Cuomo’s gun plan polls strong across NY
The Siena Research Institute released its new poll today, showing Governor Andrew Cuomo still polling at 71% favorability, despite a series of controversial moves — including clashes with public employee unions, his apparent willingness to allow hydrofracking in central New York, and his push for toughest-in-the-nation gun control laws.
Siena asked voters in particular about the gun control plan Cuomo pushed through the legislature. They found that 73% of New Yorkers favored the ban on assault rifles and large capacity magazines.
The National Rifle Association, meanwhile, has approval ratings of just 36%, with 57% of New Yorkers unfavorable. Those are pretty grim numbers.
While two of the Governor’s gun proposals – banning assault weapons and increasing penalties for illegally
purchasing guns or using guns on school grounds – are strongly supported by voters, another measure – not
proposed by the Governor nor in the new law – to have armed security guards in all schools closely divides voters
with 52 percent opposed and 46 percent in support. By better than two-to-one, voters strongly oppose training
and arming teachers.
It’s worth noting, however, that Cuomo’s poll numbers are far lower in Upstate New York — though still relatively strong at 61% favorability. And in this part of New York, the NRA polls much better, with 50% favorable and 45% unfavorable.
Still, the survey found that 60% of Upstate residents surveyed approved the assault weapons ban, compared with 39% who oppose it. Read the full “crosstabs” here and add your comments below.
What’s the point? Are you trying to illustrate support for Cuomo’s power grab? If you ask the right questions in the right places the sheep will appear to endorse almost anything. In the meantime, let’s see what the courts say – I’m sure they will soon be asked for an opinion. This statute was so poorly written that it might well be struck down as being too vague. There are any number of problematic provisions. That’s what happens with reactionary hysteria.
OL –
I’m reporting information. There is clearly strong support for Cuomo’s gun agenda, though less strong Upstate, and in a democracy public opinion matters.
Labeling voters as “sheep” may feel satisfying, but it is (first and foremost) inaccurate and is also (not unimportantly) a political non-starter.
Conservatives who want to oppose gun control legislation clearly need to find narratives and arguments that play better with voters, particularly in states like New York.
You may well be right about the courts. Testing policy ideas like these these against Constitutional limitations on political power is an important part of our process.
I assume that someone will file a court challenge and we’ll see how that plays out.
–Brian, NCPR
I note that Betty Little did not support the legislation. In explaining her vote, she said she had concerns to protect those who “hunt, target shoot, collectors or those who have a firearm for personal protection.”
Now these people need her protection? She also cited the “vast majority of constituents” who emailed their opposition, so I guess they think they do. Too bad children don’t vote.
I don’t think this particular conservative has found the “narratives and arguments” [to quote Brian] that will play very well–beyond the constituents who cared to e-mail her.
The NRA and the gun lobby are all about making money.
While I fully support all of the measures taken by the Governor and the President, I do realize that until these laws are fully enforced, their effect on the violence will take some to before the violence goes down.
I am disappointed that I haven’t heard a peep about gun violence coming from Catholic Bishops. But then they were pretty much absent from the scene during the Civil Rights movement.
Where do you think MLK would be on the issue today if he hadn’t been killed by a man with a gun?
I am guessing that the North Country has a much lower approval rating for gun control than does “Upstate”. At least that seems to be the opinion of the elected officials (based on their votes).
If we’re going to dig into the privacy and freedoms of the American citizen, perhaps we should go further and give tests on any given topic before someone can give their opinion.
How many of those polled are truly informed? Additionally, how many who vote in elections are truly informed?
Any fool can give an opinion – and that is his right as a citizen. But reliability? Not buying into it.
Acting quickly on important issues is a good idea. Not giving lawmakers enough time to review and learn about a particular piece of legislation before they vote seems like a bad idea. The fact that they still have to put together a website to help explain what is or what may not now (or very soon) be illegal is a pretty backwards way of doing it. If you are someone who thinks they need action before legislators have time to understand what they are doing than you probably disagree.
On the federal ideas being floated. Frankly I was surprised. I assume that the administration has floated more than they want to accomplish (you would have to be a foolish negotiator if you floated what you want in the end at the start). If they hit the middle ground on their proposals it isn’t really much.
And they are going to spend a huge amount of political capital on this. Other issues that also affect many millions of Americans are going to be sidelined for this fight. I hope the administration knows what they are doing.
It appears that the gun and ammunition manufacturers (and others) are benefiting from the frenzied kind of environment that has been created by this whole process. But like the polls show folks around here prefer this way of legislating. The poor Governor had to go deep on some of these issues because he is going to take a shot when they approve hydro-fracking in NYS next month. Funny how things can change so quickly.
This is an issue where you have to strike while the iron is hot if there is any hope of getting somewhere.
Freedom has been redefined by the progressives.
Freedom is restraint based on conscience. Something may be permissible but not necessarily profitable. Who decides? Well, the Declaration of Independence set a precedence:
Written to explain to “a candid World” why the American people had taken the extraordinary step of declaring independence from Great Britain and of forming a new nation, the Declaration’s universal message of equality spoke not only to the founding fathers’ generation but also to future generations and peoples around the world struggling to throw off oppression. Its words inspired Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, the abolitionist movement against slavery, women seeking the vote, Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, the shipyard workers of Gdansk, protestors in the streets of Prague opposed to the Soviet Union, and Chinese students confronting communist tanks in Tiananmen Square. research.history.org
Now. Are the progressives going to redefine what oppression is?
The Framers full well knew the oppression of a government that threatened their freedom. Surely, today, we can see the current gun debate in this light? I know. No one is saying confiscate and ban all guns. But the possibility is there and those who wish to point that out are accused of being radical. Maybe their just plain smart.
Progressives build their case on the right to choose. It is fine for a woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy or a gay couple choosing to be married. And if a Christian opposes such things they are deemed old fashioned and accused of trying to force their religion.
Yet, if an individual wishes to have an assault weapon to take to the gun range or just likes collecting them, the question is raised, “Why do you need an assault weapon?” or “You don’t need to use an assault weapon to shoot a deer”.
Who’s forcing who?
Because secular progressives resist principles, they make up the rules as they go along.
Freedom is an unalienable right. It’s not up to the government or anyone else, especially when these rights are protected by our founding documents. But if the secular progressives resist God/religion/Bible, then it’s easy to understand why they would not value America’s founding documents in the context of how the Framers wrote it – and why the wrote it.
It appears to me that the only thing Betty Little was protecting, was her own butt. Re-election always trumps moral character.
Kathy, The framers of the Constitution knew that oppression by a church threatened their freedom, and carefully formed the world’s first secular state. It was their intent, and it was discussed at length. They recognized the terrible history of the church’s involvement in government, from murders, overthrows, and centuries of religious war in Europe.
The Governor, and the President did well to move fast, before the NRA could mount a giant fear campaign. They both deserve credit for forming careful, and not-too-aggressive proposals that actually stand a chance of passing. The NRA will not see it as such, and will dig themselves in with the teabaggers. The rest of us will move on…there are many other problems, and much more to accomplish.
“Because secular progressives resist principles, they make up the rules as they go along.”
God I get tired of this! We progressives have every bit as much reliance on principles as “conservatives” do, but they are different principles One of our principles is that government should have no entanglements with religion, a principle that, despite what you think, many of our founders shared.
Kathy, you and your side do not have a monopoly on principled thought, and some of your favorite people are famous for unprincipled action.
Sen. Marchione has a petition on her website that has been getting a lot of play on the news…37000 signatures against the new legislation. I would be more impressed if her website allowed both sides to be counted. She is elected to represent all of her constituents…not just the ones that happen to agree with her on this topic.
Kathy, You say: ” perhaps we should go further and give tests on any given topic before someone can give their opinion”.
Perhaps you might want to keep in mind the old proverb “watch what you wish for, else it become true”
Giant fear campaign? I think the giant fear campaign has been launched by the anti-gun crowd that thinks laws will stop criminals for acting. The same crowd that claims those “tea baggers” are all racist homophobes and want to bring back slavery and out law abortion entirely. The same crew that can’t see the difference between a right and a privilege. The group that creates “rights” out of thin air sometimes and decides actual enumerated rights don’t exist.
Fear? The left lives on fear.
Brian, do you have a link to the survey information? For all we know that was conducted by surveying 99% liberal Democrats that work for Cuomo. I’d like to see the actual survey background.
The link is in the post that shows the regional breakdown. Siena is a highly respected, nonpartisan polling firm. Upstate voters were less comfortable with some aspects of Cuomo’s policy, but still supported the assault weapon ban by roughly 60-40 margins.
–Brian, NCPR
“This is an issue where you have to strike while the iron is hot if there is any hope of getting somewhere.”
i can hear the same excuse being said in the room they set up for the waterboarding.
everyone has their own agenda, and their own sense of urgency.
let’s not be hyppocrits.
Kathy’s post-January 17, 2013 at 12:21 pm- is a valid point.
i’m not taking sides, i’m pointing out there are cleary two, and the least popular may not be any less valuable than the most.
if it’s Democracy rules, why didn’t the citizens vote. i ignore the polls. speak with your vote.
God I get tired of this! We progressives have every bit as much reliance on principles as “conservatives” do, but they are different principles One of our principles is that government should have no entanglements with religion, a principle that, despite what you think, many of our founders shared.
Walker, then why don’t you also state that government should have no entanglements with freedom?
Kathy, The framers of the Constitution knew that oppression by a church threatened their freedom, and carefully formed the world’s first secular state.
TTM, the framers knew that oppression by a church threatened their freedom and carefully formed the first amendment.
Perhaps you might want to keep in mind the old proverb “watch what you wish for, else it become true”
Mr. Hall, I don’t wish for it and I won’t have to wonder if it will come true. The over regulation of so much in our society is taking over freedom and privacy slowly. It’s that simple and it’s worth being caution and discussion.
Kathy – Your arguments are just reruns of the same opposition people had back when the government decided to mandate the addition of seat belts in cars. There was outrage from the “real Americans” who believed it to be the ultimate intrusion of government into the private lives of its citizens. They ranted about it being on the slippery slope into fascism. Really. Their arguments were along the lines of “what if my car drives into a river and I drown because of that seat belt”. There was outrage when police began enforcing the law. Now, 40 years later, those same seat belt laws have saved tens of thousands of lives and most people accept seat belts as routine. That’s what government is supposed to do…regulate what it believes best for its citizens. Data has proven them right in the case of seat belts and it will prove them right 20 or 30 years from now when we have the data on the effect of gun control laws and the murder rate. Now put your helmet on and go for a ride on your motorcycle.
(from the Siena poll, page 8)
Party:
Democrat 47%
Republican 23%
Independent/Other 26%
nuff said.
Actually, I will say this much more.
This is a poll about what Democrats think about Cuomo.
Exactly! I’m sure people said the same back in ’34 when the National Firearms Act outlawed machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers and grenades. You want to walk those prohibitions back in the name of freedom, Kathy?
“This is a poll about what Democrats think about Cuomo.”
JDM, look at the third question, the one on what people think of Cuomo.
Republicans: 54% favorable, 36 unfavorable
Independents: 66% favorable, 31 unfavorable
You’re apparently way to the right of your own party.
I’m not all that fond of Andy myself, but you’re reading of the poll is whacked.
Kathy, You consistently laud the Declaration of Independence with such as: “Its words inspired Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, the abolitionist movement against slavery, women seeking the vote, Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech,”. Correct me if I am incorrect; however, I believe that the so called called the immortal declaration “All men are created equal” inspirational words oft quoted by those whom you identify herein, were contained in the document known as “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” dated July 4, 1776.
Perhaps you can clear something up for me; if the “Founders” of the USA whom signed the aforementioned document truly believed in the “principles” laid out within it and expected the citizens of said nation to follow same, why did the sadistic cruelty of slavery as practiced primarily, although not exclusively, in the Southern States of the US exist in actuality until the late 30’s early 40’s, declining significantly only upon the US entry into the Second World War. Subsequent to the end of WWII the virulent hatred of black folks reared it’s ugly head with a vengeance, primarily in the Southern States but not exclusively, culminating in the equal rights movement, you allude to, in the 60’s; whereupon, far more equal, notice I did not say “equal”, treatment of African Americans became reality only when the full force of the US Government was finally brought to bear on the perpetrators of the inhumanity. Why did it take nearly 200 years from the “Founders” grandiose words until some near sense of equality became in evidence here in the USA?
A corollary question I have involves the conservative/republican concepts of President Obama. Why do so many conservatives/republicans believe patently obvious untruths and outright lies about President Obama such as the current topic wherein you all are convinced he is out to confiscate all of the guns in the US so he can become what dictator, Czar, king? Any possibility that the reality is y’all continue to harbor hatred towards black folks?
awesome! even after the whole poll unskewing debacle in the last election, jdm is still at it. according to wikipedia, the breakdown of registered voters in ny is 49% democrat and 25% republican. sounds like a perfectly good sample in the siena poll to me.
i continue to be amazed at the gall of someone like jdm complaining about “low information voters.”
funny, kathy, but i haven’t seen you out there much demonstrating in favor of giving gay people the freedom to marry.
Skiddie76, seat belt laws vs. the 2nd amendment?
I don’t particularly care for Andrew, in fact I didn’t vote for him and probably won’t in the future, but I give the new law a thumbs up, overall.
Kathy wrote:
“Walker, then why don’t you also state that government should have no entanglements with freedom?”
This is sophistry, wrapped in the scurrilous nonsense of right wing propaganda.
Government makes the rules. Or, as the U.S. Constitution puts it:
“The Congress shall have Power To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
And PLEASE — all you conservatives, TEA party people, Republicans, etc — please remember that, in this country, the government is the people. We citizens elect fellow citizens to office.
It’s a convenient and destructive canard to suggest that the government is this big bad boogeyman who will take away your guns, freedom and freegundom.
We’re the government. The government is us. Got a problem with laws, rules, regulations? Run for office. Get elected and change said laws, rules, etc.
I know that didn’t go so well for you in 2012, but thems the breaks.
And your freedom ends at my nose — meaning that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t affect me. No firing guns at me, my family, my house; no burning trash upwind from anyone else; no yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, etc.
We, as a society, decided this. We codified it into laws. And again, that’s we as in “We the people” — you know, the ones that still want to form a more perfect union.
Mr. Hall, it’s typical for the topic of slavery to come up when one values the founding documents and the authors.
I don’t know the answer to your question.
I suppose one day questions will be asked regarding our era, too.
It’s a convenient and destructive canard to suggest that the government is this big bad boogeyman who will take away your guns, freedom and freegundom
Not sure anyone is saying that on this forum. Some are saying it, yes. Not me.
When elected officials are telling individuals they do not need an assault weapon for hunting or no one should have an assault weapon for any reason – that’s encroaching on a person’s right to privacy and right to choose – and is supported by the 2nd amendment.
kathy, guns are dangerous. the government places limits on ownership of all kinds of dangerous things. the freedoms laid out in the constitution all have limits on them.
“Any possibility that the reality is y’all continue to harbor hatred towards black folks?”
This is probably the saddest comment I have see on this blog and there has been some sad ones.
“If you are someone who thinks they need action before legislators have time to understand what they are doing than you probably disagree.”
I got all thumbs down for that one interesting.
Two cents makes a good point. Legislation that was done post 9-11 was not properly thought through either, so Pete maybe striking when the iron is hot is not such a good idea. The president has done a better job in his approach than our Governor. But someone else made a comment that is also correct; in 20 0r 30 years we will have an answer. To me it seems like if the object is to protect children maybe the best strategy is to figure out what will work and then do that. The blind dart approach is irresponsible. The polls show that the majority of Americans share the position that we should do something. The question is what? If we blow all our political capital on what may not work we have blown it. This isn’t me trying to protect the gun lobby, I could care less about them you have seen my comments. Irrational behavior produces bad results.
And your freedom ends at my nose — meaning that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t affect me. No firing guns at me, my family, my house; no burning trash upwind from anyone else; no yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, etc.
So how come Mayor Blooomberg can ban large sodas and sugary drinks? Is watching an obese person drinking one offensive? Who’s freedom are we talking about?
There is a tone of “we know what’s best for you”. And that is what the red flags are re: the gun debate.
Walker:
Republicans: 54% favorable, 36 unfavorable
Independents: 66% favorable, 31 unfavorable
Ooooo. That 54% number is there to impress people.
Sorry. It’s mixing apples and oranges.
676 people surveyed. Of the 23% Republicans in the survey (155), 54% (84) are favorable. How many is that? 84/676 , not 84/155. Very misleading.
12% favorable rating, if you want a tally of Republicans in the lopsided Democratic state.
“Giant fear campaign? . . . Fear? The left lives on fear.”
Yes. I admit it RC. I fear another Newtown.
It is sad to hear that you do not.
Kathy-
No one — NO one — needs an assault rifle for hunting. Ever. If you think you do, then you shouldn’t be hunting.
If any politicians are saying this, it’s for two reasons:
1) It’s true, and
2) It’s what constituents say — including lots of hunters.
I’m an American citizen and I don’t want American citizens to have access to assault rifles or high-capacity clips. If there are more people who agree with me than disagree, hopefully we can pass a law banning these murder machines.
That’s democracy in our representative republic.
I’ll put this another way: Obama’s not trying to take away your guns. I am. And I will do everything I can to mobilize like-minded Americans.
Pbltpbltpblt.
[That’s a raspberry, btw. Not a good one, tho. Sorry.]
JDM,
Sampling.
Look it up.
No one — NO one — needs an assault rifle for hunting. Ever. If you think you do, then you shouldn’t be hunting.
I guess you know what’s best, wj.
You’ve made my point.
And yes, when I pay hundreds of dollars a year — via taxes — to subsidize the emergency room visits of people who are morbidly obese because of unregulated and omnipresent high-fructose corn syrup,
it affects me.
It’s not that “we” know better than you. It’s that reality knows better. And we all need to come back into the reality tent.
In here, we only have high-fructose corn syrup rarely, we don’t need a bushmaster or blathering idiots like jdm or Dick Morris to “unskew” our polls.
It’s really great. Wish you were here.
funny, kathy, but i haven’t seen you out there much demonstrating in favor of giving gay people the freedom to marry.
You’ve made my point, too, Hermit Thrush.
The same measure the left uses for their agenda should be used for all.
Kathy, good luck eating that side of venison with thirty slugs in it.
You all think something positive has been accomplished by this idiotic and ill-conceived law? You can’t just pass laws and work out the details later. Will those details perhaps contain even more assaults on our rights? Don’t give me that “don’t worry, this is a democracy” nonsense either. Pro-gun people were right to mistrust the motives of those who said they only wanted to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We were told not to worry but what happened there? Be careful not to say a careless word to your therapist or have a high capacity magazine in your home. The government is taking names and may soon decide that unannounced “home visits” to gun owners are appropriate. After all, gun control is a no-brainer, right?
And yes, when I pay hundreds of dollars a year — via taxes — to subsidize the emergency room visits of people who are morbidly obese because of unregulated and omnipresent high-fructose corn syrup, it affects me.
And if someone who has an assault weapon breaks into my home or office or on the street, that affects me, and I have the right to defend myself with more than a .22 or a 7 bullet limit pistol.