About
The Albany Project seeks to return New York State Government to its rightful owners - the people.

Getting Started at the Albany Project

New York Blogwire



This belongs to you. Take it back...

NY-Sen: Overlooked Parts Of The Quinnipiac Poll

by: robert.harding

Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:28:10 AM EDT


Everyone has a reaction to the Quinnipiac poll unveiled yesterday that shows Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand trailing Rep. Carolyn Maloney 27 percent to 23 percent, with four percent of respondents saying they backed Jonathan Tasini and 44 percent of those surveyed saying that they are undecided, a huge total which will no doubt help the eventual winner in such a primary.

But while that might be the most important statistic from the poll, there are actually others that give you an idea that while Maloney might lead in a primary, that lead might not be what it seems.

There are a few other numbers from the poll that are worth highlighting:

- Gillibrand would beat Republican Peter King in a hypothetical matchup 44 percent to 28 percent with 26 percent undecided. Maloney also beats King, but by a 42 percent to 26 percent margin and 30 percent undecided. That four percent difference in the undecided column shows that while Gillibrand still has some work to do, Maloney has a longer way to go, especially if she is going to be a strong general election candidate. It's one thing to win the primary, as we have seen in the past, but it's another to be a weak candidate for a general election bid. I'm not saying that Maloney is the best candidate for the primary (I believe Gillibrand is) but if she is going to tout herself as the liberal in the race, she might want to change her tone and tout herself as more of a statewide candidate, which at the present time, she isn't.

- Maloney's only strength is New York City. Against King, Maloney beats King in New York City with 54 percent of the vote compared to King's 18 percent. In the suburbs, Maloney gets 41 percent against King's 39 percent, which isn't a huge margin. Maloney's faring in upstate New York isn't any better. In all of upstate New York, Maloney gets 32 percent of the vote against King, who gets 25 percent of the vote in a race against Maloney. Maloney's numbers against King in urban upstate areas (39 percent to 18 percent) are better than her numbers in other, presumably more rural areas of upstate (31 percent to 26 percent).

- While Maloney is strong in New York City and shaky elsewhere, Gillibrand is strong in most categories. While she needs to improve in the suburbs (King is beating her there in the poll by 17 percentage points), Gillibrand has strong numbers elsewhere. In New York City, she beats King 49 percent to 20 percent. In upstate New York, she beats him 46 percent to 24 percent. The polls show that both Gillibrand and Maloney have some work to do in the suburbs, but that Maloney also has a lot of work to do in convincing upstate voters that she, not Gillibrand, is the right nominee for the Democratic Party.

- Gillibrand's job approval ratings are rising. The poll finds that 37 percent of those surveyed approve of the job Gillibrand is doing as senator. Only 15 percent disapprove and 48 percent don't know or have no opinion on her performance. Those numbers are up from 33 percent in April and 28 percent in February. There are also more voters forming an opinion of Gillibrand. While only 48 percent are undecided on her approval rating, that is down from 54 percent in April and 62 percent in February. And it can be concluded from the results that as time goes on and Gillibrand has a chance to prove herself, more of those who don't know or have no opinion decide that they approve of her job performance.

Gillibrand has received plenty of endorsements from party leaders, unions and community groups, as well as many other progressive leaders, elected officials and organizations. There have been those who have argued that she has done this to avoid a primary. That isn't the case. She is receiving this support because people genuinely support her. The poll numbers have shown the evolution of New Yorkers and their support for Gillibrand. She is gaining more and more support at time goes on.

Maloney might lead in this poll that was released yesterday. But leading a poll in June 2009 is a far cry from winning the Democratic primary in September 2010. There is a long way to go and time is something that Gillibrand has shown benefits her greatly. The more time she has, the more she can show New Yorkers just how effective she has been and will continue to be.

ON THE WEB:

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's Campaign Website

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's U.S. Senate Website

Conversations With Kirsten

Contribute to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's Campaign

robert.harding :: NY-Sen: Overlooked Parts Of The Quinnipiac Poll
Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Wonks like us... (4.00 / 2)
are the only ones following this closely right now. After the energy expended in last year's election, most people have checked out regarding political races--hence, the undecided category being so high. Gillibrand is working very hard, introducing herself, and proposing many legislative initiatives across a spectrum. That is going to penetrate over time. Her numbers are so high in the 20th, because she excelled in constituent outreach. The entire State is a much bigger area to cover, and it will take some time, but her efforts will bear the same fruit.

