Tag: David Paterson

Marist Poll (4/28-29, registered voters, late Feb. in parens). First, the NY-Gov primary matchups:

Andrew Cuomo (D): 70 (62)

David Paterson (D-inc): 21 (26)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 75

Rick Lazio (R): 14

(MoE: ±6%)

And the general election matchups:

David Paterson (D-inc): 32 (38)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 56 (53)

David Paterson (D-inc): 37

Rick Lazio (R): 40

Andrew Cuomo (D): 55 (56)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 38 (39)

Andrew Cuomo (D): 67

Rick Lazio (R): 22

(MoE: ±3%)

Paterson losing to Rick Lazio? That Rick Lazio? Oh man. Please, just make it stop. Believe it or not, though, it actually gets worse. In response to the question “Who would you rather have as governor right now?”, voters prefer Eliot Spitzer over David Paterson by a 51-38 margin. Yeesh.

Sigh. Okay. The Senate side primary head-to-heads:

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 36

Carolyn Maloney: 31

(MoE: ±4.5%)

George Pataki (R): 48 (56)

Peter King (R): 36 (32)

(MoE: ±6%)

And the general:

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 38 (45)

George Pataki (R): 46 (41)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 42 (49)

Peter King (R): 31 (28)

(MoE: ±3%)

Marist unfortunately doesn’t offer any explanation as to why Gillibrand’s numbers have dropped. Her approvals have worsened, from 18-32 to 19-38. But on that question, Marist is a strange outlier from all other outfits – no one else has Gillibrand under water like that.

As for a potential primary challenge, Marist showed Gillibrand with almost identical numbers a few months back against the other Rep. Carolyn (McCarthy of Long Island). But I’m convinced that Steve Israel is by far the most likely to actually show up, and is the only person I think would have any kind of chance.

Siena College (PDF) (4/13-15, registered voters, March 2009 in parens):

David Paterson (D-inc): 11 (17)

Andrew Cuomo (D): 64 (67)

Tom Suozzi (D): 8

Undecided: 17 (17)

(MoE: ±5.5%)

David Paterson (D-inc): 29 (33)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 56 (56)

Undecided: 15 (11)

Andrew Cuomo (D): 53 (51)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 39 (41)

Undecided: 8 (9)

(MoE: ±3.8%)

After Siena’s last poll, you might have thought David Paterson had hit rock bottom. Not so. With numbers like these, it would almost be political malpractice if Andrew Cuomo didn’t get into the race – he’ll never have a better shot. It would also be mostly suicidal for Paterson to stay in, but he hasn’t given any indication that he plans to bail – indeed, he even hired campaign staff.

And one of those hires, pollster Stan Greenberg, probably already told Paterson something which Siena now tells us: Gay marriage is popular in New York State. In fact, it’s supported by a 53-39 margin (and 59-35 among Dems). Those numbers likely explain why Paterson has been pushing this issue hard of late, even though same-sex marriage legislation has little chance of passing the state Senate. It also helps to change the conversation away from the economy and, well, everything else.

(From the Anecdotal Evidence from Queens Dept., I was lucky enough to attend the Mets’ home opener at their new stadium a week ago. A few “distinguished” guests were introduced over the PA. I had never heard boos as loud as those I heard for Paterson – except until they announced Shelly Silver, who even I booed. Mayor Mike, incidentally, was half booed, half cheered.)

Oddly enough, despite the strong pro-gay marriage numbers, Rudy Giuliani (who I still don’t think will run) has decided to aim his first shot across the bow… against gay marriage:

“This will create a grass-roots movement. This is the kind of issue that, in many ways, is somewhat beyond politics,” said Giuliani, a two-term mayor who unsuccessfully sought the GOP presidential nomination last year.

“I think gay marriage will obviously be an issue for any Republican next year because Republicans are either in favor of the position I’m in favor of, civil unions, or in many cases Republicans don’t even favor civil unions,” he continued.

Who even knows who Giuliani is listening to these days. His strategy during the GOP presidential primary was so insane and non-viable that I’m not surprised to see him spouting nonsense. I almost hope he does run, in fact. I’d love to see him get his ass whooped.

(Hat-tip: Political Wire)

Quinnipiac (4/1-5, registered voters, 2/10-15 in parentheses):

David Paterson (D-inc): 18 (23)

Andrew Cuomo (D): 61 (55)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 29 (24)

Carolyn McCarthy (D): 33 (34)

(MoE: ±3.8%)

David Paterson (D-inc): 32 (43)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 53 (43)

Andrew Cuomo (D): 53 (51)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 36 (37)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 40 (42)

Peter King (R): 28 (26)

(MoE: ±2.5%)

David Paterson, like Wall Street, seems to be searching for a bottom to his free-fall… and it doesn’t look like he’s found his yet. In February, Quinnipiac found that Paterson would get demolished in a Democratic primary matchup against Andrew Cuomo 55-23, a blowout by any standards. But now that same race has plunged even further, to a 61-18 gulf, to the extent that Cuomo would barely need a flick of his wrist to take out Paterson.

And while Paterson’s favorability and approval ratings weren’t terrible last time, they’ve bottomed out too. His favorability is at 27/55, while his approval rating is 28/60 (down from 45/41 in February). Not only do only 22% think he deserves to be re-elected (63% say no), but only 39% think he should even bother running in 2010, while 53% think he should announce now that he won’t be running. These numbers — especially the self-fulfilling prophecy built into that last set of numbers — are just the type you don’t recover from.

This poll also sees Paterson losing convincingly to Rudy Giuliani, a major change from the tied game seen in February. Giuliani, however, hasn’t taken any visible steps toward running; Rudy is probably looking to jump in only if Cuomo doesn’t get in, as this poll shows that Giuliani would be only a slightly bigger speed bump for Cuomo than Paterson would be. Speed bump honors instead seem likelier to fall to ex-Rep. Rick Lazio, last seen running against Hillary Clinton in 2000. Lazio is exploring a candidacy and has been meeting with GOP powers-that-be upstate.

On the Senate side, Paterson’s appointee Kirsten Gillibrand is still struggling for name recognition, with a 24/11 favorable (with 64% still saying ‘haven’t heard enough’). She still trails Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (who has the advantage of being in the NYC media market) in a primary matchup, although it’s much closer than in February. It’s unclear, though, whether a matchup with McCarthy will ever happen; while McCarthy made the loudest noises at the outset, speculation lately has turned toward other NYC-area Reps. Steve Israel and Carolyn Maloney. Given that Gillibrand, already noted for her fundraising prowess, just released numbers showing that she raised $2.3 million in the first quarter, she may not draw any primary challengers at all.

Good news and not so good news for the Junior Senator from New York. In an email to supporters Kirsten Gillibrand has announced that her campaign raised $2.3m in just two months since she was appointed to the seat.

http://thehill.com/leading-the…

However, the latest numbers from Quinnipiac continue to show her trailing Rep. Carolyn McCarthy in a prospective Democratic Primary, 33-29. Though the margin is down from 34-24 in February.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x131…

I’d say funds like that will go a long way towards solving her name recognition problems and maybe even scaring off any challengers.

She leads GOP Rep. Peter King 40-28.

Paterson meanwhile now has the worst approval rating of any New York Governor, 28-60.

In comparison, Andrew Cuomo comes in at an impressive 75-14, but will he run?

Against Giuliani he leads 53-36 while Paterson trails Rudy by 53-32.

http://politicalwire.com/archi…

• NY-Gov: Andrew Cuomo made statements in a speech at Schenectady County Community College on Tuesday to the effect that his “only plan is to run for re-election as attorney general,” and that he believes David Paterson will be re-elected as governor. I wouldn’t be prone to believe him (and it seems like nobody else does either; only The Hill has taken any notice of this comment), given his poll numbers and the fundraising groundwork he’s laid. It just seems weird; he’s well past the point where he needs to be coy about his plans.

• NY-20: About that recent DNC ad touting Obama’s endorsement of Scott Murphy… while the existence of the ad itself has been gobbling up a good deal of headlines, it appears that it won’t actually be seen by a lot of eyeballs in-district. The DNC’s independent expenditure filing with the FEC indicates that they’re only putting up $10,000 for the ad buy. (J)

• CA-10: Departing Rep. Ellen Tauscher has already endorsed state senator Mark DeSaulnier to take her place. Apparently she had intended to wait until he formally announced his candidacy, but the internal poll from yesterday from assemblywoman Joan Buchanan showing her in the lead may have forced Tauscher’s hand.

• UT-Sen: The knives are still out for Bob Bennett, but it’s looking like someone higher up the totem pole than former Juab County DA David Leavitt may jump into the primary: Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is also “considering” it. Ultra-conservatives sense an opening because of Bennett’s pro-bailout vote, and also because of Utah’s unique nominating system. A candidate who consolidates activist support and breaks 60% at the state convention outright wins, and can avoid the primary altogether.

• KS-Sen: Here’s another example of how Oklahoma senator Tom Coburn likes to keep us guessing. Not only is he wading into the GOP senate primary in his neighboring state, but he’s endorsing Rep. Jerry Moran, who passes for a moderate by Kansas standards, over Rep. Todd Tiahrt, from the religious right corner of the party.

• MI-11: Back to the drawing board? Democratic state Sen. Glenn Anderson, who has been the target of a draft effort to encourage him to take on GOP weirdo Thaddeus McCotter, says that he’ll probably run for re-election instead. (J)

• PA-12: Bill Russell, who held Jack Murtha to 58% in 2008, is back for another try in 2010. No word if he’ll use BMW Direct for his fundraising efforts again.

Siena College (PDF) (3/16-18, registered voters, Feb. 2009 in parens):

David Paterson (D-inc): 17 (27)

Andrew Cuomo (D): 67 (53)

Undecided: 17 (20)

(MoE: ±_._%)

David Paterson (D-inc): 33 (36)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 56 (51)

Undecided: 11 (13)

Andrew Cuomo (D): 51 (51)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 41 (38)

Undecided: 9 (11)

(MoE: ±3.9%)

Brutal. Just brutal. Paterson’s favorables are now at 29-58 – in November, they were 64-19! His job approval is even worse, 17-78, and his re-elects are 14-67. Meanwhile, Cuomo is busy clocking in some of his highest ratings ever – almost the mirror-image of the Governor. He’s even winning African American voters by 55-22. I never imagined I’d say this considering how high he was riding just half a year ago, but it may seriously be time for Paterson to consider not running again.

Siena also tested some Senate nums:

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 41

George Pataki (R): 41

Undecided: 18

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 47 (40)

Peter King (R): 23 (27)

Undecided: 30 (33)

(MoE: ±3.9%)

These aren’t as interesting as they may look. Fifty-four percent of the state has no opinion of Gillibrand, while Pataki has 90% name rec. Plus, I’d be quite surprised if he got in. Gillibrand’s considerable resources will undoubtedly allow her to enhance her statewide profile over the next year.

The full cross-tabs are here (PDF). BigDust also has a post on this poll.

Manhattanville College (PDF, 2/28-3/5, registered voters, no trendlines):

David Paterson (D-inc): 36

Rudy Giuliani (R): 50

Undecided: 14

Andrew Cuomo (D): 51

Rudy Giuliani (R): 36

Undecided: 14

(MoE: ±4.4%)

I still very much doubt that Rudy will run, but these are ugly numbers for Paterson nonetheless. His favorables are 41-46 and his job approval is 29-66, matching what we’ve seen in other polls. I don’t love Andrew Cuomo, but the deep dissatisfaction with Paterson certainly gives him the “argument” he needs to justify a run.

The Manhattanville poll is also interesting because they asked a lot of open-ended questions (something you don’t see in most surveys) trying to pin down exactly why people don’t like Paterson. It’s worth checking out for an in-depth look.

This time the news comes from Marist:

New Yorkers are sending a strong message to Governor David Paterson, “Shape Up!”  Just 26% of registered voters report the governor is doing either an excellent or good job in office.  That’s a drop of 20 percentage points since the Marist Poll last asked this question at the end of January.  In fact, Governor Paterson’s approval rating is the lowest approval rating a New York State governor has received in the Marist Poll’s nearly thirty year history of statewide surveys.  Has the governor lost favor within his own party?  Here’s the party breakdown.  Among registered Democrats in New York State, 30% think Paterson is doing an above average job while 65% disagree.  Across the aisle, Republicans also overwhelmingly disapprove of Paterson’s performance.  Just 26% of members of New York’s GOP approve of the job Paterson is doing as governor while 72% think he is doing a fair or poor job.  Only 20% of non-enrolled voters agree that Paterson is doing well in the position.  Opinions across the state are consistently low.  24% of upstate voters approve of the job Paterson is doing as governor.  26% of suburban voters say he is doing an above average job, and 30% of New York City voters share this position.

The poll isn’t all doom and gloom: Schumer is as popular as ever, and Gillibrand seems set to be reelected. But my bottom line is this,  if Democrats don’t find a new Gubernatorial candidate, we will very likely lose the office.

The short version, which is all I have time for: David Paterson under water in New York, according to SUSA’s latest tracking poll.

By 2:1 Margin, New York Disapproves of Paterson Performance as Governor: 66% of New York State adults today say they disapprove of the job performance of Governor David Paterson

[. . .]

One month ago, 54% of New York adults approved of Paterson’s performance as Governor.

This could just be a one time polling error, but given some of the other polling we’ve seen out of New York recently, I’m inclined to think that it’s the real deal. Bizarre tax/budget schemes and the Senate appointment process appear to have done deep damage to New York’s Governor.  

Quinnipiac (2/10-15, registered voters):

David Paterson (D-inc): 23

Andrew Cuomo (D): 55

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 24

Carolyn McCarthy (D): 34

(MoE: ±4.6%)

David Paterson (D-inc): 43

Rudy Giuliani (R): 43

Andrew Cuomo (D): 51

Rudy Giuliani (R): 37

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 42

Peter King (R): 26

(MoE: ±3%)

In the political chess game, David Paterson may have felt he was thinking ten moves ahead by picking Kirsten Gillibrand to fill the vacant Senate seat, by picking a young, charismatic woman with monster fundraising capacities who may well be holding the seat 40 years from now. However, it’s starting to look like, in doing so, he wasn’t thinking two moves ahead… as Quinnipiac now shows both Paterson and Gillibrand highly vulnerable in the 2010 primary. Picking Andrew Cuomo to fill the Senate seat would have killed two birds with one stone in the short-term for Paterson (get a Senator who’s known statewide and ready to stand on his own, and give his electoral archrival something to do other than challenge him in the 2010 election). Instead, he gambled on long-term dividends, and it’s possible neither he nor Gillibrand will be around to enjoy them.

The Gillibrand/McCarthy numbers seem likely to evolve over time, as 39% remain undecided. And both candidates seem largely unknown outside their respective corners of the state; Gillibrand’s favorables are 24/9 with 65% “haven’t heard enough,” (and 81% “haven’t heard enough” in the NYC Suburbs) while McCarthy’s are also 24/9, with 66% “haven’t heard enough” (with 88% “haven’t heard enough” upstate). An uncontroversial two years for Gillibrand, combined with tacking left on guns and immigration issues, should bring her numbers up (although revelations like the one today that she keeps two guns under her bed can’t be helping matters). Gillibrand has little trouble disposing of Rep. Peter King in the general (there’s no polling of an all-LI slugfest between King and McCarthy).

Paterson, however, trails Cuomo by a 2-1 margin, and, unlike Gillibrand, everyone knows who he is. His favorables are a fairly grim 41/35, while Cuomo clocks in at 63/15. Cuomo also dominates a hypothetical matchup against Rudy Giuliani while Paterson only ties him. Much of this does, in fact, seem to be blowback from the senator selection process. Paterson gets a mark of 35/52 for approval/disapproval of how he handled the process, down from 44/42 from last month. We may be looking at a truly epic miscalculation from Paterson here, one for the history books.