The Candidates
Not entirely sure why folks waste money polling New York, but here are the results:
Siena College New York GOP Primary
Without F Thompson and Gingrich
(trend lines from April)Giuliani - 52% (47)
McCain - 14% (16)
Romney - 7% (8)
T Thompson - 4% (-)
All others - 2% or less
Undecided - 17% (16)With Fred Thompson and Gingrich:
(no trend lines available)Giuliani - 50%
McCain - 12%
F Thompson - 8%
Romney - 7%
Gingrich - 7%
Undecided - 15%Survey was done May 18-25 of 174 registered Republican voters, and has an MoE of 7.4%.
As you can see, a tiny sample size with a huge MoE. However, it is interesting to note with that in mind that Thompson seems to draw his support equally from Rudy, McCain, undecideds, and third-tier candidates at this point, without moving Romney’s numbers.
Some general election matchups, showing New York assuredly blue at this point regardless of who either party nominates:
Siena College NY General Election Matchups
Clinton - 52%
Giuliani - 39%Clinton - 54%
McCain - 36%Clinton - 57%
F Thompson - 29%Obama - 50%
Giuliani - 40%Obama - 50%
McCain - 33%This part of the survey was of 620 registered voters and has a 3.9% MoE.
For a reference point, Bush lost NY by 10% 25% in 2004 and 11% 18% in 2000.
[UPDATE: Woah, my numbers were off. I was accidentally looking at CA on my little chart of election history instead of NY. Yes, I have a chart of election history. And yes, I am a nerd. Thank you.]
May 31st, 2007 at 11:48 am
Wow, 174 people!?
Still, it’s useless polling New York, really. Rudy’s got it in the bag, obviously.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:11 pm
HeavyM,
In 2004, President Bush lost New York by 19, not 10 percent, to John Kerry. This was actually an improvement from 2000, when Al Gore pummeled Bush by 25 percentage points in the Empire State.
Therefore, Giuliani’s 10 and 13 point deficits when matched up against Obama and Clinton, respectively, are, all things relative, considerable progress for a GOP candidate in one of the deepest blue states in the nation.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
What happened? I thought Rudy was putting NY and California in play? Trailing Obama by 10 and HIll by 13 doesn’t sound like “in play.”
May 31st, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Rudy will fight for New York and win.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:49 pm
fredo, the reason is a 12 by 3 mile piece of land called MANHATTAN. But Rudy will take the state as a whole.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
…Okay, taking the state “as a whole” is sort of useless. He still has to win a majority of votes in the state. I don’t think he can do it, and I support him. I think he’s far more likely to grab California than New York.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Rudy wouldn’t win NY or CA in the general, but he might win New Jersey, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. But would he keep Ohio, the South and the Mountain West in the GOP electoral column?
May 31st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Rudy won’t win NY.
Rudy will win PA (21 EVs), NJ (15 EVs), CT (7 EVs), DE (3 EVs), ME (4 EVs), and NH (4 EVs).
He also has a good chance at OR (7 EVs) and at WA (11 EVs) and I’m not ruling out CA (55 EVs).
May 31st, 2007 at 1:13 pm
The south went so heavily for the GOP ticket in 2004 that we’d have to see massive defections away from the Rudy-led ticket for any southern state to even be in danger of flipping.
As far as Ohio and other Great Lakes states go, Rudy will lose a few populists out there who voted for Bush just because of social issues, but he’ll gain a few suburbanites who would have voted for Bush had it not been for social issues. All of the Great Lakes states (MI, WI, OH) are divided fairly equally into blue cities and suburbs and red rural areas. So I’d say the Great Lakes region is a wash with Rudy topping the ticket.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I cant imagine ruling flat out that he wont win in NY. He will galvanize his supporters against the ones who are out to destroy him (firefighter unions, radical minority groups, teachers unions) etc and he will make them look like the base of Hillary’s support…and there goes the middle down the tubes for Hillary.
Don’t count Rudy out in NY
May 31st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I agree completely with DaveG.
But I’d add Rudy will make CA and NY very dangerous for the Dem and force them to spend tens of millions of dollars in those two states alone, not to mention precious time on the ground.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Yeah, DaveG is pretty much spot on here.
Rudy would put NJ, CT, PA, NH, ME, OR, and WA into play from the states that went blue last election cycle. I don’t know about DE…
There is no conceivable way that the Midwest and the South would leave the GOP in numbers as high as 15-20% of the entire populace — to the Democrats, no less! — over social issues. That’s just lunacy.
But, contrary to what KT is saying, I am counting Rudy out in NY; ruling it flat-out, ESPECIALLY if the nominee is Hillary.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Well, look at it this way in NY: Do you really think *nineteen percent* of the entire state’s population is going to shift columns just because he’s from the state? Hillary represented the state, so what do you think? And also, let’s not forget — what about Bloomberg! This race has the potential to be New Yorker vs. New Yorker vs. New Yorker.
I disagree with DavidB that the Democrats would be forced to spend money in NY, too. It would certainly not be “dangerous” — there is nothing at all to indicate this. All of these early general election polls show the Democrats in double-digit leads against Rudy in NY.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Oops, sorry to keep posting, but I think the Great Lakes states are likely stay blue next election cycle, especially with Michigan’s sagging economy. Minnesota has a rather sordid track record. Wisconsin is most likely to flip.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Actually, DaveG and TLG forgot to mention Rhode Island. Despite being among the most Dem states of all, it has the highest (I think) population of Italian Americans. When SurveyUSA polled it in head-to-heads, RI went for Rudy!
TLG, MN’s sordid track record is not so bad when you see the margin of loss by the GOP has steadily decreased and it’s practically a 50/50 state now.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:46 pm
As far as Ohio and other Great Lakes states go, Rudy will lose a few populists out there who voted for Bush just because of social issues, but he’ll gain a few suburbanites who would have voted for Bush had it not been for social issues.
Ohio and the other Great Lake states are more socially conservative than the country at large.
Your faith that there’s a large constituency of voters there who want to vote GOP if only the GOP weren’t so close-minded about abortion is touching.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Remember, Bush’s win in Ohio is largely credited to a gay marriage amendment being on the ballot and Bush’s stance on gay marriage. If your analysis were right, this wouldn’t have made a difference because suburbanites in Cincinnati would have voted for Kerry.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Henry, Ohio, like the states to its east, has a lot of white ethnic Catholics who identify with Rudy.
Rudy’s for civil unions, not gay marriage, just like Bush and Cheney were in 2004.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Heavy’s recent correction shows how Rudy moves NY GOPward.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:01 pm
#18; I’d be interested to hear more from you about how Catholics are going to identify with an abortion rights advocate like Rudy? Just curious.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:02 pm
JB: Because many Catholics are pro-choice, and many pro-life Catholics realize there are larger issues at stake. Also, a lot of people vote for people like them in superficial ways (sadly).
May 31st, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Henry,
First, I’ve never believed that Ohio went for Bush in ‘04 because of the FMA, and I find it interesting that only the FMA supporters make that claim. Show me some empirical evidence for that claim and I will start to listen.
Secondly, are you from the Great Lakes region? Have you spent any significant amount of time there at all? If you had, you would realize that voters there are turned off by lots of talk from politicians, one way or the other, about social issues. Faith and values are more of a private thing there, and voters in states like, say, Michigan who hear politicians ready to use the government to go on a moral crusade, either on the social right or left, assume the pol is pandering or insane or both. That’s why you see social liberals elected there just as much as social conservatives, and that’s why the social conservatives that get elected there (see Pawlenty, Tim, Thompson, Tommy, and Engler, John) tend to govern solidly pro-life, etc, but never talk about it. If your theory was correct that the Great Lakes states are just dying for culture warriors to ride in with promises of using the state to modify the national culture, there wouldn’t be socially liberal Democratic governors and senators holding office throughout that region and winning elections comfortably.
Sorry, I lived in the state of Michigan for 23 years, and I don’t need a lecture from you about what midwestern voters do or do not want. Got it?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Hmm. I’m Catholic and grew up in the midwest (WI) and I can’t recall many pro-abortion Catholics. I realize that my experience is anecdotal, but as I recall, many Catholics identify more with Dems on economic issues and only could be convinced to vote Republican based on social issues, which Rudy won’t be able to convince them to do.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
If the anti-GOP mood sustains in Ohio through 2008 I doubt there will be any GOP candidates who can carry the state. The only way is if Hillary is the nominee and then it comes down to the moderates/independents in Cincy, Cleveland, and Columbus suburbs and whether they bite the bullet and pick her over a conservative GOP nominee.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:48 pm
DaveG,
I think Henry was referring to the Ohio ammendment banning gay marriage, not the FMA. I have heard many many strategists say this including many liberal strategists like Begala and Carville.
The reasoning is that many people who voted for Bush were only motivated to get out and vote by the state ammendment. If that ammendment didn’t increase social conservative turnout then Bush would have lost, or so the reasoning goes. I for one believe it.
And to your point that many Midwesterners are turned off by social issues, that is true for many people I am sure, but I have spent time in Indiana (which I know is more conservative) and there are many many social conservatives there. Also, the arguments aren’t mutually exclusive because the state marriage ban turned out more voters and Bush didn’t turn off the moderates you speak of because he campaigned almost exclusively on the war and judges.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
JB I disagree, being a catholic myself. I think its about split, but more go conservative/republican, ESPECIALLY Italian-catholics from NYC. Most people dont realize it, but most of them (Ital0-New Yorkers) are REPUBLICANS. The Irish, now, they are democrats.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Ooooh, an election history chart. I want one …
May 31st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
KT, you could count NY out for Giuliani. About half the state lives in NYC… they know Giuliani and they won’t give him the vote.
As for the other states. Time will tell. Many people still do not know Giuliani.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I lived for awhile in Indiania. Folks there don’t like confrontation, so a liberal like an Obama could probably sugarcoat his ideas and do all right. I don’t see an abrasive pro-choicer like Giuliani going over as well, especially because if pro-lifers from the South or from Utah start taking a third party candidate seriously, Giuliani is likely to say some nasty things in public. That won’t play well in the Midwest.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:45 pm
TLG,
The Democrats will begrudgingly be forced to allocate an inordinate amount of money from its advertising budget toward New York because well over half of New Jersey’s voters watch local TV networks located in Manhattan.
With Rudy as the nominee, Ohio could still go Democratic in 2008, and yet GOP victories in New Jersey and Pennsylvania would give Giuliani a net gain of 16 electoral votes, rendering the loss of Ohio irrelevant.
While it is more wishful thinking than thoughtful analysis that Rudy could actually win New York or California next year, a close loss that would otherwise be a hollow moral victory for the GOP in the Golden and Empire States in ‘08, could realistically serve as a foundation on which a President Giuliani could build upon, and outright win those coastal megastates en route to a landslide reelection in 2012.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Rick you make it sound like Rudy is a bad guy to get to know.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Just for debate’s sense….
“In 2004, George W. Bush carried 80 percent of voters who chose their candidate based on “moral values,” but lost 80 percent of voters who cited “jobs” and “the economy” as their top issues. The New York Times that year ran a story about voters in swing states such as Ohio and Iowa who were torn between the presidential candidates: They thought their economic interests lay with John Kerry, but their values lined up with Bush. Nominating Giuliani would make such voters’ choices a lot easier. (And that’s leaving aside the possibility of a party split, a convention walkout, or a third-party challenge.)”
nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=MGZhNjFjYjFjODgzZmMxNjgxZmY2Y2Q2NGRkNjE5Yjk=a
May 31st, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Tommy, when voters said “moral values” I believe many of them were referring to Kerry’s anti-Americanism and Bush’s patriotism and uncompromising position on the war. For me, that moral value was the main issue in 2004, and I may have answered “moral values,” too– even though I’m socially moderate-liberal.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Ok, I had read that and was curious to it’s interpretations.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I’m getting the feel that Aron Goldman is a Rudy supporter.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I wanted to share this excerpt from an article today about John Kerry, when he was interviewing John Edwards to be his running mate back in 2004. It really is an amazing bit of stunning drama. Shows you the kind of phony John Edwards really truly is. Again, I apologize for bieng off-subject, but I thought everyone would enjoy this:
“Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he’d never told anyone else that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he’d do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade’s ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before and with the same preface, that he’d never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn’t pick Edwards unless he met with him again.”
May 31st, 2007 at 4:59 pm
That’s disgusting
May 31st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
KT, I have to say, I would have prefered that you didn’t share that.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:53 am
Remember me, naive useless and whaosever person for misreading a polls as one for New York rather than a national polls sponsored by NY*T*!
I suppose my argument is now valid in that it won’t be a easy fight for Rudy in NY and yet, I think he too has to work hard in the south to keep his general votes. I want to add here Rudy has not done much with his present campaign, as he continues to ride on his 9/11 image, and not expand into other terrorities much other than in his tax cutting. If you expect him to fight well in NY, he should have fought well by now for his nomination, what with his downward trends. But he has not. So why do you expect him to do differently during the general election?
I know this is harsh, and I do want Rudy to win, if he gets the nomination. But, you are working on presumation which he has yet to show at this point.