Home Cookin' Favors Obama, Clinton

Two Democrats Get Strongest Endorsements From Home State Voters, CBS Exit Polls Find

(CBS)  By CBSNews.com's Joel Roberts

---

Do voters in the home states of some of the potential 2008 White House contenders think their favorite sons or daughters would make a good president?

The CBS News exit poll put that question to voters in selected states on Election Day, and the results include good news for some of those thinking about becoming candidates and troubling news for others.

Among the top tier of 2008 wannabes, Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain got a thumbs-up from home state voters, while Rudolph Giuliani got a mild rebuke.

Obama, the freshman Democrat, received the highest positive rating of any potential candidate. Sixty-four percent of all Illinois voters said he'd make a good president, while just 29 percent said he would not. Among Democrats, he got a positive rating from 81 percent.

Clinton fared next best, with 57 percent of all voters in her home state of New York saying she'd make a good president, including 80 percent of Democrats.

---

Read more: Looking Ahead to 2008 — The Contenders

---

Forty-eight percent of voters in McCain's home state of Arizona said the Republican senator would be a good president, while 41 percent said he would not be.

By 51 percent to 47 percent, New Yorkers said Giuliani would not be a good president. But he did get a 76 percent positive rating from Republicans in his state, the highest in the GOP field.

In keeping with the general mood of the electorate on Nov. 7, the Democratic contenders fared much better than their GOP counterparts. None of the eight Republicans included in the questioning (McCain, Giuliani, Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, Tennessee Sen. Bill Frist, Virginia Sen. George Allen, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and New York Gov. George Pataki) were rated as good presidential timber by a majority of voters in their home states. And only McCain had a plurality that said he'd make a good president.

Home state appeal can be a critical indicator in a presidential race, given that only three times since 1804 has a president been elected without carrying his home state. (For those keeping score, they were James Polk in 1844, Woodrow Wilson in 1916 and Richard Nixon in 1968. Al Gore also won the popular vote in 2000, while losing his home state of Tennessee.)

But how important are these findings so early in the campaign, with most of the candidates still undeclared?

"The useful thing about this exercise is that citizens from the home state presumably know more about the candidate than most other Americans this early in the race," said David R. Jones, an associate professor of political science at Baruch College, City University of New York.

Jones says the key indicator may be whether "your home state is a state that a candidate from your party would normally expect to win in a presidential race."

Thus, Giuliani, with nearly 50 percent saying he'd be a good president in solidly Democratic New York, appears to be in less trouble than fellow Republicans from more GOP-friendly states.

"Hagel, Frist, Allen and Gingrich clearly fail the test," Jones says. "They all come from states that like Republican presidential candidates, but voters in their own state don't like them."

While among the Democrats, "Obama does slightly better than Hillary in a state that is less Democratic leaning, so that may bode well for him."

The other Democrats included in the exit polling were New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who was seen as a good potential president by 50 percent of voters in his home state; and Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who got a positive rating from just 35 percent in his home state. Feingold has since announced he would not make a run for president.

At the bottom of the barrel in home-state appeal were Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and New York Gov. George Pataki. Just 25 percent of voters in Kerry's state said the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate would make a good president, while 71 percent said he would not.

The worst rating of all went to Pataki. Only 15 percent of New Yorkers said the Republican would be a good president, while 82 percent said he would not.

[akarsno]

YOU know what you guys in America don't see a great president in making when it is infront of you! I think Hillary Clinton would do justice if she was president. Despite what happened in the past, it is she that will remake the change America needs for the world to see what America is about! I think she would do a good job at it and it is about time America has a female president who is bright and smart and knows how to run a country! After all the Democrates have always pulled the country out of the slump like before when it is run by Republican who always turn it upside down!

[kwch]

Not sure what you mean janem but thought I would post something just in case:
Edwards quote:
"If we can do the work that we can do in this country -- the work we will do when John Kerry is president -- people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again". The quote was later misquoted on the Drudge Report as: "When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk".

To imply that Christopher Reeve was kept in the wheelchair because of the policies of the Bush administration on stem cells is ridiculous and insulting." Progressive research and information center Media Matters have argued that when the entire quote is used "Edwards was premising 'people like Christopher Reeve' 'walking again' on the outcome of research that a Kerry administration would support."

To imply that Edwards is against stem cell research tells me that you may be one of those "propaganda swallowing idiots" I spoke of in an earlier post.

[kwch]

You may babble all you want about Obama and Hillary but if you nominate one of them, you may well find that McCain is your next president.

[kwch]

To those who say he made his money driving health care costs up by suing hospitals I have little response other than you are propaganda swallowing idiots. John Edwards represented individuals in a court of law (your laws by the way) and he did a dam good job of it. Just like he would the next president!

