New York favorable/unfavorable polling: Obama 55(f)-23(u); Edwards 52(f)-29(u); HRC 50(f)-42(u)

Why would both Obama and Edwards have higher favorable ratings and dramatically lower unfavorable ratings than HRC in her home state?

Link to the poll: http://www.siena.edu/SRI/results/2007/07_Apr_NYPoll.htm

Obama didn't vote at all. Edwards said he made a mistake. Hillary has beat around the "bush", so to speak.

yet our strongest primary candidate. Kinda scary.

What would be the difference? The first debate? Iraq War?
What did Hillary do that got negative press in April?

And is now two weeks old...and is clearly out of line with previous polling...

I'd wait for the next one to see if this is confirmed, or what I suspect is a large blip...

NY is basically the only state where HRC consistently outpaces Edwards and Obama against Republicans. Even in NJ, a state which is mostly in the NY media market, she is only on par with Edwards and Obama against Republicans. If she had any general election strength she would be doing much better than Edwards and Obama against Republicans in a state where she has for six years gotten more press coverage than even NJ's own senators.

in the last few days shows Hillary Clinton with 15 - 20 points over the Obama and that much over Edwards...where did this poll come from the republican national committee.

:shrug:

If the Democratic Primary were held today and the candidates
for the presidential nomination were (rotate choices) Barack
Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Chris
Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, or Al Gore who would you
vote for? (Note: Democrats only; choices rotated. Not all
candidates were included in each poll; NA indicates where a
candidate was not included.)

Clinton
39%
Obama
17%
Edwards
11%

the rest (generally).

In the head-to-head polls Edwards usually leads with Obama in second and HRC in third among the top tier candidates.

In the favorable/unfavorable polls Obama usually leads with Edwards in second and HRC in third among the top tire candidates (although I would have expected HRC to do better in NY, but this poll says otherwise).

The poll which is the subject of this thread is noteworthy -- to me at least -- in that HRC's third place finish in the favorable/unfavorable poll among her constituents in New York is not a better placing among the top three than her placing nationally.

This does not "conflict" with other polls. It is consistent with other favorable/unfavorable polls and it is measuring something different than the election polls.

We have two years. The election is not today. The leader today may not be the leader in 1.5 years from now.

Hillary's up by a billion points in the polls!

:sarcasm:

The more people see of her, the more they dislike her. This is why her unfavorables shot up when she ran for the Senate and got increased media coverage and this is why they have risen even more as the coverage has increased due to her presidential campaign. I shudder to think how low her favorability rating would be after she faced the intense scrutiny a presidential nominee does. She is already at 45% nationally. How dumb are we if we nominate a candidate whose favorables would be in the 30's while facing Giuliani, McCain, or another right-wing actor?

its irrelevant.