Clinton II's Favorable Rating Slips to 50% even in New York

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Matt Bush, Online Content Producer

==Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton's favorable rating is slipping in New York state, where voters aren't quite as sure they prefer her over Republican Rudy Giuliani.==

==The latest poll from Siena College's Research Institute has Clinton leading Giuliani 48% to 43%. That's down from the 51% to 39% lead Clinton enjoyed in a March poll from the suburban Albany college.

Clinton's favorable rating among New York voters was at 50% in the latest poll, down from 56% last month.

Clinton's dip in the polls is also evident in the race for the Democratic nomination. The new poll has Clinton leading Barack Obama, 39% to 17%. She held a 32-percentage-point lead over the Illinois senator last month among New York voters.==

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=58496

[Double T]

1. Meaningless.

[rinsd]

2. Sienna's polling tends to drift rightward.

All of the Democrats are barely above 50% and this is the 1st poll where they have Obama beating Rudy in NY state.

[Nite Owl]

4. Yes, you are correct Sienna polls

rarely favor the dem.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. Whenever a poll doesn't favor HRC it is a biased poll according to HRC fans

Even when the same organization's polling was cited previously or is cited again in the future when it favors HRC by HRC fans.

[rinsd]

13. Um the bias has to do with Democrats, which is exactly what I stated.

In that in a Blue state Democrats that have high favorable ratings elsewhere seem muted and Rudy;s numbers are higher in this poll than others also in NY state,

"cited again in the future when it favors HRC by HRC fans"

That's certainly a possibility. Or course you would never do anything like that...:eyes:

[pnwmom]

3. You can't compare numbers without knowing the margin of error.

And neither the sample sizes of the two polls or the margin of error is reported in the article.

[rinsd]

5. More info

Here's a direct link to the poll report, http://www.siena.edu/sri/results/2007/07_Apr_NYPoll.htm

Here's the old poll,

http://www.siena.edu/sri/results/2007/07_Mar_NYPoll.htm

Not sure how accurate these polls are as they do not compare to others also taken during the time period. They seem to be discounting the appeal of Democrats (Obama is tops with a 55% approval) and overestimating the appeal of Rudy (this is the 1st poll they have Obama beating Rudy where others have shown that to be the case for some time now)

[pnwmom]

7. Thank you. So this tells us that Clinton's "slip" is within the 3.1 margin

of error -- which means it shouldn't be reported as a change at all. Giuliani's increase is almost a point above the margin of error. But she still leads Giuliani, even after accounting for statistical error.

What information still isn't included is how the researchers made up their poll of state voters -- whether the proportion of Dems, Repubs, and Independents are in line with the population -- and this may be difficult to tell, since Bush's support (and voter identification with his party) is declining.

[durrrty libby]

6. Senator Clinton will be a fabulous president. I can not wait!

[enough already]

8. Giuliani is a real problem for us

If NY state is even in play, we're totally screwed.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. HRC will carry NY but she would lose New Jersey's 15 electoral votes

Right now she is nine points behind Giuliani in NJ despite having the benefit of being the Senator of the New York media market, which encompasses the majority of New Jersey's population, for the past six years. If she can't win NJ what other blue states will she cede to Giuliani?

[PresidentObama]

9. She's running for President. The people of NY want her for themselves. Big deal?!? n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. They think she is so great they don't want her to be prez?

That doesn't make sense.

Why is this a big deal? If she is at a mere 50% in New York what do you think her favorables are in swing states?

[PresidentObama]

14. Do you have any polls from 2003 or 2004 of how the MA voters felt about Kerry running?

It's normal for your home state not to want you to run, and instead serve them!!

I would suggest you work on nominating the fine former Senator John Edwards, and worry less about Hillary Clinton. You seem to post more negative bullshit on Hillary than you do positive things about Edwards. From one supporter to another, these meaningless polls about a year out aren't going to change ANYONES mind about Hillary.