[kwch]

Now that our nations reputation has been destroyed by the current idiot in charge, I see one of the major jobs for the next president is to begin fixing it. This will be no simple task as he or she will have to intelligently speak and discuss issues with world leaders of European, Islamic and Eastern countries not to mention a host of others (with all the associated cultures that go with them). Now in these discussions, would you like the person speaking for you to be an up and coming pure democrat with little to no business savy and really no experience dealing with world affairs or would you rather have a woman who has risen on her husbands coattails and will NOT be as respected in a number of cultures, (although not mine I hope). Or would you rather have an individual that has a proven ability to be sharp, witty and convincing in times when things can be totally unpredictable as in a courtroom in front of a jury (and be VERY good at it). This not to mention one who has experience in Washington as a senator and truly understands the plight of middle class America.

To those of you with $500,000 salaries and that much again in the stock market John Edwards is not your guy, but if you find yourself in a situation something less than that, you would be foolish voting for anyone else.

[usawatchman]

did anyone look at those pictures...
are those two doing what it looks like they are doing...?

[tibu987]

Uh oh!
I am going to have a problem because I do not feel that I can vote for Hillary or Obama. I feel that both are unqualified for that office. Obama's relationship to corrupt and despotic Chicago's Stroger family and relationship with indicted politcally money man Tony Rezko and Rod
"not business as usual" Blogojevich, yeah, right, Illinois Governor, has ruled him out as far as I am concerned.
Hillary, well, words alone cannot speak for this untalented person, I would have to also wave my arms about. I hope that she does not become a candidate, I cannot vote for either.

[btesar1]

Interesting that someone would say they won't vote for Obama or HClinton because they aren't "qualified." Who, pray tell, is qualified? So many of the last half-dozen or more presidents were governors, some of less-than-impressive states (Georgia, Arkansas, Texas, for example). Yet they were elected. You'd think that Senators, who are involved in international politics, as well as national, might have some experience that would "qualify" them as much as Jimmy Carter or George W. Bush.

[kwch]

I am neither republican nor democrat but can easily see myself voting for whoever is running against McCain if he is the republican candidate.

That is unless the democrats are foolish enough to nominate either Obama or Hillary. Then I guess I would opt for the lesser of three evils and vote McCain. Come on America, please don't be as stupid as you have been the last two presidential elections. I really would like to vote for, rather than against, someone.

[edjohn66]

I am a Democrat and refuse to vote for a candidate that has proven to be pro-war, pro-tax cuts for the rich, and anti-civil liberties (pro-Patriot Act).

Therefore, I will not support Hillary Clinton.

Obama 2008!

[edjohn66]

frankly6:

NICE!!!!! I can't stop laughing at your rebuke of bushrocks 1.

[geri2008a]

These poll numbers seem to look good for:

Obama/Richardson '08

Watched Richardson's 2006 State of New Mexico address and was impressed. Don't think Hillary could win or be a good VP.

Watch every video I can find on Obama since his 2004 Dem Conv keynote and I'm always impressed.

[frankly6]

bushrocks1

Good news! Due to increasing difficulty in finding war bodies, the army has lowered it's recruiting age to 16! They are now also taking in chronic masturbators so you need not worry about them turning you away for your hairy palms. Hurry though you don't want to miss any of the action. Be sure to write us often.

[frankly6]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? Hell no that's for poor kids to do. I do love the blood and destruction though. As long as it's someone elses son or daughter. So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed, they either have much bigger balls than me or they are desperately poor and trying to make a better life for themselves. Either way, who cares? An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East has proven to be very profitable for a handfull of connected individuals and companies. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, and I really like resoluteness. They may not succeed, some say because they are arrogant and criminaly incompetent. But I think it's because we have so many traitors on the home front calling for some kind of acountability from the administration. The nerve of these peasants speaking truth to power! Who do they think they are? They should just shut up and send their money and children into the fight. These traitors have apparently occupied the high ground for now. But not for long..we'll find a way to blame the failures in Iraq on them.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. As a hypothetical, I can say, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country who can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. But now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?... I'm waiting.

[kwch]

Speaking with 6 or 8 people the other day (all of which despised Bush but about half were republican) all said that if Obama or Hillary were running, they were voting republican period, myself included. Call it discrimination if you want but neither is qualified and that feeling will be magnified across the country. This is not even taking into consideration all those who would NOT vote for a woman or an Afican American regardless of party because they are racist or just don't think it is a place for a woman.

Can you imagine how the republicans would drag Hillary through the mud.

[geri2008a]

Obama is so impressive and so presidential when speaking, especially in the Q & A sessions. If you have any doubts about Obama's foreign policy knowledge or judgement listen to his Iraq policy speech on Monday at The Chicago Council of Global Affairs. (cbs2chicago.com has the full video). It's the last 20 minutes or so of Q&A that is the most impressive ... I learn so much by listening to this man. I look forward to 2009 when we can hear him at White House press conferences, etc.

Geri in Washington state

[dekish]

You are all barking up the wrong tree...whomever Israel wants to be president will be president. Period. We dumbnuts have naught a thing to say (or vote) about it.
Disillusioned by savvy.

[cathaleen]

Hillary will run and win the Presidency.

[kwch]

People may speculate all they want but neither Obama nor Hillary will be elected. If the democrats are foolish enough to nominate one of them then there will not be a democrat in the White house next term, and deservedly so.