HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Q-Poll: Cuomo gets an 71...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed May 30, 2012, 09:19 AM

Q-Poll: Cuomo gets an 71-16 approval rating from New Yorkers

New York State Gov. Andrew Cuomo gets a 71 - 16 percent approval rating today, the highest score for an Empire State governor since Gov. George Pataki hit 81 - 12 percent in the wake of 9/11, and continuing Gov. Cuomo's year-long trend with the highest approval rating of any governor in the seven states surveyed by the Quinnipiac University poll.


Voters support 79 - 18 percent, including 61 - 34 percent among Republicans, raising the minimum wage, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.


Cuomo's job approval is 68 - 20 percent among Republicans, 76 - 11 percent among Democrats and 69 - 19 percent among independent voters, 71 - 15 percent among Protestants, 71 - 18 percent among Catholics and 83 - 9 percent among Jews. There is no gender or racial gap. Approval is 68 - 19 percent upstate, 72 - 15 percent in New York City and 76 - 12 percent in the suburbs.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/new-york-state/release-detail?ReleaseID=1755

21 replies, 2123 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Q-Poll: Cuomo gets an 71-16 approval rating from New Yorkers (Original post)
WI_DEM May 2012 OP
Walk away May 2012 #1
One of the 99 May 2012 #7
Godhumor May 2012 #2
One of the 99 May 2012 #6
Godhumor May 2012 #8
One of the 99 Jun 2012 #11
Walk away May 2012 #9
One of the 99 Jun 2012 #12
Walk away Jun 2012 #14
One of the 99 Jun 2012 #15
Walk away Jun 2012 #18
One of the 99 Jun 2012 #19
Hippo_Tron Jun 2012 #13
graham4anything May 2012 #3
Drunken Irishman May 2012 #4
graham4anything May 2012 #10
One of the 99 May 2012 #5
hrmjustin Jun 2012 #16
Godhumor Jun 2012 #17
Robbins Jun 2012 #20
Godhumor Jun 2012 #21

Response to WI_DEM (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 09:31 AM

1. And five minutes away Christie is stealing from the Middle Class...

and giving it to The Richest 1%. It's so embarrassing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #1)

Wed May 30, 2012, 11:00 PM

7. Cuomo is pursuing the same policies as Christie nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 10:51 AM

2. He has to be considered the early favorite for the 2016 nomination

Massively popular, able to court big money and a favorite of the influential in the party. Like him or not, if he wants it he will be the forerunner. And, honestly, I don't know a republican that could beat him.

Upstate New Yorker here and proud supporter of Cuomo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Godhumor (Reply #2)

Wed May 30, 2012, 10:59 PM

6. You support his attacks on labor unions?

You support his effort to cut taxes for millionaires?
You support refusal to launch a single investigation or prosecution of Wall Street during and after the financial crisis when he was the AG of New York?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #6)

Wed May 30, 2012, 11:42 PM

8. I support New York becoming a marriage equality state under his leadership

I support his capping of property taxes.

I support his tax plan, which passed unanimously, that gives cuts to middle class tax payers and is partially funded by increasing taxes on millionaires.

I support the fact that education is getting a substantial increase in funding this next year.

I support his proposed center to protect the interest of special needs individuals.


I don't like the new teacher evaluation process. Especially here in Buffalo, where the teachers are refusing to comply with it due to attendance fators (Essentially, Albany wants all students to count towards a teacher's evaluation while Buffalo educators are asking for chronically absent students to not be included.).

I don't like some of his sharp commentary about unions being special interest groups.


But, overall, he has done a hell of a job, and he will be very, very hard to beat when/if he decides to run for POTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Godhumor (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 10:29 PM

11. And most of what you pointed out was forced on him

by Democrats in the legislature. Especially the tax plan. Cuomo wanted to cut taxed for millionaires but the Dems in the state legislature openly revolted and he was forced to compromise. The same thing is true of the increase in education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #6)

Thu May 31, 2012, 10:04 AM

9. I support his policy on making Heath Care available to everyone in NY....

by implementing the provisions of the Health Care Act that Christie just vetoed in New Jersey!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #9)

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 10:31 PM

12. That's one issue

If you look at his overall record and the positions that he has taken, Cuomo is much more in line with Christie's policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 05:22 PM

14. I live in NJ and live right outside of NY....

and comparing Cuomo to Christie is absurd. Christie is a radical right wing monster. His goal here in NJ is to destroy the public school system and to eliminate public and private unions. He is actively doing it daily. He has taken billions of dollars out of our schools and given it directly to his wealthy supporters. He has vowed to defund Planned Parenthood and he has demonized our teachers. The man is a personal bully and the worst thing to happen to this state since Christie Whitman sold our natural resources and clean water to the biggest polluters she could get campaign donations from.

Coumo is a centrist like the President. They are the Democrats that actually get elected. He has to be able to work with a republican majority in the State Legislature.

And it was Cuomo who force the enactment of health care provisions on the republican legislature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to One of the 99 (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 08:34 AM

18. The first article from the Daily News means nothing.

Cuomo doesn't trash talk Christie in the press. What a shock.

Their difference regarding the millionaire's tax? Cuomo didn't back it at first/ Christie forced it down our throats.

You have a conservative Democrat as Governor. I have a raging Christo fascist. I will be very happy to trade you and then see how you like it. If this asshole stays in office we will not have a public school system and people will be dying in their homes for lack of health care.

Do you have any idea how different the health care laws are in NJ and NY? If I lived 5 minutes from my home I would have acceptable coverage as opposed to the non-care I get despite the $1000 a month I pay. Here in NJ I cannot even join a freelancers union for coverage. I am out on my own and so are hundreds of thousands of New Jersey residents. And your governor forced health care reform through while mine fought against the legislature to kill it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 06:11 PM

19. OK 1 out of 4 means nothing.

But the other 3 mean something. And I would rather have a real republican rather than a DINO like Cuomo. Then Democrats could unite to get him out of office for a real Democrat rather than being stuck with someone like Cuomo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Godhumor (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 11:13 PM

13. I suspect that Martin O'Malley will give him a run for his money

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 04:30 PM

3. Questions for Andrew

 

Maybe he can tell us why his father never got on that airplane that was idling back in the day
to take him to New Hampshire.

Or why his father refused the nomination to Scotus that was offered him by Bill Clinton(who they say was very big on Andrew but how will Bill feel when its Hillary vs. Andrew?

There are still people who want to know those answers and who remember past races where Andrew was Mario's go through person. (like the nasty whisper rumor campaign in NY when Koch ran against him that has also never been explained.)

(and then there is that divorce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #3)

Wed May 30, 2012, 04:39 PM

4. I don't think Mario's heart was in it in '92...

I was way too young to even remember the '92 primary, but I've read up on it extensively the last few years and I've come to the conclusion that, at the end of the day, he just didn't have it in him to run. Maybe he still didn't think Bush was beatable, maybe he realized Bush was beatable and didn't want to be President. Whatever the reason, I think it's pretty clear he made it, even though it was played up as him staying in New York to finish the budget battle with the Republicans. Any candidate with true ambitions would have hopped on that plane. Since he never did, you've got to assume, deep down, he just didn't want it.

Makes you wonder what would have happened had he gotten on that plane. He probably does beat Clinton, but most likely does far worse in the South than Clinton did, which means a far more narrow path to victory for the Democrats in '92.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #4)

Thu May 31, 2012, 11:56 AM

10. Bill Clinton's two SCOTUS nominees

 

But why didn't he take the Scotus that was offered to him by Bill Clinton (assuming it wasn't known to Bill that Mario would refuse it
from the start and was a legitmate offer?
His excuse that he didn't want to leave NY doesn't really hold.

I would vote for Andrew if he becomes the candidate in 2016, and support him fully. Just would like everything out there on the table so there are no surprises.


from wiki-Cuomo both times declined (even after seeming to ok it for the second.)
Now both Clinton appointees were great, but I always wondered about it.
(and note how Ginsburg and Breyer both ended up unanimous choices back then.)It would most likely be unheard of today.

from wiki-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_Supreme_Court_candidates

Ruth Bader Ginsburg nomination


Ginsburg accepts her nomination from Bill Clinton.
After Byron White announced his retirement on March 19, 1993, Clinton began a weeks-long journey through consideration of an unusually large number of candidates. The name that came up that interested Clinton the most was that of New York Gov. Mario Cuomo. Clinton offered White's seat first to Cuomo, who initially had told confidants that he was willing to take the seat, but then changed his mind and faxed Clinton a letter telling him that his duty to residents of his state was more important than his desire to serve on the court.

Liberal lawyers wanted Harvard Law professor and constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, but Clinton and his aides next considered several candidates as "outside-the-box" choices. Clinton played with the idea of nominating a brilliant political philosopher instead of a practicing attorney. Professors Stephen L. Carter of Yale and Michael Sandel of Harvard would have fit the bill, but Clinton then hit upon what he considered to be a "sexy" idea: the nomination of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. However, there was a huge problem associated with such a selection. George Stephanopoulos, a Clinton aide at the time, has written that the idea was dropped because the president's, "choice had to be ratified by the Senate, where Republicans hadn't forgotten the rejection of Robert Bork, and Democrats were reeling from their recent encounters with Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood, and Lani Guinier. Sexy was good, but safe was better. We simply couldn't afford another failed nomination." Stephanopoulos quotes Clinton himself saying, "We don't need another gang-that-couldn't-shoot-straight story."

Clinton then turned to other politicians—first, U.S. Sen. George J. Mitchell of Maine, who declined on the spot, desiring to stay in the Senate and help to pass Clinton's legislation. After Mitchell, Clinton approached his Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, a former South Carolina governor who also said no. "I was a mediocre country lawyer", Riley told Clinton. "This isn't my thing." Clinton next considered his Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, a former Arizona governor. Clinton prepared to nominate Babbitt when two problems surfaced—a false published report about gambling debts in Las Vegas and opposition to Babbitt's nomination voiced by Sen. Orrin Hatch, who was the ranking Republican on the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. Hatch had told Clinton that Babbitt's strong pro-environmental views had enraged a group of Republican senators in the western United States who might take revenge either on Babbitt's nomination or on the candidate Clinton nominated to replace him in the Department of the Interior. Clinton chose not to proceed with Babbitt's nomination.

