« NY-Gov: Spitzer Still Smoking All Comers | Main | WA-Sen: Cantwell (D) vs. McGavick (R) »

Thursday, October 13, 2005

NY-Sen: Can't Touch Hillary

Posted by DavidNYC Siena also polled the NY Senate race at the same time it was polling the Gov race. The results are equally strong in favor of Clinton, but I did notice something interesting. In the post just below, I observed a correlation between how "well" Spitzer's lame-ass opponents performed against him vs. how well-known they are. With Jeanine Pirro and Hillary Clinton, there appears to be no such correlation - and boy does that ever spell doom for Pirro's chances, if she ever had any in the first place. Check this out:

Date Pirro D/K Clinton vs. Pirro
10/05 51 59-31
8/05 55 55-34
7/05 61 57-31
6/05 65 59-29
5/05 68 57-29

So Pirro's name recognition went up almost 20 points in 5 months. Not bad. But her performance against Clinton has gone... exactly nowhere. At this rate, Pirro might fare so poorly that she won't even get the Fox News show she's obviously angling for.

The only distressing thing about this poll was that it showed Hillary losing to Rudy, 48-43, in NY state in a possible presidential matchup. I'm surprised to still see Giuliani that popular, four years after he left office. Maybe he won't be in another two or three. But if he were somehow to emerge as the GOP's nominee, I'm starting to think he'd be a lot more formidable that many people - including myself, in the past - have predicted.

Posted at 10:32 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, New York | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Isn't this proof enough that Hillary will lose us the Presidential election in 2008?

I mean she can't even beat Guilliani in BLUEST of BLUE New York? How on God's green earth will she win the national election? How will she win the south? Win the west? Win Ohio?

People get too comfortable with the idea of Hillary because she beats a no-name Republican in New York.

Let's look at facts people (her record) - She got her ass handed to her on Health Care and then abandoned the project all together, even though we had a Democratic majority in both houses (1993-94). She writes a book(1996). She defeated nobody Rick Lazio IN NEW YORK (2000); she will probably defeat Prizo or whatever her name is, IN NEW YORK (2006). THAT'S IT. She has NO RECORD. NO LEGISLATION. NO AMMENDMENTS. NO COMMITTEE CHAIRMANSHIPS. NADA. ZILCH. She has accomplished NOTHING.

YET, SHE HAS TO ANSWER FOR BILL CLINTON, WHO IS NOT NEARLY AS POPULAR AS SOME BELIEVE HE IS (or even he believes he is for that matter). SHE CAN'T MENTION JOBS GOING OVERSEAS TO CHINA OR ELSEWHERE (Bill was responsible for NAFTA and letting China in the WTO). SHE CAN'T MENTION CORRUPTION (Lincoln Bedroom, Chinese Coffees, Buddist Temples, need I say more). SHE IS SEEN AS A WASHINGTON INSIDER. SHE HAS NO CREDIBILITY WITH EITHER SIDE ON IRAQ. HER CURRENT POPULARITY IS SOMEWHERE NEAR GEORGE W. BUSH's (whom we all say is toast). And oh ya, SHE IS STILL A WOMAN. Need I remind you all that America has never even nominated a woman for President, much less elected one.

Someone explain how she wins the election? I will not even consider supporting someone who doesn't even have a chance at winning us back the White House. Currently, she is a worse choice than even Kerry.

Posted by: jackbourassa [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 13, 2005 11:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

jack, I couldn't agree more. You raise many excellent points. I hope more Democrats come to this realization before we make a serious mistake about 39 months from now.

Posted by: Mark [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 13, 2005 11:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Whoa. I think we can relax with the shouting, no? Anyhow, for the second time tonight, I point out that my comment has nothing to do with Hillary and everything to do with Rudy. I find it funny that I'm cast as Hillary's defender here, considering that I myself don't even like her all that much. But actually, I'm gonna defend accuracy, not Hillary.

First off, we don't know how well other potential Dems stack up against Rudy in NY State. For all we know, they fare worse.

Second, Hillary beats Pataki by a whopping 53-35 in the same Siena poll. Pataki is decidedly not a no-name. This suggests that Giuliani may well be something special - someone very tough for ANYONE to beat.

Third, Hillary's nationwide favorability ratings are higher than Bush's. The most recent round put her above 50% in three different polls. Bush's favorability (as distinguished from job approval) is down to the 40s.

Fourth, how could any Democrat since 1994 possibly hold a committee chairmanship, especially a very junior senator? Or pass any meaningful legislation? This is a real problem for any Democrat in Congress seeking other office - they all pretty much have no legislative record to run on, because they've all been 100% shut out of the legislative process by the GOP. So yes, this is a black mark for Hillary - but it's a problem for every other Dem who isn't a governor.

Again I say, I'm no big fan of Hillary's. And I don't even *care* about Hillary. It was a "watch out for Rudy" comment.

Posted by: DavidNYC [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2005 12:07 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Giuliani's legendary status is a mirage. He just happened to be the guy with the bullhorn when 9-11 hit, and since his response to the ordeal was tasteful and effective, his political career was rescued from the clutches of insignificance at the last minute. Under the scrutiny of a statewide campaign in New York, I suspect his alignment with the unpopular views of the current administration would slowly send his numbers spiraling closer to where they were on September 10, 2001. I suspect his star would lose at least some of its sparkle in a national campaign too, but he'd still be a formidable opponent.

Posted by: Mark [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2005 02:28 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think you are giving Giuliani too much credit nation wide. He's never going to carry the Republican flag. If they decide to go moderate it will be McCain, he is too strong on defense as compared to the "city boy" Rudy. Can you imagine SC, TN, TX, AK, AL, or any other Red state actually voting for Rudy over the Vietnam vet, POW, hero McCain?

Posted by: chuckles [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2005 10:19 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Democrats are the biggest Kool Aid drinkers when it comes to the Clintons. The guy never won 50% of the vote and probably would never have won if Perot didn't run. (Don't forget, that Clinton did as well in 1992, as Dukakis did in 1988; and did as well in 1996, as Gore and Kerry did in their respective elections). Also, it was under Clinton that we lost Congress and have not won it back since. So pass some more Kool Aid.

If you all search down and are honest with yourselves, you will admit that Hillary has no shot at the Presidency. This is just more of the never ending Clinton ego trip. Unfortunately, it may sink the party.

Just when things were going so well for us. In comes the Clintons to screw it all up again.

B.T.W. Hillary's numbers are most certainly not at 50% (which would be terrible in their own right). Closer to 45%. With 100% name id. That's before the Swift Boat smears begin. You know they will.

Let all Clinton apologists explain this:

How will Hillary talk about GOP corruption? (With all the problems her husband had - see my above post)

How will Hillary talk about outsourcing?
(NAFTA, China)

How will Hillary address the war?
(Her position is just plain baffling)

She will neuter each and everyone of our positions. Then what will her case be TO BECOME THE FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT EVER?

Pew released a poll this week where 65% of Americans wanted someone different from Bush or Clinton in the next election. If she is our nominee we are simply doomed.

Because Hillary is trying to rid her liberal image, she is taking conservative positions - which ironically enough - are the same positions which will win us the election. (Outsourcing, Iraq, etc).

With Hillary we will have the worst of all worlds. Then the Clintons, in all their selfishness, suck up all the publicity that could go to other viable candidates. All we hear is Hillary hanging with the Bushes; Hillary against video games (yes, wasn't that such a Clintonian issue); Hillary with Newt; Hillary supporting the war.

It will be so easy to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2008. If she is nominated, I wouldn't be surprised if there was another third party candidate.

Why can't the Clintons just give it up and go home.

"Don't go away mad, just go away."

Posted by: jackbourassa [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 14, 2005 06:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment