Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

NY: Paterson, 2010 Sen, Gov (Marist 2/22-24)

Topics: poll

Marist
2/22-24/10; 646 registered voters, 4% margin of error
3/1/10; 543 registered voters, 4.5% margin of error
2/22-24/10, 3/1/10; 524 Democrats, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Marist: Governor, Senate)

New York

2010 Governor: General Election
64% Cuomo, 28% Lazio (chart)

2010 Senate: Democratic Primary*
50% Gillibrand, 19% Ford, 3% Tasini (trend)
*Harold Ford announced last night that he would not run for Senate

2010 Senate: General Election (trends)
48% Pataki, 45% Gillibrand (chart)
59% Gillibrand, 26% Zuckerman
58% Gillibrand, 28% Blakeman

Governor Paterson has said he will not run for election as governor this November. Do you think he should also resign as governor or do you think he should serve out the rest of his term?
28% Resign, 66% Serve out term

An investigation is underway to find out what occurred during a conversation Governor Paterson had with the victim of a possible domestic violence case against one of the governors top aides. Regarding Governor Paterson's contact with the victim, do you think the governor:
12% Did nothing wrong
40% Did something unethical, but not illegal
18% Did something illegal

In general, do you think Governor Paterson is being treated fairly or unfairly?
55% Fairly, 36% Unfairly

Job Rating
Gov. Paterson: (chart)
March 1: 23% Excellent/Good, 71% Fair/Poor
Feb. 22-24: 24% Excellent/Good, 72% Fair/Poor
Sen. Gillibrand: 25% Excellent/Good, 53% Fair/Poor (chart)
Sen. Schumer: 53% Excellent/Good, 43% Fair/Poor (chart)

 

Comments
djneedle83:

This race is no contest. There is no chance in hell that Gillibrand loses in November. This is a very safe seat.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Unless she faces Pataki then it is a contest. Hopefully Pataki runs. Looks like Thompson is going to run in WI.

____________________

Pataki? He's hated in NY. Polls way off if he runs. He'll be crushed.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Pataki would come close and be a strong candidate but wouldn't win. Unless Cuomo decided not to run which is unlikely would be the only way Pataki could. Cuomo is very popular and in a strongly Democratic state, it would be unlikely for people to split their ticket by voting for Schumer and Cuomo and voting for Pataki too.

Thompson would have a better chance in Wisconsin, but he has baggage. Feingold has lots of money and is one of the most valued progressives the Democrats have.

____________________

Stillow:

Where have I heard comments like these before........can't quite place where I have heard this same left wing rhetoric before.

We'll never lose NJ, a republican can't win in NJ. This state hates republicans. Espeically a conservative like Christie. A republican hasn't won here since a moderate won back i nthe 90's by a single point. NJ hates conservatives.

VA is a blue state now, its been trending blue. Fairfax county will make any Dem win. Obama just won the state a year ago....VA is now a blue state. Republicans can't win here again espeicailly not all 3 of the top races.

There's no way in hell you republicans can win in MA. The people would never pick a republican to fill Ted Kennedy's seat o nthe cusp of passing HCR. This will be a blow out. The only non existant chance Brown has is if there is super low turn out. Its impossible for the democrats to lose in Mass....

Oh ya, now I remember when and where I heard comments like this. Reality hurts don't it libs? Its just gotta hurt!!!

____________________

Field Marshal:

"Thompson would have a better chance in Wisconsin, but he has baggage. Feingold has lots of money and is one of the most valued progressives the Democrats have."

Hence the reason he is very vulnerable. Americans have seen the progressive movement for what it truly is; a neo-socialist ideology.

Pataki is actually very liked in NY as he was a three-term governor. In any case, this poll has him up over Gillibrand and he isn't even in the race. Actually, i think there is more chance he doesn't run.

____________________

Stillow:

I don't think people like farleft understand what progressives are or what they beleive in. Nor do I think he understands there historical roots in this country......they are really nasty vile people and the stuff they beelived in then and now is some scary stuff.

____________________

Xenobion:

Yeah scary stuff like Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Ah yes there was once a day Republicans were progressive. Republicans started the modern conservation movement under Teddy and all the other vile and evil things that progressives come up with.