If our party doesn't want her, we won't nominate her!! If we nominate her, she's the next President.

[rinsd]

16. Probably because that poll doesn't seem to be very accurate

Especially combined with your anti-Clinton spin on it.

Here's SurveyUSA's tracking poll on Clinton's NY state approval

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=77ca4b7e-ec24-4213-a4d6-f5053467ebf4

Here's an NY1 poll which shows both Clinton and Obama with greater leads than the Sienna polls show

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

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. There was an eight point difference between Survey's March poll and the previous Sienna poll

That is significant but hardly a chasm. You conveniently omitted the timing of the polls to suggest a much higher gap (64% versus 50%). Her decline in favorables has been confirmed by several national polls. If that holds true in New York as well, like this Siena poll suggests, and even if we accept the initial SurveyUsa figure as accurate, she is somewhere in the high 50's right now in New York . That is very respectable but a far cry from the 64% your post implies.

The SurveyUSA poll also shows a decline in her approval from 74% at the start of the year to 64% by March, consistent with national trends.

The last part of your spin is conveniently conflating "approval" with "favorables." There is a difference. Favorables relate more to personally liking an individual while approval deals more with measuring their effectiveness at their job. That there would be a lower favorable rating for her than her approval rating is consistent with everything we know about HRC.

[rinsd]

28. LOL. You really have no shame.

"You conveniently omitted the timing of the polls"

For someone who has ZERO issue misrepresenting or selectively representing poll data, I found this laughable.

Especially since I linked to a tracking poll, not a poll connected to one time period.

"Her decline in favorables has been confirmed by several national polls."

She's been taking some hits from MSM mostly in the superficial Hillary is unstoppable/Hillary is finished black and white thinking of the media horserace.

"If that holds true in New York as well, like this Siena poll suggests,"

I see a depression of Dems across the board. Both Obama and Edwards have favorable ratings that are 5 to 10 points higher reported elsewhere than reported here.

"and even if we accept the initial SurveyUsa figure as accurate, she is somewhere in the high 50's right now in New York . "

Survey USA conducts their polls monthly, so the answer will be evident soon enough.

"That is very respectable but a far cry from the 64% your post implies. "

My post was dealing with the accuracy on Sienna's poll.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. You didn't touch the distinction between approval rating and favorability rating

Even with your argument that this poll cost her 5-10 points her favorability rating in New York would be 55-60% (and falling). As far as approval goes, let's see if the decline continues when the new SurveyUSA poll comes out.

[rinsd]

33. So I must answer all of your points but you are free to ignore mine?

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

[AtomicKitten]

12. oh dear god no

another poll :shrug:

[elocs]

15. I don't know about Clinton's favorable/unfavorable poll numbers.

I do find it interesting how many who embrace the notion of McCain imploding, but reject the idea of anything negative about Senator Clinton because it is too early.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Great point

HRC's decline is even greater than McCain's but it is masked by her starting from a higher peak than McCain. Did anyone realistically expect Obama to tie her by April even two or three months ago?

[elocs]

26. Well, I don't think that was the point I was making.

There's a lot of time left and a lot can happen in the months to come, both good and bad.
With Senator Clinton (she's not Bono or Cher) I think there were a lot of Democrats who wanted and want another choice as our nominee. That is what allowed a credible and popular candidate such as Obama to jump into second place. So just as McCain looks like he is imploding and Senator Clinton is falling, both of those can change.

I do not have a choice on a candidate yet, but I am a Democrat and I will vote for my party's nominee even if that person was not my first choice. Imagine how our world would be changed if everybody who normally voted for the Democratic candidate had done that in 2000?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. What could have been

:(

[mitchtv]

17. Still at it eh?

are you Rudy's cousin?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. A vote for HRC is a vote for President Giuliani

That should answer your question. You should be posing that question to HRC's promoters here. ;)

[DFW]

18. I think it's inaccurate to compare McCain and Clinton

McCain is nearly seventy and not in the best of health,
not to mention that defending Bush policies steadfastly
is not going to earn him an increasingly loyal following
these days. Another year of that will mean another 750
Americans coming home in coffins and 3000 more as cripples
in mind and body or both.