Thanks for looking deeper (4.00 / 2)
than the 27-23 number that prompted two similar DKos diaries from the Maloney campaign yesterday.

Gillibrand will gain in job approval with every poll, as more New Yorkers get to know her.

Not just who she is and putting a face to the name, but how well she's doing her job as Senator.


Something else this may point to... (4.00 / 1)
Is that the environment right now, particularly in NY, may not be favorable to incumbents. Even when they have respectable favorables.

That may be the trend most worth watching over the coming months, because it could have broader implications - some good, some bad.


[ Parent ]
Sorry, I'm new... (0.00 / 0)
Is it normal to have a post about three people but only put links (including a contribution link) in the bottom of the post?

Not pointing fingers... just wondering.  :)


oops... (0.00 / 0)
typo:
Is it normal to have a post about three people but only put links (including a contribution link) about just one of them in the bottom of the post?

[ Parent ]
I Had The Same Reaction (4.00 / 1)
The Albany Project is not my web site, and I know people writing articles have points of view.

But I'd like to get the sense that I'm getting objective information. Ending a piece about two (or three) candidates with links to one person's campaign, including a contribution link, does not create a sense of trustworthiness in the initial report.

Neither do unsupported statements such as "And it can be concluded from the results that as time goes on and Gillibrand has a chance to prove herself, more of those who don't know or have no opinion decide that they approve of her job performance." I see no inherent reason to jump to that conclusion. Also, "There have been those who have argued that she has done this to avoid a primary. That isn't the case. She is receiving this support because people genuinely support her." Certainly there are some Democratic party leaders who do want to avoid a primary (see the pressure put on Congressman Steve Israel to bow out), and this concern may have been a factor in rounding up endorsements. But without more, we can't tell.

I should note that I am a Gillibrand supporter (though an Israel candidacy would have made the choice more difficult for me); I am contributing to her campaign, and I think she would win a primary battle and will win the general election. But I think the articles here should be focused more on analysis. I'd much prefer that express advocacy for one capable candidate over another arguably capable candidate should be left to the posting section.


[ Parent ]
it's usually best never to hope for objective (0.00 / 0)
most things here aren't, especially anything about the Senate race.

I try to pick through messages and see which pieces might be useful.  In this case, the links at the end are at least a clear giveaway of point-of-view...


[ Parent ]
Well that's three votes (4.00 / 1)
And even though you say Maloney's numbers are "shaky," you didn't mention that she comes out on top in every single region of the state.

Kirsten Gillibrand would be beaten by nearly 20 points in the downstate suburbs.

And in addition to Gillibrands job approvals increasing marginally, her overall approval rating goes nowhere.  Not even one point in six months despite the onslaught of press releases proclaiming widespread support from... somewhere.


[ Parent ]
The Gillibrand Project (0.00 / 0)
They make no bones about their lack of objectivity.

[ Parent ]
I will repeat what I have said... (4.00 / 2)
Over... and over... and over... again.

When Carolyn Maloney has such information, I will provide it. Right now, to my knowledge anyway, she does not. She has yet to even declare her candidacy.

I must apologize for the emphasis, but it seems like emphasis will be the only way for me to get across a point I have uttered several times.

As for objectivity, this is a blog, not a newspaper. If you have certain expectations, don't. All of you who are commenting here also have the ability to write your own posts using your own set of guidelines. If you want it to be opinion-based, analysis-based or some other style, so be it.

I get real tired of those who critique my posts not necessarily for the content, but for the approach. We all have our own approaches. Plus, if you have a problem with my approach, nothing is preventing you from writing your own post(s). This isn't Iran. We allow free thought and use of this medium here.

So stop complaining and use it. If you have time to write a few hundred words in a comment, you have time to write a post featuring your own point of view or analytical perspective.


[ Parent ]
That goes both ways people (0.00 / 0)
EVERY time something gets posted with even a hint of support for Maloney, prominent writers from this blog (cough fran20 cough devtob) make repeated accusations that someone has been paid to write it. Is anyone suggesting that here? Absolutely not. If you are allowed your opinion without being charged of collusion then so are we.

This is just getting ridiculous. I call on the Gillibrand supporters to knock it off. There are people with legitimate opinions other than your own, and if you don't believe it, you might as well be a Republican.