Read your history books kids cause its apparent you're either rewriting history or you just don't know it.

____________________

Lefty, you crack me up. So Pataki is a strong candidate but can't win because New Yorker's are too dumb to be able to split their tickets. Even Joe "FDR was great on television during the depression" Biden thinks you put both penny loafers in your mouth with that statement. I wonder how George P. was elected and re-elected as a Rep. Gov in a statehouse full of Dems, but never let the facts get in the way of a good fantasy. If he runs he will beat the current empty pant suit appointment that even most NY Dems think is a lightweight. And at least say "I don't think" TT will win,if he runs in Wis, if you want anyone to take your posts seriously, because otherwise you look silly saying the most liberal member of the senate beats a popular former gov in a Rep year. Otherwise, I will be looking for a post from you in the future telling me how well President Mondale's administration is viewed by most historians. Cheer up Left, the Rep are only going to have 48 or 49 senate seats this time next yr. Of course, the bad news is that the Dems have to defend 23 seats in '12 and the Rep only 10. Hehehehe.

____________________

Stillow:

X - To steal a line from Reagan, there you go again. In every single thread on this site you seem incapable to understand the difference between republican, democrat,liberal and conservative. You seem to think all Repubs are conservative and all Dems are liberal. You can have a far left ideology and be a republican and vice versa.

You seem to have a intelectual block preventing you from understanding that most basic of concepts.

The scary stuff I was referring to is progressives were and still are in different ways today very much about racial purity, superirority, etc. Progressives beleived very much in ethnic cleansing and doing away wit inferior people by denying them the right to breed, etc.

Do it for me X, just onc eit'd be nice to see someone like yourself who seems to possess the raw intelligence needed to understand the difference in labels. Nixon was seen as a very liberal president and he was Democrat. JFK though is seen as a pretty conservative president and was a Democrat. You tie to much of your ideology to a party label.........I think you know better.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I don't think Pataki couldn't win in NY, and I didn't say he couldn't. I am not setting anything in stone; I am just expressing an opinion. I know Gillibrand fairly well and know she was able to win in the district I work in, which had not been held by a Democrat for nearly 30 years in the house.

I think if Schumer weren't on the ticket and Cuomo weren't running, he would be likely to win. I know he is a likeable guy who can reach out to Independents, but he is not as moderate as he comes across. If the election were held today, Pataki probably would win, but I know NY politics really well. I can't speak for NJ, WI, PA or IL but it would be unlikely for Pataki to win. He also would have to run again in two years.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Feingold may have a liberal voting record, yet he knows how to come across as a logical progressive. I would actually disagree, because Bernie Sanders in VT, and probably Al Franken would outdo Feingold.

____________________

Stillow:

X - Nixon was gop i meant to say...settle down!

____________________

Williame123:

Gillibrand is closing in on Pataki really fast despite her relatively lower name ID. What that tells me is that Pataki will lose if he runs. Gillibrand is much tougher than people realize. She won a congressional seat in a tough Republican district in upstate NY.

____________________

Field Marshal:

William,

This is true but that was during an extremely favorable dem climate that is unlikely to be there again for her this year. In addition, the polling of 'registered voters' are the only polls showing her closing that gap. Its definitely a start for her but she is a long way from being a shoo-in or saying 'Pataki will lose if he runs.'

Farleft, you just named probably the worst bunch of senators in Washington all in one sentence. All you needed to mention was Reid and Boxer and then it would have been perfect.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Well probably the senators I think are my favorites would be field Marshall's least favorite.

The ones I think are the worst are Inhofe, Jim Bunning and Coburn. I am sure that many arch conservatives would like them for irritating progressives.

I am sure conservatives won't rave about Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, just like progressives will never rave about Senators like Ben Nelson. I think being in the center is really hard in these times we live in.

____________________

Williame123:

Stillow

"JFK though is seen as a pretty conservative president and was a Democrat. You tie to much of your ideology to a party label.........I think you know better."

Kennedy was conservative? What are smoking? I guess you have jumped on the bandwagon of historical revisionism being practiced by neoconservatives these days. They claim hawkish post-war presidents like Truman and JFK as conservatives and disown doves like Carter as liberal. In truth, Truman and JFK were more liberal than Carter and Nixon. Many of the neocons who are now claiming men like JFK and Truman as one of their own are former cold war liberals. This is precisely why paleocons like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are at odds with them and the Republican establishment on foreign policy.

Traditionally, conservatives were anti-war and particularly anti-interventionist. Most of the great wars America fought in the 20th century were fought by liberals/progressives and conservatives generally opposed them. Conservatives opposed Wilson on WWI and FDR on WWII. Notice how Truman got us into Korea and Eisenhower ended it. Also JFK/LBJ got us into Vietnam and Nixon/Ford negotiated for peace. Things started to change toward the end of the '60s when many progressives turned against cold war liberalism and the Vietnam War. The excesses of the anti-war movement and the inefficiencies of LBJ's Great Society programs led to many cold war liberals defecting to the conservative side and becoming leaders of the nascent neoconservative movement. In many ways Reagan was more of a cold war liberal than a traditional conservative. What distinguished him from other cold war liberals was his instinctive western individualism and thus his support of Goldwater. It is not a coincidence that Reagan was an FDR/Truman Democrat. It is also not a coincidence that prominent neoconservatives like Irvin Kristol (father of Bill Kristol), Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Charles Krauthammer are former liberal Democrats.

It is the influence of neoconservatism that has turned American foreign policy upside down. Kennedy was NOT a conservative Democrat. It is the current Republican establishment that has a liberal internationalist view. Bush's foreign policy was decidedly Wilsonian and utopian with a good dose of the callow of triumphalism of Reagan. The 2 main pillars of 20th century American conservatism were conservative libertarianism and traditional establishmentarianism. They are currently best represented by Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan respectively.

____________________

Williame123:

Field Marshal:

"This is true but that was during an extremely favorable dem climate that is unlikely to be there again for her this year."

The same can be said of Pataki. He came to power in the early '90s at a time when New England and the Northeast in general was very favorable to Republicans. However, I do agree that Pataki is a strong candidate because he is the Teddy Roosevelt-type Republican that New England and Northeastern whites have always loved. I would still bet on Gillibrand though. Name ID is working for Pataki right now.

____________________

Williame123:

Stillow

"Espeically a conservative like Christie."

Are you feeling ok? That anyone would call Christie a conservative is funny. It is like calling Bobby Bright a liberal.

____________________

Williame123:

Stillow:

"The scary stuff I was referring to is progressives were and still are in different ways today very much about racial purity, superirority, etc. Progressives beleived very much in ethnic cleansing and doing away wit inferior people by denying them the right to breed, etc."

...and yet these same progressives abolished slavery, initiated mass education, fought for female suffrage, ended child labor, created the social safety net for the "inferior people", ended racial segregation and ended western colonialism.

____________________

Stillow:

Williame123

It is you who ar enot feeling ok. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. If a liberal uttered that line today he would be hanged in the public square. Liberalism is all about what you can get fro mthe state and from someone else. JFK was a tax cutter....again if a liberal wanted to cut taxes today he would be kicked out of the Dem party, freid and served for dinner that night. JFK would not be allowed to be a democrat today. A tax cutting fellow who talked about what you can do and not what you can get.....hahahahah....Dems would throw him out with the trash.

Christie not conservative????? Go watch his speech to his statge legislature a couple weeks ago about cost containment and spending cuts....you don't get anymore fiscally conservative than that.....you libs are in denial about everything these days!

____________________

lat:

Stillow,

I know you are upset that your hard earned dollars that you sweat bullets for are being taken from you by lazy people that don't want to work, but relax buddy. You will have to live with this for a while. I just can't wait until it goes back to 39.6 when even more of that hard earned money will go into the hands of welfare queens, but don't worry they thank you for your contribution to them. Happy taxpaying.

____________________

Stillow:

lat - Well as long as they are greatful then its ok. Keep raising taxes on the successful and watch job creation continue to worsen....keeptaking assets rom those who have and watch there spending decline which leads to more layoffs cus less people are consuming.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR