Only Rubio was an over 10% lead in that poll, not "everyone of them" like you said. Just sayin'.

Just sayin'.

We are 2+ years away from the election.

I would support a constitutional amendment that made polling and reporting of polling a capital offense subject to immediate dismemberment on national television.

I hate pollsters and I think their role in our politics is almost as bad as big money.

Though, I don't quite support your 2nd paragraph.

Not putting much stock in it and who do the Republicans got who can seriously match her? Republicans don't have any policies and they are losing their demographics too. The only thing they have is a guaranteed spot on the ballot.

I actually took a look at the poll and she has net favorability of 52% v net unfavorability of only 40%. Note also the 8% undecided which in the real world are going to split. Considering that Hillary is a known product +12 out of 92% is great. Those are historic Democratic Landslide numbers

About sudden 5-10 Point spikes or dives. Despite the Hub bub that will occur, this will be the occasional happening in news cycles. But a slow drop of .5-1 point at a time over long periods spells trouble. I still think she is too leaky of a ship to put to sea.

Sorta tells a story, if she is sitting on 50% means a full field of possible Democrats she is ahead of all of them.

This is pure wistful thinking. The closest Republican, who has more baggage that people don't know - ie the NJ economy did worse than all neighboring and comparable states economically - is 7 points below her.

For a non incumbent, this is incredible - but the stronger thing is that in other polls that look at the Democratic primary - she is stronger than VP Gore was, when like HRC, he had most of the powers in the Democratic party behind him. Bradley's resume was very good - and he didn't come close in that case. Nothing here suggests that she won't have a pretty easy ride to the nomination.

This is an unusual thing and it likely means that there will be few - if any - primary attacks that then are reused as general election attacks - with the added credibility a faction of the nominee's party gave them.

As to the 52%, this is as negative a time as I have seen in my lifetime. There are likely not all that many above 50% -- as to be there they need to be both seen positively and known by enough people. (Obama is under 50%, Nancy Pelosi is at 35%, Reid at 29%, Boehner at 26% and McConnell at 25% NATIONALLY - the last 4 taken from Republican leaning Rasmussen.)

To me, this looks like an article this person has been waiting to write. I assume that - even if he likes Clinton - he wants a story - and so far the story has been (lucky for us) pretty boring on the Democratic side.

a huge squandering of republican money, they could use in a more positive way.

But it is republican money to spend wastefully. They seem to love using poll-results in their propaganda news reports.

I have personally seen firsthand, how republicans use surveys, fake 'statements', fake news stories, incorrect stats/counts- to produce a scam GAO report.

I guess republican party assume American voters, 'we the people' are so stupid they will vote along with a "Popularity poll" or any poll. They do call their 'little people' squidges & remember people like Romney joke about, mock- the 47% with their peers.