January 14th, 2009
02:57 PM ET
14 years ago

Kennedy's support fading in New York

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/01/14/art.kennedy.gi.jpg caption="Kennedy's popularity is fading, according to a new poll."](CNN) - A majority of New Yorkers hope Gov. David Paterson nominates someone besides Caroline Kennedy to fill the Senate seat soon to be vacated by Hillary Clinton, a new poll suggests.

According to a new survey from Quinnipiac University, 31 percent of New York voters prefer State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo get the job while only 24 percent want Kennedy to get it.

In a poll conducted by Quinnipiac in late December, a third of voters favored Kennedy while 29 percent wanted Cuomo.

Meanwhile, Reps. Carolyn Maloney, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Steve Israel all draw single digit support.

Of course, just one man’s opinion matters in this race - and he's not talking.

Read the full poll results [PDF]

Filed under: Caroline Kennedy • Popular Posts
soundoff (137 Responses)
  1. obama-mama

    Mike, Syracuse NY January 14th, 2009 10:09 am ET

    Good. It's bad enough we have an unqualified celebrity President, we don't need an unqualified celebrity Senator too.

    I'm sure his more qualified than the moron that has been in office for the past 8 years. It's not his fault he is loved by celebrities. Your president all he can do is sit there with that stupid silly look on his face.

    January 14, 2009 11:10 am at 11:10 am |
  2. Pol watcher in SC

    Just having the Kennedy name is NOT enough! That's just "playing games" and filling a seat she hasn't earned.

    January 14, 2009 11:10 am at 11:10 am |
  3. Lost in Texas FOREVER

    from reading the posts here so far it seems like the far right has enough hate to go around...........keep it up guys it will get the GOP really far!

    January 14, 2009 11:11 am at 11:11 am |
  4. JJ

    Qualification–or lack of it–notwithstanding, as well as the verbal tic "ya know..." I am stumped about what the big deal is. The two biggest idiots in DC are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and Caroline is smarter than both of them. Maybe New Yorkers oughta just lighten up. 🙂

    January 14, 2009 11:11 am at 11:11 am |
  5. YardBoy

    We Don't Need Any More Blanket Statements in Public Life!

    Let the candidate stand on their individual merits, tho in this case, likely fall on their lack of experience.

    January 14, 2009 11:12 am at 11:12 am |
  6. Trevor in VA

    That's kind of odd... NY'ers usually go for the famous celebrity types to be their leaders.

    January 14, 2009 11:12 am at 11:12 am |
  7. Joy O

    Ironic, isn't it? Kennedy ditches Clinton to back Obama, Obama wins and appoints Clinton to Secretary of State, and now Kennedy may get shut out for Hillary's Senate seat. Sounds like not-so-sweet Caroline is reaping what she's sown.

    For all the people who thought Sarah Palin wasn't qualified, face it: she's exceptional when compared to Ms. Kennedy, who has never practiced law a day in her life.

    January 14, 2009 11:13 am at 11:13 am |
  8. shootingmans

    Good. If she thinks she's so qualified to be Senator, she can run for it in '10.

    January 14, 2009 11:13 am at 11:13 am |
  9. danny

    Like the last line states, 'Just one man's opinion matters in this race.' Who cares about some opinion poll from some 4th tier university?

    January 14, 2009 11:14 am at 11:14 am |
  10. CCT

    Dear Missy Caroline
    Try coming down from your ivory tower and running for the position in 2 yrs. You wanted your privacy, you pretty much got it. You can't have it both ways.

    January 14, 2009 11:14 am at 11:14 am |
  11. Steve Goss

    Nice to see the conservatives still can find time to bash the Kennedy's. If for no other reason than their hatred for this family which has served our nation admirably, I hope she rebounds and gets another look. She could/would probably do much better than half the deadbeats that trolled the Senate floor during our last 8 years of decline.

    January 14, 2009 11:14 am at 11:14 am |
  12. Rose

    Mike in Syracuse
    I totally second your opinion. I am sick of the blind adoration for an unproven, unqualified, and inexperienced man and, in the case of Caroline, a last name.

    January 14, 2009 11:15 am at 11:15 am |
  13. james

    Dina-Bronx and Mike-Syracuse:

    I guess you had no issue a few years ago with an inexperienced candidate with a privileged life who didn't even live in NY.

    January 14, 2009 11:15 am at 11:15 am |
  14. Giovanni


    I hope she gets it, she's a down to earth public servant that's a woman.

    Follow in the footsteps of Hillary Clinton...

    January 14, 2009 11:15 am at 11:15 am |
  15. Maggie SC

    no more kennedys in politics anywhere. vote no to this kennedy.

    January 14, 2009 11:15 am at 11:15 am |
  16. Sue in CT via Brooklyn NY

    It's no surprise that the honeymoon over Kennedy would fade fast, given that Cuomo – and the family in general- is a formidable opponent. He's had his hands full with corruption in all tiers of NY financial, municipal and political cases.

    However, it is THAT strength he has, as a bulldog, troubleshooting corruption buster that I believe should keep him where he is. Like it or not, he hasn't made policy. He's unfortunately an "after the fact" politician. Kennedy may not have officially made policy, but all the endeavours she's taken on in the past 10-15 years were what we look for in Senate leadership. Her position(s) have been in a "take preventative action" mode (education, architecture, the arts, health care- take your pick), which is what the Senate does, despite the past 6 months in particular which look as though the Senate's only true function is to clean up messes. The Senate is supposed to PREVENT messes. Her influences on these issues have already helped make policy. The last name helped, but it didn't preempt the fact that the Kennedy name has the connotation of public service.

    How short are NY'ers memories in that Hilary had been accused of being a carpetbagger in her bid initially, yet the last name carried over to victory? And that's someone who DIDN'T make policy either. In fact, remember the uproar when America rejected her well-meaning health care plans?

    Let Kennedy have the post. If NY'ers don't like it in two years they can vote her out. Certainly if Burris can take a tainted appointment AFTER he ran for similar offices SEVERAL times AND LOST, surely this comes out as a clean by comparison.

    January 14, 2009 11:16 am at 11:16 am |
  17. Don, Florida

    Well, uh, you know, like, wow, I can't beleive the new poll, you know.

    January 14, 2009 11:16 am at 11:16 am |
  18. Earl

    More white people being white.

    January 14, 2009 11:17 am at 11:17 am |
  19. MrHapiGuy

    After seeing her on TV, I have to agree. She doesn't have the right stuff.

    January 14, 2009 11:17 am at 11:17 am |
  20. Florida John

    Caroline is finding out that it takes more than a name to get a job. She did not support her party in any other way except by her Voter Registration. The Demons (Democrats) realized they could not pull this one over on the NYers – Good for you! She needs to do the honorable thing (which is tough for a Kennedy) and take her name out of contention. She will get alot of mileage out of that..................

    January 14, 2009 11:18 am at 11:18 am |
  21. Jim

    @ mike, Syracuse NY

    The US constitution clearly states the qualifications for President and Senator:

    Article II, Section 1

    No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

    Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for senators: 1) each senator must be at least 30 years old, 2) must have been a citizen of the United States for at least the past nine years, and 3) must be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they seek to represent. The age and citizenship qualifications for senators are more stringent than those for representatives.

    So Obama and Kennedy are both qualified. You may think they would not do good jobs, but that doesn't mean they are not qualified. If they were not qualified they could not run for the office.

    January 14, 2009 11:25 am at 11:25 am |
  22. Eloise Campfield

    Hey... we already have a celebrity senator in Clinton... why not continue the tradition with Kennedy! *NOTE THE SARCASM*

    January 14, 2009 11:25 am at 11:25 am |
  23. Charlene, Republican for Obama

    No experience... move on to someone else.

    In addition, I do not think Clinton can do the job as Sec of State, but Obama can release her when (not if) she screws up under heavy fire in the Gaza Strip!! It is good that she has to report to Obama..I feel safer than if she has won the presidency. I see that she can't do anything without Chelsea at her side...maybe Chelsea should take her senate seat (tee hee).

    January 14, 2009 11:26 am at 11:26 am |
  24. David

    It is amazing to see the coverage of Kennedy compared with the all out investigation and interigation Palin received. Why isn't the press jumping all over her and sending teams to investigate her???? Listen, I can hear crickets....

    January 14, 2009 11:26 am at 11:26 am |
  25. shane

    Please don't go by BRAND NAME...

    January 14, 2009 11:26 am at 11:26 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6