There has been quite a bit of New York polling lately, which is odd considering that the NY primary will without a doubt be the least competitive ’08 primary of them all. But for the record:
WNBC-Marist New York Poll, conducted March 20th-22nd, 2007:Republicans
- Rudy Giuliani 48%
- John McCain 21%
- Newt Gingrich 7%
- Fred Thompson 5%
- Mitt Romney 2%
- Tommy Thompson 1%
- Chuck Hagel 1%
- Tom Tancredo 1%
- Sam Brownback 1%
Democrats
- Hillary Clinton 44%
- Al Gore 16%
- Barack Obama 14%
- John Edwards 9%
- Joe Biden 3%
- Bill Richardson 2%
- Al Sharpton 1%
- Chris Dodd 1%
Head to Head Match-ups
- Hillary Clinton 50%
- Rudy Giuliani 43%
- Rudy Giuliani 56%
- Barack Obama 39%
- Rudy Giuliani 56%
- John Edwards 38%
Interestingly, Newt still polls ahead of FDT in NY.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Why, oh why, do they keep adding Al Gore to these polls? If they go through all the trouble of polling in the first place, why continue to add someone who consistently says he is not running? It makes the poll even more pointless than it already would be. Will he ultimately enter the race – who knows? But right now he’s a definite no, so stop adding his name! I guess I should be happy they finally quit including Condi Rice in the GOP polls.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
jake, There is more of a chance Gore might run than Condi, especially given recent buzz.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I agree, but as of now if Condi is a zero percent, Gore isn’t that much higher. It makes the entire polling result meaningless. How do we measure the polling success or failure among committed candidates when a non-starter is thrown into the mix? I don’t even like Newt being included, since it throws off the numbers on our side, but at least he hasn’t publically ruled anything out.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:50 am
jake,
.
By your own standards, undeclared Fred Thompson shouldn’t be included in the mix as well. And one more thing, I take by your absence of protest that you consider Al Sharpton to be a serious candidate
But seriously, New York is definately Rudy’s Ace in the hole in the primary season. How many delegate votes does it get again? I think at least 33.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:09 am
I would love it if they would conduct two polls. . .the first can keep everyone who may or may not run, the second would only include those candidates who already committed to this thing. That would exclude Gore, Newt, Fred Thompson, Wes Clark, etc. The whole reason to do a poll is to present to the public exactly where the candidates stand at that given moment. If, at that given moment, undeclared and uncommitted candidates are added to the mix, then the poll, and all the work that went into conducting it, is pointless because it’s not an accurate measure of the public’s affinity for one of the candidates.
As for Al Sharpton, I actually do consider him a serious candidate. Well, more acurately, I consider him a serious influence on the candidates and the race in the same way I considered, say, Pat Buchanan a serious influence a few elections ago. He won’t win a primary, and can’t win a general, but he also can’t be ignored and he has a significant following behind him who’s concerns need to be addressed by the party as a whole. I hold Sharpton up there with some of the worst entries on the American political landscape, but I do admire him for being one of the few Democrats to consistantly appear on Foxnews to present his side of the debate and, more importantly, to actually debate our side in a serious constructive way. My problems with him stem from the occasions he steps out of that constructive debate form and goes back to the extreme rhetoric he’s so famous for.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:13 am
The republicans have a chance to avoid 2008 meltdown: rally around Rudy!
March 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
ridiculous no way Hillary Rodham Castro beats Rudy
March 31st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Unless you count 2000, when she did, of course.