Clinton then turned to existing judges. He considered Eighth Circuit judge Richard S. Arnold, who was not a close friend of Clinton's but who was from Clinton's home state of Arkansas. The president very much wanted to nominate Arnold but feared the nomination might be viewed as cronyism. He then weighed Sixth Circuit judge Gilbert S. Merritt, who was a family friend of Vice President Al Gore. However, a problem surfaced relating to Merritt's tenure as a U.S. attorney in the 1960s, and Clinton decided not to proceed with Merritt. Clinton then asked his staff about Janie Shores, who had been the first woman to serve on the Alabama Supreme Court but who was not well known in Washington, D.C. legal circles. In addition, Shores' constitutional views were completely unknown to Clinton or anyone else on his team. "You are not nominating Janie Shores to the Supreme Court", White House counsel Bernard W. Nussbaum told Clinton. "No one knows who she is. This is insane."

The next name Clinton considered was that of First Circuit judge Stephen Breyer. Clinton's staff had liked Breyer, but given an injury that he had sustained just a few days earlier, Breyer was in a significant amount of pain. During his interview with Clinton, Breyer was short of breath and in pain. Clinton ultimately decided that Breyer seemed "heartless." "I don't see enough humanity", Clinton told his staff. "I want a judge with soul."

Clinton then considered a list of "firsts" for diversity purposes: David Tatel, a Washington lawyer who had served in the Carter Administration who would be the first blind justice; Jose Cabranes, a district court judge who would be the first Hispanic justice, and D.C. Circuit judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who, Stephanopoulos writes, "would be the first Jewish justice since Abe Fortas, and the first woman to be appointed by a Democrat. More important, she was a pioneer in the legal fight for women's rights—a female Thurgood Marshall." In addition, Ginsburg was noted as moderate-to-conservative on criminal matters and had a different rationale for supporting Roe v. Wade than most liberals: she considered laws banning abortion a form of sex discrimination rather than a violation of privacy. Hatch told Clinton that he would support Ginsburg as well.

At that point, however, Cuomo's son, Andrew Cuomo, contacted Clinton's staff to inquire if the president had made a final decision yet. Mario Cuomo, his son said, believed that Clinton was about to name Breyer to the court and as a result thought that Clinton would not name two white males in a row. As such, the governor believed that his own chances were now or never. Clinton still was interested in nominating Cuomo, telling his staff that the governor "will sing the song of America. It'll be like watching Pavarotti at Christmastime." Clinton then interviewed Ginsburg, and then took a phone call from Cuomo, who backed out of consideration for a second time. The next day, on June 15, 1993, Clinton announced that he had chosen Ginsburg. The Senate confirmed Ginsburg in a 96-3 vote on August 3, 1993. Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC), Don Nickles (R-OK) and Bob Smith (R-NH) voted against the nomination. Donald Riegle (D-MI) did not vote.

Stephen Breyer nomination

After Harry Blackmun announced his retirement on April 6, 1994, Clinton again asked Mitchell, who had announced that he would not stand for reelection in November 1994, to be his nominee. Mitchell told Clinton that he did not want to be a Supreme Court justice. Clinton also asked Babbitt, who asked not to be considered.

At that point, Clinton again considered Arnold, who had been recommended by over 100 federal judges in a joint letter written after Blackmun had retired. Clinton's willingness to proceed with Arnold, however, was complicated by the fact that Arnold had been diagnosed with low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 1976 and who since had suffered from tumors that had spread to other parts of his body. Although Arnold was functioning normally, his doctor told the president that Arnold had cancer all through his body and that there was no way he could say that Arnold's disease "would not interfere" with Supreme Court duties.

Finally, Clinton announced on May 13, 1994 that he would nominate Breyer to the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed Breyer in an 87-9 vote on July 29, 1994. Senators Conrad Burns (R-MT), Dan Coats (R-IN), Paul Coverdell (R-GA), Jesse Helms (R-NC), Trent Lott (R-MS), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Frank Murkowski (R-AK), Don Nickles (R-OK), and Bob Smith (R-NH) voted against the nomination. Senators David Durenberger (R-MN), Bob Graham (D-FL), Claiborne Pell (D-RI) and Malcolm Wallop (R-WY) did not vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 10:56 PM

5. That's because the New York media is not reporting on what Cuomo is really doing

They've turned a blind eye to is Chris Christie like policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Original post)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 11:00 PM

16. Because of Cuomo I can get married now.

He will get my vote next time. If he runs against my girl Hillary in 2016 than I can not vote for him that year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 12:04 AM

17. I don't think we will see both run, it will be one or another. I will support either

I just don't see two Dems of NY tearing each other apart in the primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Original post)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 06:35 PM

20. New York

Hasn't he governed as a very centist Democrat apart from Gay Marrage?

for 2016 Inless Joe Biden runs I don't have a favorate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robbins (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 07:02 PM

21. Well, gay marriage is a pretty big thing. Today he advocated legalizing some pot

Not nearly as anti-progressive as some would label him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread