Poll: Caroline Kennedy Might Put Senate Seat At Risk For Dems
Yet more bad news for Caroline Kennedy's Senate prospects: A new survey from Public Policy Polling (D) shows that if she were appointed to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat, she could potentially put it in danger of a Republican takeover in 2010.
The numbers: Caroline 46%, GOP Rep. Peter King 44%, within the ±3.7% margin of error. State Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo leads King 48%-29%.
King's personal numbers are 34% favorable, 26% unfavorable, and the remainder having no opinion. So we can be pretty sure that a good chunk of people saying they would vote for him are really voting against Kennedy, whose own favorable numbers are at 44%-40%. Cuomo's numbers are 57%-20%.
A poll yesterday from PPP showed that Kennedy had also fallen way behind Cuomo as the choice of New York Democrats on who should get the appointment.
Caroline Kennedy should salvage what's left of her reputation in NY by withdrawing and follow Gloria Steinem's advice to run for the seat vacated by Carolyn Maloney if Maloney is appointed. It is clear NYers think she is unprepared and ill-suited to the role. She is losing ground and the only positive argument for her is Obama likes her and we don't want Uncle Teddy to be vengeful against NYS legislation.
Enough is enough already. Someone needs to tell her to save her dignity and exit stage right.
January 6, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You, mademoiselle, are correct.
January 6, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without commenting on the merits of whether she should get the gig, I do have to note that a poll taken two years out is worth about as much as the lint in my right pants pocket.
In '06, the polls said Hillary was a shoe-in for the nomination but might lose to McCain, Libby Dole, and any number of other Republicans in Congress who are interviewing for jobs on K-Street today, were safe, and Obama's chances of either being the nominee or the president were a joke.
January 6, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And in May '08 a large number of Hillary supporters were polling that they would vote for McCain instead of Obama. Many of these are the same people now opposing Kennedy - coincidence?
January 6, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure - that explains why her approval ratings and support have fallen so significantly from when she announced she wanted to be considered. It's all Hillary supporters! (not) She's losing support not gaining it, and has no rational argument about why Caroline except nepotism.
NYers don't like to be bullied and she has been mismanaged this entire process. It's going to be embarrassing for her if she is passed over given the whole if Caroline wants it, it must be hers argument. She should do the right thing and withdraw. I honestly hope Paterson doesn't waste political capital within NYS appointing someone so unprepared for the role. Be a leader and make his own decision rather than giving in to out of state arm twisting.
January 6, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be clear, I don't have a dog in this fight and don't much care (though I will say I'd gladly give her Richard Burr's seat in a heartbeat if I could.) Just pointing out that whatever the arguments pro and con may be, this poll adds nothing to the discussion.
It does occur to me, however, that Patterson really isn't one who's likely to denigrate the value of family ties in politics.
January 6, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Paterson's a NY democrat. Andrew Cuomo has family connections too and much broader support within the state. I don't see the logic in picking Caroline who continues to build resentment with the inept managing of her non-campaign. She's been given a more than fair shot at it - more than anyone not named Kennedy with her background would ever get - and she's still losing support. That's not good news.
To be fair I don't want Cuomo either. I'd much prefer Weingarten or Maloney or Nadler etc. Caroline has very little going for her other than her name, and Paterson has more than enough justification to select someone else based on polls, based on her interviews, based on the entitled nature of those handling her. I don't see this ending well for her, but I've been wrong before :) We'll see.
January 6, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The poll is useless, and Eric should know better than to imply otherwise. It's just meaningless this far out, esp. given that whoever the appointee is will have an 20-month incumbency on which to run in 2010. I wonder (not sure if the #'s exist) how Hillary Clinton was polling in a prospective NY Senate race in January of '99? Against Rudy Giuliani, no less?
What evidence do you have that Paterson is "giving in to out of state arm twisting"? Remember, Paterson will be sharing the ballot in 2010 with whomever he appoints. Hence his rejection of a "caretaker" appointment. Certainly the Kennedy name and fundraising muscle appeal to his self-interest.
And I don't see exactly where she is "unprepared for the role." She's had a month of press coverage completely unrelated to her qualifications or lack of such (the Times has been worse than the tabloids in this regard) -- e.g. endless coverage of her use of "you know" as a verbal crutch and no coverage of the substance of the rest of her sentences. Personally, I'm not a huge fan or detractor, but her willingness to call out the Times interviewers' shallowness may have won me over in itself
The point is that these polls and day-to-day media narratives will have no meaning one way or the other next fall; and should have no bearing on Paterson's decision if he's as smart as I think he is.
January 6, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
My impression is that there hasn’t been much substance to what she’s said. To the best of my knowledge, she hasn’t revealed where she stands on a lot of the issues, and at times her staff has refused to let her speak when questioned about substantive issues.
As others have said, if her name was anything but Kennedy, the idea of appointing her a U.S. Senator would be a joke.
January 6, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You know" was the most substantive thing she said. That's the problem.
January 6, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good comment.
January 6, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like HRC supporters are still smarting from Caroline's endorsement of Obama.
January 6, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
@@
January 6, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a New Yorker, right now I default to Kennedy. All of the others have substantial experience in playing to the myriad micro-constituencies that dominate the New York political infrastructure: feminist groups, labor unions, Hispanics, African Americans, Catholics, upstaters, downstaters, urbanites, suburbanites, among a host of other distinct special interest "constituencies". The alternative to the laundry list of narrowcasting politics as usual in New York– would actually be Kennedy. She is not a slick, canned, career politician. And just after the country elected a president who disavowed compartmentalizing interests and ideologies, a Kennedy appointment would, ironically, signal a shift away from crass, purely political expediency which is embedded in New York politics and government. David Paterson succeeded to the governor slot by deign of scandal – and in short order has defied expectations and shown strong leadership in exigent times – leadership that might not have been readily apparent when he served as State Senator. Perhaps Kennedy, -- who at least seems to be a somewhat sober, serious, and learned individual who lacks overt charisma and slickness, is maybe just who we need to represent New York's interests in the US Senate in this time of crisis and challenge. She s certainly wired to Obama -- and that can't hurt New York.
January 6, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree with the people who say that that the Peter King poll is meaningless. I have nothing against Peter, but if she can't outpoll him easily in a Democratic state, she is in a deep hole. She has had plenty of opportunity to barnstorm the state and make her impressions -- where are the results of the opportunity that she has been given, in light of the resources her family has?
It's non-intellectual, but I am a sucker for Camelot. Still, President Kennedy's daughter has been given her every chance, along with access to the best in politics, limitless fundraising potential, and she's flubbed it. It's not reassuring.
January 6, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
No offense, but wtf are you talking about? Given her every chance? Plenty of opportunity to make her impressions? She's had her name kicked around in the papers for a few weeks during the holidays when nobody cares. She's given a couple of interviews, made a couple of appearances. Fundraising?! It's an appointment; AFAICT she hasn't spent any funds.
Whoever gets appointed will go into 2010 as an incumbent with, god willing, important votes to point to. Personally I'm a CK agnostic -- like 90% of New Yorkers I know as much about her as I do about Andy Cuomo: nothing but a name. From where I sit they're about equally qualified. From a purely political point of view on Paterson's part, CK's probably the way to go, because she can fundraise and will likely be a good candidate to run with in 2010. That's what matters, along with, you know, who'll be a decent Senator. What Pat Buchanan thinks now is not relevant.
January 7, 2009 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Plenty of opportunity to make her impressions? She's had her name kicked around in the papers for a few weeks during the holidays when nobody cares. She's given a couple of interviews, made a couple of appearances. Fundraising?!"
Day 1: You have an initial meeting with a top PR firm that knows New York about the likely assignment to tell her story all over the state.
Also day 1: You engage a law firm to make sure paying the PR firm to do this doesn't violate anything. And as part of that, you require them to advise on who can pay for PR firms fees and costs of low-key roll-out.
Day 3: You have at least oral reply from law firm and you begin. Roll-out involves presumably going yourself or having surrogates hit newspapers and TV stations all around the state, emphasizing that it's not an election, the great work you've done with your foundation, etc., endorsements, carefully calibrated appearances, statements, planted editorials.
Also Day 3: You coordinate/work with Obama people (who you lifted into the driver's seat not that many months ago), and you build bridges to governor's office assuring that you realize that the appointment is his alone and you are not trying to trump him in any way, only answer your critics.
Also Day 3: You seek best political advice you can get through Ted and his contacts, their friends in NY, and going forward you seek a dialogue between the promising contacts that come out of that and the PR firm.
Ongoing: Continue, make adjustments, until your critics are laregly neutralized, your rating is up, you are looking very respectful of governor's authority but also a very, very strong contender.
January 7, 2009 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter: Don't seat Kennedy for political reasons. Seat Cuomo for political reasons.
Whatever. I'd take Caroline head-to-head, no contest.
January 6, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her PR campaign has been incredibly inept. She is CLEARLY an intelligent and capable person but she allowed herself to be fucking Palanized. INCREDIBLE.
January 6, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe she can still turn this around. But she needs to do this in a professional way, beginning immediately now. Otherwise, it's like Hillary's campaign: if she can blow an advantage like this, what else is she going to screw up?
January 7, 2009 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
So where is the dude with the skelton avatar who thinks the NY Governor should not pay any attention to polls in making this appointment? I guess he is out electing one of his progressive Democratic clients in his real world job as a political consultant. Leaves me free to wank in my arm chair while polishing my four stars.
January 7, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink