New NYT/CBS NEWS Poll: Gore rising (w/ POLL)

I can’t believe I’m posting a frikking horse race diary! What is the world coming to? Anyway, so the NYT and CBS NEWS have a massive (pdf!!!) new poll out. There’s all sorts of stuff; some good (Dems liked lots better than Repubs), some not so hot (Bush’s approval numbers ticking up 5 points in the last two weeks, WTF?). What I thought interesting: favorability ratings for some of the declared and undeclared presidential contenders of both parties. Pretty good news for us Gore supporters: Al now has the second-highest favs among the Dems, losing only narrowly to Obama, and the latter of course has many more DK responses. He’s also beating the ‘pubs except for Giuliani who has higher net-favs.

Without further ado, I give you the numbers:

The poll was conducted March 7-11, 2007. 1,362 respondends, 698 of those rethugs.

24. Is your opinion of Al Gore favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Al Gore yet to have an opinion?

                Not     Haven't
            Fav Fav Und hrd     Ref
1/1-3/07 CBS 32  46  19  2       1
3/7-11/07      37  32  23  8       1

That's a Fav-Unfav swing from - 14 to +5 since January and the best Gore has had since March of 2001 in this poll. The Oscar effect? Who knows. Odd though that "haven't heard" is up by six ;-)

Okay, here's Hillary:

39. Is your opinion of Hillary Rodham Clinton favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Hillary Rodham Clinton yet to have an opinion?

                   Not     DK
               Fav Fav Und engh. Ref
1/18-21/07* CBS 36  36  25  4      
3/7-11/07            35  43  19  3      -

This poll has Hillary swinging from even to a net negative since January.

Edwards:

40. Is your opinion of John Edwards favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven’t you heard enough about John Edwards yet to have an opinion?

                Not     Haven't
            Fav Fav Und hrd     Ref
1/1-3/07 CBS 34  21  26  18
3/7-11/07      28  24  30  18      -

The trend here hasn't been kind to Edwards either. He's still got almost the same net positive favs as Gore, but higher undecideds and DK (of course, higher undecideds could be an advantage for Edwards).

Obama:

41. Is your opinion of Barack Obama favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Barack Obama yet to have an opinion?

                   Not     DK
               Fav Fav Und engh. Ref
1/18-21/07* CBS 29  9   20  41      
3/7-11/07            39  18  20  23     -

Barack Obama is winning the day in net favs, although his absolutes are a mere two points above Gore's. OTOH he's an unknown quantity to a quarter of the respondents. If most of those wind up liking what they get to see once they (bother to) see it, Sen. Obama has a pretty good thing going for himself (and, hopefully, for us).

Now what about the other side? Giuliani's net favs are like Obama's, but in absolutes he has his ass kicked by Al Gore, Barack Obama, and even HRC:

36. Is your opinion of Rudolph Giuliani favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Rudolph Giuliani yet to have an opinion?

                   Not     DK
               Fav Fav Und engh. Ref
2/8-11/07* CBS  41  18  25  16    -    
3/7-11/07            33  18  26  23    -

Rudy's star has been sinking, just as he's emerged as the front runner. McCain, of course, isn't doing any better:

37. Is your opinion of John McCain favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven’t you heard enough about John McCain yet to have an opinion?

                   Not     DK
               Fav Fav Und engh. Ref
2/8-11/07* CBS  31  20  28  21    
3/7-11/07           24  21  26  29    -

McCain has about the net favs of Edwards and Gore, but at a far lower absolute level.

Bottom line? Oh well. Who knows how much information you can really get out of these numbers. But it's interesting to notice that Gore's numbers are on the way up, and aside from Barack Obama he's the only one who has this thing going for him at the moment. And that, of course, at damn near 100% name recognition.

•  I'd look out my window...

  ...to see if pigs were flying or whether there was signs of ice crystals forming in Hell.

  by maxomai on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:29:55 PM PDT

•  Tip jar

  Why the heck did I write this diary? Well, it's Spring break, I've got a little time on my hands (no, not really - but let's say procrastinating feels a little more doable :-)). And, I did per chance run into the January numbers for Gore in the CBS poll and had been morose about them, so seeing this made things look a little more friendly.

  by brainwave on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:31:28 PM PDT

  •  Well, honey....

    ...spend your Spring Break learning to make tables.

    by Bensdad on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:18:08 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, well,

      so how do you do it, for the HTM-challenged among us ;-)

      by brainwave on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:21:31 PM PDT

      •  Uh, I don't know......

        ....CANNONBALL!!!!!! Everyone in the pool!

        by Bensdad on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:26:39 PM PDT

  •  donate, volunteer, and...

    ...bug all my friends to donate.  Relentlessly.  

    by G2geek on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:21:13 PM PDT

•  Well then, gird yourself for flying pigs

  because he IS going to run...and he IS going to win.
  Waiting for Al.....

  by la urracca on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:32:43 PM PDT

  •  He might

    He has a heck of a summer ahead of him. And maybe we all do.

    by brainwave on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:35:33 PM PDT

•  Just Run Baby!

  The most electable candidate.

  The best on most issues.

  I would do almost anything ethical, legal and moral to help him win.

  Please run Al, please.

  by 7November on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:36:43 PM PDT

•  Gore will look even better by this summer.

  Run, Al, run!  We'll be there.

  by CAL11 voter on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:41:50 PM PDT

•  GORE IS NOT RUNNING!

  Get over yourselves.

  by jgkojak on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:45:47 PM PDT

  •  Probably not

    But who knows? Meanwhile, what exactly is wrong with pursuing your dream candidacy until this fall when the window closes for good? What's the harm?

    by brainwave on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:49:59 PM PDT

    •  who's to say ...

      ... that the improvement in Gore's favorables might have something to do with a wider belief that he's not running?

      such a silly diary

      by wystler on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:30:45 PM PDT

      •  Not a silly diary. Gore did not rule out running.

        So long as he allows his supporters to continue their efforts to organize and talk up a potential Gore candidacy, there is decent reason to think that he is thinking about the possibility. So, his numbers are extremely significant. They may even help determine his decision.

        by FischFry on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:54:02 PM PDT

  •  Can you please provide a quote

    that explicitly says he's not running in 2008?  Otherwise, I suggest you stop making up things.

    by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:56:17 PM PDT

    •  Leave the poor slub alone

      Its clear Gore has been running for something for the last year. The real Kojack would have figured that out, ... GORE is running for something.

      Which leaves the  question, "Whats he running for?"

      Hes been on Oprah.
      Hes been a senator & VP.

      Oh..... I get it ... GORE is running for dog catcher.....

      yup...

      Thats it.

      NJ DRAFT GORE
      http://www.dfalink.com/...

      by Roger Fox on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:20:16 PM PDT

  •  He'll be drafted if he doesn't run

    get him on the ballot in all 50 states (well, in those states that permit putting people on the ballot without his/her signature) and get the show going.

    So, basically, Al Gore has no choice in the matter :) Unless he issues a Shermanesque statement, that is: "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve." which he hasn't and I am quite sure he won't.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:06:42 PM PDT

  •  Thats the beauty of it.....

    by Roger Fox on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:09:26 PM PDT

  •  If You Are Right

    I still have plenty of time to support another candidate. If you are wrong, why would I support anyone besides Gore?

    I can afford to wait, and hope my ship will come in. Frankly, I think he is running, else why is he doing so many BIG public events?

    by Tuba Les on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:43:38 PM PDT

•  how about a poll that

  asks what you guys will do in the 99% likelyhood that Gore does not run. We have alot of great people running on our side,  Obama's my choice how about letting the GOP whine about the quality of thier field?

  by nevadadem on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:50:54 PM PDT

  •  Obama here too

    I think it's a great field and we are very fortunate. So, I'm not to worried about 2008. I am worried about global warming, though. That's why I'll be holding out for Al just a little longer. After that, it's going to be Obama, Richardson, or Clark for me. As for Obama, he has a great thing going for him, no two ways about it. He's a candidate in the mold of JFK and Bill Clinton - extremely bright, charisma out the wazoo, and trusting his instincts more than any ideology. Obviously that's the kind of candidate that has pulled through for the Dems in the past. But I'm glad I get to watch him a little longer before I have to make up my mind - I'm not yet 100% on board policy-wise.

    by brainwave on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:57:14 PM PDT

    •  He however seemed to have lost some of his

      Political instincts over the Nevada debate thing and just how stuttering his response on TV was to the "stock scandal"

      by wuod kwatch on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:15:01 PM PDT

      •  Huh?

        I missed that. I thought he neither confirmed nor declined, like everybody else except for Edwards (who declined, big props!) and Richardson (who first confirmed and then retracted)?

        by brainwave on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:19:38 PM PDT

        •  Thats just the point

          I thought he neither confirmed nor declined

          Exactly
          Why dilly dally?
          faux news is an abomination

          by wuod kwatch on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:34:59 PM PDT

  •  I'll work my ass off for our nominee!

    nm

    by engine17 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:09:29 PM PDT

  •  i'm undecided

    and would pay attention to how the various candidates ran, and would likely vote for the one who struck the hardest at the entire rotten status quo. i have until feb 5, at any rate.

    by wu ming on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:34:47 PM PDT

    •  That's kinda the way I feel

      Why should the netroots support, at this stage of the game, any establishment candidate, who neither shares their goals and vision nor needs their support? It doesn't seem to make all that much sense.

      (It's true that Dean got a lot of early publicity  because of his netroots support - but I think that phenomenon has moved on to the teenage sphere this cycle - I suspect the huge crowds Obama's been attracting are generate more via Myspace and stuff than via blogs and meetups. )

      by brainwave on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:39:56 PM PDT

      •  it's kind of how i felt in early 2002

        before dean found religion on opposing the war. ah well, let them woo me as a swing voter for a change.

        my college undergrad sister was excited about obama, though. i was back in 2003-4, after his chicago antiwar speech, much less so now.

        by wu ming on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:52:36 PM PDT

        •  The low point was

          the diary Obama posted here on dKos in what must've been late 2005 or early 2006. Pure DLC crap, really. But I can see that he's a very talented candidate even if I don't trust his policies. And meanwhile it's the fact that he opposed the war that makes it easy for me to keep him a notch above HRC and Edwards in my interest level.

          by brainwave on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:09:46 PM PDT

          •  ah yes

            here was my response: Obama's Scold Is A Good Sign.

            with the right congress, he might be of use.

            by wu ming on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:18:52 PM PDT

            •  Not a bad diary

              I like the point about not expecting politicians to lead. A healthy reminder.

              by brainwave on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:24:41 PM PDT

•  This poll looks like an outlier

  some, if not all, of the results are just mystifying to me.  Edwards at +4!?  Nearly every other poll I've seen has it in the +15-20 range.  In fact, every single candidate, from Rudy to McCain to Obama to even Hillary has much more favorable ratings in nearly every other recent poll.  Gore has only recently been experiencing a surge, so there isn't enough out there to say this poll has deflated favorabilities.  Nonetheless, I'm pretty confident that the poll is dead wrong when it says nearly 1 out of 10 people have never heard of Al Gore.

  Here's an example of what I think is a much better poll.

  by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:01:24 PM PDT

  •  Well, probably not an outlier

    If you compare the two polls over the years, they seem to tend to diverge from one another in pretty much the same range. Probably a methodology issue. Obviously I don't have a clue which one is better - how would you even tell when it comes to favorability data?

    by brainwave on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:08:55 PM PDT

    •  I'm no pollster, so I don't know

      ...I was just going based on what I've seen in other recent polls.  For all I know, those other polls could be wrong and this one right...I just find some of the favorabilities, especially Edwards', hard to believe.  

      by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:02:44 PM PDT

•  Several of the above...

  Donate more than... Pledge to volunteer... Stiff drink!

  by engine17 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:07:36 PM PDT

  •  Ah, well, actually, I added that option

    more mindful of those who don't want to see Al running and feel the need to be sedated in case he does. It works both ways just fine though :-)

    by brainwave on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:11:01 PM PDT

    •  Uhm, the stiff drink option

      But you knew that

      by brainwave on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:14:13 PM PDT

    •  i opted for STIFF DRINK

      that often is a perfect selection for many different circumstances ...

      by wystler on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:32:56 PM PDT

•  good post. Gore polls quite well vs Giuliani

  despite the strong advantage the latter has in favorables. This is a good ign because people seem to be factoring in things beyond beer-companionship in choosing whom to elect:

  The following are from Rasmussen, and I think they're pre-Oscar numbers:

  Al Gore (D)   51% (see crosstabs)
  Newt Gingrich (R) 40% (see crosstabs)

  Al Gore (D)   44% (see crosstabs)
  John McCain (R) 49% (see crosstabs)

  Al Gore (D) 43% (see crosstabs)
  Rudy Giuliani (R) 46% (see crosstabs)

  Al Gore (D) 52% (see crosstabs)
  Mitt Romney (R) 38% (see crosstabs)

  by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:15:30 PM PDT

•  8 %?

  don't know enough about Al Gore to form an opinion?

  Where did they find these people?

  by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:20:06 PM PDT

  •  They Found These People at Wal-Mart

    by Ranting Roland on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:04:09 PM PDT

  •  I think they polled a few newborns n/t

    by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:04:44 PM PDT

•  He should run.....

  ...but not very hard. He was right about everything. As Rachel Maddow pointed out on her show (yes, Rachel, people are listening to you), he predicted that the fall of Baghdad might be swift, but the aftermath would be disasterous and would endanger us while allowing Al Qaeda to get away with murder.

  Al Gore needs to get in the race for one reason: to show Americans the range of talent we have on this side. I like Senator Clinton --no, I really do-- but he would humble her pretty quick, and could go toe to toe with Obama as well.

  The only personal reason he should hold back is this: right now history says he won the popular vote and may have won the electoral college, but we will never know becaues the Supreme Court intervened. If he tries, and fails, as I believe he would because of the "fatigue factor", that tarnish him somewhat. Right now, he is riding impossibly high --witness their efforts to tear him down (always a sign). Look at his power bills! Look at what he has done to bring attention to global warming -- an effect the administration ridiculed.

  I do think he should run though.

  by Bensdad on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:25:47 PM PDT

  •  Well

    Somehow I doubt that Al Gore's the kind of guy who'd rather not run than to lose. Here's the thing though - I think it would be painful beyond belief - for Al and for all of us - if the media were to give him the same shredding they did in 2000 again. And here's a diary just a few slots above this one on the list right now that's reporting on the very 2000-style anti-Gore piece in the NYT, no less. If this is where we're headed, then I say stay out of it Al, for your own and for all our sakes.

    by brainwave on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:34:47 PM PDT

•  SUrprised by Gore's unfavorable ratings

  At least they came down precipitously but they're still nearly one-third. I might note that though Edwards favorables are lower than the others (and apparently heading south), only Obama has lower negatives (among the Democrats). That's a pretty good foundation for JRE to work from.

  On the other hand the two Republicans have very low negatives...not a good sign.

  by FischFry on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:50:51 PM PDT

  •  Gore has been through

    a rough 10 years of quite to very unfair coverage in the media (most of which before the advent of the netroots), and the nation is quite polarized (with the Republican still by and large beholden to the RWNM).

    After 2000, Gore was probably the leading critic of the administration's fascist-leaning war-mongering ways, and the pro-war/anti-Dem parts of the media (which until recently, has been about 80-90% of the media) did make him pay on many occasions by not giving him coverage, but generously entertaining his bashers.

    In other words, people were hearing Gore get beaten up, without even getting to see and hear his side.

    Given all of these facts, it's actually a surprising that his unfavs are now below 40, quite honesty.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:00:20 PM PDT

•  Take all this with a huge grain of salt...

  What planet are these guys polling? Their sample is 51% Republican!
  Last I checked, in the real world the Republican portion of the electorate was someplace in the 30s, significantly lower than the Democratic, and dropping fast.
  No wonder Bush has an uptick in his job rating...
  But with that skewing, none of the other numbers are going to be reliable. You might as well just chuck the whole thing.

  by jeremybloom on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:08:28 PM PDT

  •  Jeez

    I knew there was something fishy about this poll...

    by NYPopulist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:09:30 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, I know

    But in fact, McCain and Giuliani are doing better in the USA Today/Gallup poll NYPopulist is quoting upthread, even though that one is a mirror image of the NYT/CBS one in terms of party break down. It's really funky.  

    by brainwave on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:16:57 PM PDT