I wish they were there so we could see that too.

Republicans are not seen as unfavorably by ALL voters.

Additionally, Republicans "not sure" numbers are greater,
From which we can infer they could surge ahead depending
on how their campaigns unfold, and the MSM portray them.

Thank you.

You realize you're going to catch a ration of crap for posting this.

There is NO ROOM for error in 2016.
If Republicans capture the Oval Office
WE are OVER as a party.

Voting for a "sentimental" favorite
is not a winning strategy.

If you like Warren, why not promote her instead of cherry picking stats to pretend that HRC isn't the dominate front runner?

What do you think these numbers represent?

my comment of "If you like Warren, why not promote her instead of cherry picking stats to pretend that HRC isn't the dominate front runner?"

IN marketing, brand reputation is everything.
When the public perception of a brand is negative
it is very hard to "win back" business.

Hillary Clinton's "brand" is seen unfavorably
by 47% of ALL voters polled.

Do you think pushing a weak brand is a winning strategy?

Let's just spend less time trying to tear down other candidates. Destroying the Democratic party is not a winning strategy.

If you don't agree with the op explain why.
Otherwise, stop ATTACKING ME.

I bet more Americans have an unfavorable view of Coke than they do Faygo Cola. But guess which one sells more and is way more popular?

Are you saying the Democrats aren't doing enough
to promote better or more favorable "brands" aka. candidates?

Or is it that they aren't doing enough to "re-brand" the old one?

Your point is just bad. There is no guarantee that Warren's unfavorables wouldn't also rise the more known she became. In fact, that is typically what happens. AND just because someone has low unfavorables does not mean they're more popular or more likely to succeed. It just means more people haven't formulated an opinion of them yet.

Thanks for posting this CK!!

It's not a surprise she has a higher unfavorable than Scott Walker or Ted Cruz. If you notice, they also have a far higher not sure amount because a whole lot of America hasn't formed an opinion on them yet. With Hillary, they have - just as they have with her husband, whose unfavorable rating is the same as Hillary's.

Maybe you're unaware, but his DAD and BROTHER
were both presidents of the USA!

Soooo, i'm guessing, folks have heard of Jeb Bush
And the other Republicans all get plenty of air time
on the tee vee and through the MSM.

Republican candidates are hardly and unknown commodity.
Ever watch Faux News? Faux Views know who those people are!

Seriously, you're spot on. Wait til the RepubliCons really start to pile on, or worse yet, when she makes an appearance on the campaign trail - whenever that will be - and has to take positions on controversial issues and answer real questions.

It won't be pretty, unlike Elizabeth who knows who she is and where she stands, unafraid to spout progressive idealism, and who can defend herself like the skilled progressive "Ninja fighter" that she is. Fortunately, we have Elizabeth waitin in the wings for when Hillary self destructs and her unfavorables go sky high.

It's not your "job" to derail or disrupt our discussion.

You CHOOSE to attack rather than add anything of substance.

When someone works as hard as you to add nothing,
it does seem to be your "job".

You just want to post flawed analysis of statistics and accuse everyone who disagrees with you of having a "job" to disrupt.

You've never responded to this:

Rather than try to derail the thread
and trash me personally, how about you
either put me on ignore or go find another project?

If you think posting POLLING RESULTS is
"Destroying the Democratic party"
then you are just afraid of the truth.

Pushing damaged brands in an election
IS Destroying the Democratic party

...I don't want to sound mean or dash people's hopes, but we are moving into the period where people announce campaigns, WHICH MEANS they've spent up to a year organizing the secret campaigns: securing political chits and financial pledges, so that the public campaign can be successful. Hillary Clinton and her supporters have done so. The Republicans have done so. ELIZABETH WARREN HAS NOT (I know her finance people; they'd have been in touch if she was). Now, you're welcome to dream and chant, but if you've chosen to invest all your energy in a prospect who's been clear that she won't be running, I hope you won't complain down the road that somehow you "weren't given a choice".

Is the swarm warming up?

Poll after poll shows how strong we are right now. Even righties are trying to cherry pick all of the polls to try and prop their side up because it's all they have right now. It happened here yesterday. Go Democrats. Fighting for sixteen years straight in the White House.

Since it's the ratio that's important.

There is nothing for you to gain by making this personal.

So what do you think about the OP?

even consider this new OP when the last time you interpreted a poll it was shown to be a terrible interpretation that the folks themselves who created the poll said was completely incorrect?

?

Or so it would seem, since the poll numbers the OP thinks are so devastating to Clinton vis a vis Warren show Ben Carson with only 17 percent unfavorable results compared to Warren's 31 percent. (Carson also has the edge over Warren in terms of "favorability" 35-29. And Scott Walker, with only 1 percent more "not sure" has a five point edge over Warren in terms of unfavorability and a four point edge in terms of favorability

The point being is, of course, that once again the OP tries to turn the PPP results into something more meaningful than they actually are.

you responded made a valid point that uses your own reasoning.

Thank you DU Jury members!

UNANIMOUS JURY: LEAVE IT ALONE... 7-0

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton?

76%
Favorable
........................................................
15%
Unfavorable
....................................................
9%
Not sure
..........................................................

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_22515.pdf

Page 27

What I don't get is WHY Republicans are seen
as less "unfavorable" than Hillary?

Those 'Note sure' opinions don't necessarily translate to favorable. A healthy split could send their 'unfavorable' well into the 50's.

the "Not sure" responses to them are 40%+.

Ben Carson's favorability is higher than Elizabeth Warren. That means nothing when almost 50% have no opinion.

Why are you afraid to show all the facts and not just cherry picked ones?

It seems you miss the point of the OP?
This thread is NOT about the balance of
favorable vs unfavorable whatsoever.

The point is the perceptions of those polled.
The republicans are seen as less unfavorable than Hillary.
The unfavorable percentage is a measure of brand damage.
Nearly half or those polled have a negative view of Hillary.
Republicans generally have lower unfavorable numbers.

Second, Hillary has an 8% not sure.
That indicates that people have already decided
how they feel about Hillary.
Hillary will have to re-brand herself to switch those votes.
Whereas the Republicans generally have higher not sure numbers.
This suggests that those polled are open to considering a republican candidate.

Looking at who already "favors" your candidate is preaching to the choir.
Hillary and down ticket Democrats need to win over the not sure votes.
Because those are the same votes the republicans are fighting for.

This is a look at the liabilities and challenges reflected in the polling data.
That is, if you accept the polling data as valid to begin.

That is the whole story. The rest is just spin.

You think that the fact only 8 percent of those surveyed are unsure about Clinton should be taken as an indication that she is seen as less unfavorable than the repubs in the poll.

But the correct way to analyze the data when there is such a wide variance in familiarity with the candidates is to focus on the results as measured against those that know enough about the candidates to have an opinion.

And when you do that, your premise, such as it is, falls apart.

For example, Clinton is viewed unfavorably by 51 percent of those that are familiar enough with her to have an opinion. That's an even higher percentage than the 47 percent you cite.

BUT, Jeb Bush is viewed unfavorably by 60.8 percent of those that are familiar enough with him to have an opinion. You can go through the same drill with most of the repubs and you get a similar result -- when you consider only those that know enough about the candidates to have formed a favorable or unfavorable opinion of them, the repubs end up being viewed less favorably than Clinton.

In short, to know the repub candidates is to view them much less favorably than Clinton. As for Warren, she and Clinton come out at about the same place -- of those who know enough about Warren to have formed a favorable or unfavorable opinion of her, 51 percent come out on the "unfavorable" side.