Hillary is not yet 60 and is in great health (as far as it
seems, anyway). Compared to McCain's tired hamster on a tread-
mill, she the Energizer Bunny, and even then, she's the oldest
of the major declared Democratic candidates.

I see some can't wait to publish a daily diet of polls that
show (mostly) Hillary in a bad light. Boy, if these polls
carried any weight, she'd be dismantling her campaign right now,
and doling out cash to the DNC with an eye toward sitting out
the 2008 election. I'm sure all these anti-Hillary polls, as well
as whatever anti-Edwards polls or anti-Obama polls are proving to
be sobering dashes of cold reality to the candidates, and they are
all quitting come the end of the month. Right?

Methinks some posters doth obsess too much. What do you guys do,
surf the net 23 hours a day to find polls that put some Democrat or
other in a negative light to toss in our faces, and then expect to
be hailed as the deliverer of light?

I can take six more months of letting them all have their say, win
their own victories or their own mistakes, and let me make my decision.
A constant barrage of Hillary-can't-win or Obama can't-win blah blah blah
is just not meaningful at this early stage. It's also slightly insulting
to think we'll swallow it hook, line and sinker eight months before even
the first primary is held. I could probably find some poll that says Bill
Richardson is the only one who can win if I looked long enough.
Your reaction would probably be, "don't tell me you took up my time to lay
THAT on me," and you'd be right as rain.

[Alamom]

19. Thank you. I enjoyed reading your post very much and agree.eom

[DFW]

20. Well thanks for that :-)

I'm sure it'll take all of ten minutes for someone else to tell
me why I'm full of it. I can handle it LOL!!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. McCain vs. HRC

==Boy, if these polls
carried any weight, she'd be dismantling her campaign right now,
and doling out cash to the DNC with an eye toward sitting out
the 2008 election. I'm sure all these anti-Hillary polls, as well
as whatever anti-Edwards polls or anti-Obama polls are proving to
be sobering dashes of cold reality to the candidates, and they are
all quitting come the end of the month. Right?==

Why don't you apply that logic to McCain? He isn't quitting the race either. He also generally still runs better than HRC in general election trial heats.

The primary difference between McCain and HRC is that one has had high unfavorables for years while the other has had them only recently. Conceivably McCain could reverse the trend. It is difficult to see HRC, though, reversing fifteen years of history on her overnight. McCain also has a reservoir of goodwill--he was once the most popular politician in America after Bill Clinton. HRC has always been a polarizing figure.

==A constant barrage of Hillary-can't-win or Obama can't-win blah blah blah
is just not meaningful at this early stage. ==

There is a difference between a candidate who we have over a decade's worth of data on and a newcomer, or even an old figure who was once very popular such as McCain.

As for your Richardson example, electability should only be one factor in choosing a campaign. If it were the sole factor we would have nominated Holy Joe in 2004. Logically, though, in order to assess electability people have to look at information that relates to that issue. What HRC fans want to do here and on other progressive websites is stifle discussion of these facts. Why? Because the MSM is in her corner and the right-wing wants her nominated and Dems naturally don't read or listen to that garbage anyway. So where is the only place Democrats can get these facts that show HRC as a weak general election candidate? Websites such as DU and the blogosphere. This is why HRC fans are placing such a premium on stifling such dissent.

[rinsd]

32. "stifling such dissent"

Yeah because reposting Drudge on DU is considered constuctive criticism by newbies claiming to be Democrats.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. A classic example

Paint critics as being closet Freepers using the Drudge playbook in order to stifle dissent. What from Drudge have I ever posted here? If you are going to make such claims you should be prepared to back them up with evidence.

[rinsd]

35. Naaahhhhh, most Duers are hip to your game.

They see what you post day in, day out.

Hey you should be thanking me. If I hadn't made so much fun of you for not posting ANYTHING about Edwards while you commenced your assualt against Hillary and if you hadn't afterwards started posting positive threads on Edwards, you wouldn't have any cred at all.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. No evidence

No surprise there...

[skipos]

40. I really disagree with this statement

"Boy, if these polls carried any weight, she'd be dismantling her campaign right now, and doling out cash to the DNC with an eye toward sitting out the 2008 election."

Bad polls have rarely stopped candidates from running. Too much ego. Look at Laffey in RI.

I guarantee you that if Hillary's poll numbers continue to be weaker than Edwards and Obamas, she will continue to seek the nomination and most of her supporters on DU will gladly continue to support her. Lots of people just want *their* candidate to win the primary, no matter what the cost.

[DFW]

41. Obviously, those who have made their choice will say so

...for the primaries. As one who hasn't, I am only saying that
once the primaries have settled on one nominee, that nominee will
be disappointing to the many others who supported other contenders.
Those who didn't get their man (or woman) then have to make a choice
again: support the Democratic nominee or do not do so, thereby de facto
supporting the Republican nominee. That is something I will not do. I
would like to see Gore, but he so far says he is out, and Wes Clark
hasn't jumped in either. No one is fooling themselves, both men are
obviously following events closely just in case, but neither has
officially declared. But if our nominee is Biden, Dodd, Obama, Edwards,
or Hillary, then that's who I want as president. The alternative is
too awful to contemplate, and don't try to tell me at this point you
know who is electable, and who isn't, because for all the hundreds of
polls you cite, none of them so far are from Feb. 2008.


The usual suspects still jump in at every opportunity to tear down
one candidate or another. Now that I have actually paid attention
to some of this, it's pretty obvious that some have a negative
agenda, always anti, rarely, if ever, pro. This is so typical of
the Republicans, I just gotta wonder.

[skipos]

42. You gotta wonder what? nt

[DFW]

43. I just gotta wonder this:

Are some of those who only post negative stuff about any particular
major Democratic figure, and little to no positive stuff about any
major Democratic figure, maybe playing both sides of the fence?

Like I said, the tactic of posting only negative stuff about our own
people reminds me more of Republican strategy than our own. I don't
discount that some could find them appealing mentors, but I don't
find the prospect very appealing.

[skipos]

44. I don't wonder that at all

I like Clark, Richardson, Obama and Edwards so I don't have *my* candidate yet. However, I am absolutely certain that Hillary will not be my candidate, and she is my last choice for the 08 nom. I come from a family that is 99% Dem, I live in the bluest town in a blue state. Some have a candidate, most don't, but everyone I know doesn't want Hillary to be the nominee. In fact, most people I know hate the idea of Hillary being nominated. Point being, most people I talk to don't know enough about the other candidates to say tons of nice things about them, but they do know enough about Hillary to say plenty of not nice things about her. And these people are far from playing both sides of the fence.

By the way, I am well aware there are Hillary supporters out there, and I am surprised that I have actually never met one.

[mtnsnake]

29. Well then vote for Guillini if your rooting for him so much, cuomo. Who cares anyway.

Sienna College poll. lol

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Doctor_J]

37. I've noticed that hate radio and cabal "news" are focussing their lies and hatred on her

Last night I was surfing the radio dial trying to find the hockey game, and in my travels landed on 4 different hate radio hosts. All four hammering Hil. I guess Rover has decided that her destruction is priority one right now.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. I doubt it. She is simply good for ratings

Why would Rove want to destroy her now when he could let her win the nomination and then destroy her in the general election? She is obviously a weak general election candidate that Rove would love to face.

[illinoisprogressive]

39. Rassmussen has Obama and Clinton tied.