[ Parent ]
You're wrong, about me anyway (0.00 / 0)
The few people I've accused of working for Maloney are those who registered this month, after Maloney unofficially launched her campaign, and who coincidentally only comment on Gillibrand/Maloney.

So your bolded, capped "every" is false.


[ Parent ]
Uh, Maloney has at least one website (0.00 / 0)
What malarkey, Robert.

You posted a link to Gillibrand's Senate website.

You don't post a link to Maloney's Congressional website.

http://maloney.house.gov

The bias is as transparent as the strained spinning of this diary.


[ Parent ]
Nobody's stopping you from writing your own diaries, Hudson. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Expressing Expectations (4.00 / 1)
As for objectivity, this is a blog, not a newspaper. If you have certain expectations, don't.

Yes, I believe I expressly acknowledged that people writing have points of view. My point was that if the objective is to convince people one way or the other, then it helps to encourage credibility in what is being written. And I think that involves tamping down one's personal preferences and delineating data and opinion in the interest of letting readers come to their own conclusions instead of generating skepticism that one may not be getting the whole story. I gave my point of view about that effectiveness above, but others may come to a different conclusion, and the ultimate decision of course is in the hands of the writer. Still, my sense is that those who think they're getting only partial or unsupported information will choose not to read on, and that won't advance the writer's goals.

if you have a problem with my approach, nothing is preventing you from writing your own post(s)... If you have time to write a few hundred words in a comment, you have time to write a post featuring your own point of view or analytical perspective.

I believe that's what many people are doing by responding here: using their writing to express points of view about what's going on, which includes what others are writing. I don't see that it matters whether such sentiments are expressed in a "post" or a comment to a post. The critique would be the same.

In addition, I believe there were substantive comments about content--statements which I think were not supported by evidence--not just about "approach" (whatever that is). And as for saying things "over...and over," it may be helpful to keep in mind that some readers may be new, and even regular readers don't read everything written by everyone, and so some patience and repetition may come with the territory.

All of us, when we write, open ourselves to critiques. And we can choose to accept, ignore, or otherwise respond to them. I see nothing wrong with the exchanges in this particular thread so long as they remain substantive and not personal attacks.


[ Parent ]
maybe I see your point better now? (4.00 / 1)
At first I thought you were hoping this site would be more newspaper-like and less blog-like.  That didn't really make sense to me.  

This sounds more like you're hoping this site will be more like a blog and less like a series of press releases.  That seems pretty sensible!


[ Parent ]
I find it hard to believe that wonks, neo-wonks and disinterested by-standers (4.00 / 1)
would give these "candidate" preference polls any credence what so ever! In the first place, these polls are "trolling exercises" conducted by the polling organizations that are looking for business once the real "silly seasons" get underway.  It is their way of advertising their services, presumably, to the highest bidder.

Second, as per example, Maloney's INTERNAL poll demonstrates, they are exercises in public opinion engineering paid for by the candidate him/herself.  Have you ever seen a candidate for office release an internal poll that honestly says, "Oops, I am gonna get my butt handed to me in this election!"? .  I thought not.

And, lastly, when was the most recent time you saw one of these pollsters fully and thoroughly explain the methodology they used to arrive at the results they obtained? Liars don't lie, pollsters do it for them!

BTW, if you believe these polls I would like to talk to you about some property I own, at the bottom of Lake Champlain, that is for sale.


Slamming the Gate (4.00 / 2)
When I signed up for this site shortly after it was launched, I believed it was in the spirit of (a) a principled reform agenda and (b) the Daily Kos ethos of "crashing the gate."

But more and more over time, this site seems to be more about sucking up to the Democratic party establishment, right or wrong.

I don't come here to read front-page diaries with no purpose other than spinning a poll containing bad news for a sitting Dem Senator -- especially through microscopic parsing this dubious.

If this were The Hartford Project and it were Summer 2006, I'd expect to find elaborate justifications of Joe Lieberman and why Ned Lamont shouldn't primary him.


Geez, I know you don't like Gillibrand, (4.00 / 1)
but it's a low blow to compare her to LIEberman.

She did not endorse and campaign for McCain, and she does not publicly diss fellow Democrats for being insufficiently neocon.

The insult to TAP is pretty low, too.


[ Parent ]
Correction (0.00 / 0)
Lieberman hadn't endorsed McCain in 2006!

[ Parent ]
Sucking up to the Democratic Party establishment (0.00 / 0)
means you won't be supporting Carolyn Maloney either I gather seeing as she's even more "the establishment" than Gillibrand?

[ Parent ]
You could try commenting on the analysis (4.00 / 1)
I know it's more fun to rag on the other posters, but I'd have more interest in a response that took them up and debated the poll.  Instead, you're just giving us counter-spin.


[ Parent ]
I hate to say this (0.00 / 0)
but I agree way too much with Hudson.  Not completely, but too much.

At this point I support Gillibrand despite her horde of supporters on this site.

I liked this site from the outset because it seemed separate from the broken party machinery that calls itself the "State Democratic Committee", and indeed from any particular faction.

Over the last year or so, I've questioned that separation more and more.  During last year's State Senate races, questioning Malcolm Smith's virtues seemed to be taken as treason.  In the face of a disaster in Albany - one I'd say the Democrats largely inflicted on themselves - we get mostly silence.  And on a Senate race, we get tribal bickering, arguments that primaries are a terrible indulgence, an echo chamber of endorsements, heavy-duty poll spinning, and battling back and forth over whether it's even allowed to question candidates' virtues.

I'm not really sure why I'm still allowed keys to the front page, as I feel like a freakish throwback to the early days of this site, before we got sucked into the business of supporting various pieces of the Democratic establishment.

Not the whole party establishment, as Hudson suggests - though I worry that our fractures here mostly echo fractures in the party establishment itself.

And that does very little to help us get voters involved. Can we get back to that whole "This belongs to you. Take it back..." thing?


[ Parent ]
The Albany Project

Please take my Blog Reader Project survey.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


NY blogs

Politics

Adirondack Almanack
Buffalo Geek
Buffalo Pundit
Capitol Confidential
Daily Gotham
Daily Politics
DMI Blog
DragonFlyEye
Empire Page
Empire Zone
Gothamist
Gotham Gazette
Group News Blog
Jason Gooljar
Left of the Hudson
Living In Dryden
Lost In The Ozone
McHugh Watch
Nassau GOP Watch
Planet Albany
Politicker NY
Politics on the Hudson
Reform NY
Rochester Turning
Room 8
Simply Left Behind
Take19
The Community Alliance

Think Tanks

Brennan Center for Justice
Citizens Budget Commission
Citizens Union
Drum Major Institute
Fiscal Policy Institute
New Democracy Project
Progressive States

Organizations

Citizen Action
Citizens for Better Government in New York
Common Cause
New York Citizens for Clean Elections
Progressive States Network
>
National Blogs

Politics

AmericaBlog
Crooks and Liars
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
Firedoglake
MyDD
Political Cortex
Senate Guru
Skippy
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo
The Right's Field

LBAN Network

Agonist
All Spin Zone
AlterNet
AMERICAblog
American Street
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
BartCop
Big Head DC
Blogging of the Pres
BlogACTIVE
Bluegrass Report
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass. Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Bob Geiger
Booman
BRAD Blog
Brendan Calling
Buckeye State Blog
Burnt Orange Report
Calitics
Capitol Annex
Carpetbagger Report
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Cliff Schecter
Comments from Left Field
Confined Space
Corrente
Cotton Mouth
Crooks and Liars
culture kitchen
Cursor
Daily Gotham
Daily Kos
David Corn
Democrats.com
Dem Bloggers
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribus Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Feministing
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
Greatscat!
Green Mountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Juan Cole
Keystone Politics
Kick!
KnoxViews
Las Vegas Gleaner
Latino Pundit
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
Mahablog
Majikthise
Make Them Accountable
Matthew Yglesias
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
Minnesota Campaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
MyDD
My Left Nutmeg
My Left Wing
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Corpse
News Dissector
Newshoggers
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
OpenLeft
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
People's Rep. of Seabrook
PinkDome
Politics1
Political Animal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raising Kaine
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rox Populi
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Satirical Political Report
Seeing The Forest
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
Slacktivist
Smirking Chimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Talk Left
Tapped
Taylor Marsh
Tattered Coat
Texas Kaos
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Reaction
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Turn Maine Blue
Uppity Wisconsin
Wampum
War and Piece
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks

Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless

blog radio

Get the albany project in your inbox! Just enter your email address

Delivered by FeedBurner

____________________


Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox