly choose Hillary!!!

[musiclawyer]

1. NY state poll, doesn't mean jack

Might as well poll everyone in Wyoming and use that one for big headline

[Renew Deal]

3. Hillary may not even make it to the NY primary.

There's a long way to go.

[rinsd]

7. Really? WY has the same electoral clout as NY?

I seem learn all sorts of new things in politics when it comes to Clinton posts.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. NY is winner take all and on February 5

Seems to be a little bit more relevant than Wyoming.

[Renew Deal]

2. How is that "interesting?"

Show me the numbers in Illinois so I can say the same thing about Obama.

[SaveElmer]

4. Hillary does not represent Illinois...

Both Hillary and Guiliani represent New York...big difference!!!

[Nedsdag]

5. There was a poll a month ago

asking which NYC mayor would you like to see as President, Giuliani or Michael Bloomberg?

Bloomberg won by a 2-1 margin.

[rinsd]

6. 275 delegates from NY vs. 25 delegates from IL. (CORRECTION around 190 for IL)

With NY moved up to the Super Dooper Tues, their numbers (along with CA) have alot more impact than in past years.

On Edit: My numbers were off for IL so though NY still has more delegates the margin is not as huge as I thought.

[Nedsdag]

8. Only 25 from Illinois?

Are you sure those numbers are correct?

[rinsd]

11. I used this to figure out the info, it appears to be incorrect

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html

Other info has them around 190 which makes sense.

[Captain Hilts]

9. Too early. Meaningless. She would have beaten Guilani in NYS also. nt

[jobycom]

10. Couple more interesting (to me) details in that poll group

First is Clinton v McCain:
CANDIDATE NY STATE NY CITY
Clinton 53% 72%
McCain 37% 21%
Other 1% 0%
Not voting 4% 3%
Not sure/Refused 5% 4%

Clinton leads McCain by about the same numbers she leads Giuliani.

Second is Obama v Giuliani:
CANDIDATE NY STATE NY CITY
Obama 48% 59%
Giuliani 42% 33%
Other 1% 1%
Not voting 3% 2%
Not sure/Refused 7% 5%


While Obama is not leading by as much as Clinton, he is still leading by enough to indicate that the Dems should win NY, no matter who our or their candidate is.

Both sets indicate that Giuliani is not that popular in New York. He can be beaten by a non-New York Democrat, and doesn't poll much better than a non-New York Republican. So either Giuliani is just unpopular in New York, or the Republicans in general are.

[Elidor]

13. Score one for Oasis

[Forkboy]

14. Are polls good or bad this week?

I can't remember.I think I'm only suppossed to like the polls with my candidate in front.That seems to be what eveyone else does.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. HRC leading in her "home" state is not a shocker

Obama leads in Illinois, Edwards leads in NC, and Richardson leads in his home state. The real question is how is she doing in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina? ;)

[SaveElmer]

16. More relevant than the others...

Because right now, the frontrunner for the Republicans is also from that state....

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. Giuliani loses to Obama as well in NY

It is clear Democrats will win NY regardless of who we nominate, even if the Reps put up a former NYC mayor. The real question is what red and purple states we can flip. We need that to win and unfortunately some of our candidates do not do well with swing voters.

So polls about electability only matter in HRC's home state but national polls that show her running 7 points worse than Edwards vis-a-vis Giuliani are irrelevant? ;)

[SaveElmer]

21. They are irrelevant...

As a predictor of final outcome...which I have never said they were...

And it would be foolhardy to determine who you are going to support simply on the basis of polls...


btw: You did take note of the 38-19 Hillary lead in today's Gallup poll...right? ;-)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. "it would be foolhardy to determine who you are going to support simply on the basis of polls."

I must say, I found that ironic coming from a fan of the Clintons. ;)

I have never disputed her ability to win Democratic votes. She may very well win the nomination. The problem with her is her weakness among swing voters and it is hard to see her flipping any red state in 2008 and against Giuliani she may actually lose some key states that went Dem in 2004 like PA, Michigan, and even NJ. A vote for HRC is a vote for President Giuliani or President Thompson I'm afraid. :(

[SaveElmer]

24. Why is that ironic...?

I have never even hinted that the reason I was supporting Hillary was because she is ahead in the polls...I support her because I think she would be the best President...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. We all know about the Clintons' slavish adherence to polls

Bill Clinton even took a poll about where he should take a vacation once! :puke:

=="The Clintons turned vacations into a political exercise; let's poll and see where people think we should go," presidential historian Stephen Hess said.

The politics of presidential vacations was certainly taken to new heights when Dick Morris took a poll for Bill Clinton. The Clinton chief political adviser actually asked Americans where the president should rest up.

It revealed the obvious (as most polls do): that Americans would see another Clinton trip to Martha's Vineyard as too elitist. Instead, the First Family went to Jackson Hole, Wyo., where the president was photographed riding a horse and wearing a blue denim shirt, with a tan cowboy hat fitted squarely on his head, looking more Teddy Roosevelt than Franklin.==

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/18/politics/main607234.shtml

[SaveElmer]

29. Well if polling results in the kind of Presidency we had with Bill...

I am all for it!!!

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

17. I thought that rudy dudy was from NY also.

:shrug:

Polls this far out are meaningless.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. Which Dem candidate is from NY aside from HRC?

The thread mentions a primary poll as well...

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

25. From the article:

3. If the general election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton, the Democrat and Rudy Giuliani, the Republican, for whom would you vote?

CANDIDATE NY STATE NY CITY
Clinton 53% 70%
Giuliani 39% 24%
Other 0% 0%
Not voting 3% 3%
Not sure/Refused 5% 3%

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. Giuliani is a DLC-type but is a registered Republican

Any other Dems from NY? Maybe HRC can sponsor Giuliani's membership with the DLC. ;)

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

30. Now you're posting in circles. I thought you said

"HRC leading in her "home" state is not a shocker". Well, it's rudy dudy's home state also. And, this poll (FWIW) shows her beating him in the general election.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. Read the rest of my initial post

It was obvious I was talking about primary voting since I mentioned only Democrats.

Unfortunately, the election will not be decided in New York. It will be decided in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, PA, Missouri, Wisconsin, Colorade, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Minnesota, etc. Giuliani beats her easily in national polls. We will retain NY regardless of who we nominate. Swing states, as always, will decide the election and HRC fans continue to ignore her weakness versus Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and even Brownback nationally. It says something about HRC when someone not even running can come straight from TV and beat HRC in polls while Edwards leads the same person by 14 and Obama by 12...

[rinsd]

18. Except her home state is the 2nd largest for delegates.

And she is way ahead of the field in CA (the largest),

http://www.pe.com/localnews/politics/stories/PE_News_Local_D_field03.406124c.html

She also does well in Super-Dooper Tuesday states of

NJ - http://www.pollster.com/mystery_pollster/poll_quinnipiac_new_jersey_pri.php

MI - (please not this poll is a month old) http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070320/POLITICS01/703200308/1022/POLITICS

& FL - http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006929868

But to answer your question

She is in a dead heat in Iowa with Edwards. http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2007/april/040307poll.html

She leads in NH, http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/03/new.hampshire.poll/index.html

She's 2nd in So. Carolina though this poll is new http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3208346

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Illinois is the 5th largest state

If Obama were from a small state like Wyoming HRC representing NY would be a substantial advantage. North Carolina is also the 10th biggest state so Edwards is not significantly disadvantaged due to his home state either.

The national polls mean nothing until after Iowa and New Hampshire. Ask John Kerry and Howard Dean this.

In Iowa she has consistently trailed in polls, bouncing from 2nd-4th (when Vilsack) was in. The fact that her Iowa status is even in dispute is odd for a "dominant front-runner." She should be running away with things in Iowa.

She does lead in NH and has done so consistently. However, it seems Obama and Edwards are chipping away at her lead. The NH vote will be influenced by who wins in Iowa, anyway, especially given how close the top three candidates are in NH, and right now things are not great for HRC in Iowa.

She is second in SC but that is a weak showing for a candidate with her media attention, the Clinton machine behind her, the magical Clinton last name, etc. Voters in SC are not paying nearly as much attention to the race as voters in Iowa and NH right now and the candidates are focusing on NH and IA at this point. Despite this, she is well behind Obama in SC and is barely ahead of a guy who has gotten much less media coverage than HRC and Obama. As the focus shifts to SC, she would likely lose even more ground, but as stated earlier, SC's voting will be influenced by the states that go before it. If HRC wins NH perhaps she could win SC.

[rinsd]

26. Response

"In Iowa she has consistently trailed in polls, bouncing from 2nd-4th (when Vilsack) was in. The fact that her Iowa status is even in dispute is odd for a "dominant front-runner." She should be running away with things in Iowa."

Actually the campaign toyed with skipping Iowa altogether writing it off to Vilsack and looking to compete in NH. Vilsack leaving has changed that. And your info is incorrect, she has mostly been 1st or 2nd except for one republican poll(Strategic Vision).

I apologize for the source but real clear politics put up a simple breakdown of the polls here

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

I also take issue with their only citing the likely caucus goers poll from U of IA which has a much more detailed breakdown in which Clinton does fairly well.

"She does lead in NH and has done so consistently. However, it seems Obama and Edwards are chipping away at her lead. The NH vote will be influenced by who wins in Iowa, anyway, especially given how close the top three candidates are in NH, and right now things are not great for HRC in Iowa."

Actually NH tends to go their own way though Iowa cannot be ignored. The problem Hillary faces from here on out is any slip whasoever and any gain by her opponents will be magnified. So Obama shaving 5 points off of Hillary's lead is the story instead of Obama can't even get a 1/3 of Democrats(not that I actually prefer the latter as a means of bias either)

"She is second in SC but that is a weak showing for a candidate with her media attention, the Clinton machine behind her, the magical Clinton last name, etc. Voters in SC are not paying nearly as much attention to the race as voters in Iowa and NH right now and the candidates are focusing on NH and IA at this point. Despite this, she is well behind Obama in SC and is barely ahead of a guy who has gotten much less media coverage than HRC and Obama. As the focus shifts to SC, she would likely lose even more ground, but as stated earlier, SC's voting will be influenced by the states that go before it. If HRC wins NH perhaps she could win SC."

SC is right next to NC and Edwards won the state in the 2004 primaries handily. Again SC's vote will likely be different than NH or IA without a consensus true frontrunner, not a top tier of 3 as we have now. I could easily see each taking 1st in those 1st 3 contests.

Also I found a couple of older polls that had her winning , so the new poll may be an outlier or it may just be a new trend. Of course we'll have PLENTY of polls between now and Jan to figure out trends ;-)

http://www.winthrop.edu/sbrl/winthroppoll/findings/pdf030707.pdf

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/scdem8-702.shtml