Unfortunately, they still vote.

Or CAN vote, if they want to.

Other polls released this week show contrasting results. A Washington Post-ABC News survey found an uptick in Clinton's favorability, while a Suffolk University-USA Today poll showed a slightly net negative rating.

That means the downturn for Clinton could be a result of random differences in survey sampling

They can be very helpful for fixing the facts around one's agenda.

Sent from my Obamaphone

Polls are missing a larger and larger chunk of voters that don't have a landline. For example, I can't be polled via landline, and neither can anyone in my circle of friends or family.

There are ways to do online polls correctly. No idea if these people did, but given they are a professional outfit, it is likely they at least did not have dumb errors like "vote as often as you want".

Her nearest opponent's support is stuck in the teens. He must be a real dog if that's the best he can do with someone so hated and reviled!

The OP says "voters view her as less decisive and inspiring than when she launched her presidential campaign just three months ago."

Of note is the trend. If it continues, it may signify bad times ahead for Hillary. There's no doubt Hillary is the front-runner. For my own part, I'm happy that my candidate is trending UPWARD, while yours is trending DOWNWARD. There's a lot of campaigning ahead. I look forward to the debates.

And as far as the "hatred..." is concerned, I was referring more to the Bernie supporters on DU.

We don't like Hillary's policies. For the most part, Bernie supporters seem to have a positive or neutral opinion of her as a person.

For myself, I've never met her, so I couldn't tell you if I like or dislike her. I can definitely say that her politics are horrible.

Even the ones that say what I like.

Too often it is who commissioned the poll that determines the outcome.

....another propaganda tool.

Even then, of course, they can be wrong. But overall, they can do a good job of providing a snapshot. Nate Silver's aggregation model is very, very good, and his analysis is spot on, even when his conclusions conflict with his personal views.

He is known, for example, to be a Democrat, but predicted the both the 2010 and 2014 Republican victories pretty darn accurately based on his poll aggregate model and his understnading of the data.

Tricks are the problem. Honesty is the solution.

She will not get the nomination as I've been saying since her launch.

One of the reasons I have become so against dynastic politics ... a candidate like Hillary is the elephant in the room making any freedom of movement very difficult. A known name with a "its her turn" imprimatur makes a big difference in the early stages of a race and, like the Repuglicans went through in 2000 with W., that skews polls and perceptions.

There certainly are indications that Democrats are not thrilled with Clinton and that she has serious electability problems, but her 'inevitability' and her money and her pedigree make competition difficult.

Just imagine if Hillary did the best thing for the Party and didn't seek the presidential nomination ... Democrats would be excited, engaged, debating, etc. and there would be a field of probably six or seven new, fresh and invigorating candidates.

So, I too believe that Hillary has feet of clay and may very well tumble further. But time is a'wastin' and if her fall comes late in the process it will damage the national Democrats very badly.

We could be having such a dynamic and important primary. Instead we get Hillary hiding away from voters and trying to say as little as possible, while longshots trying to compete with her.

Her unfavorable #s have always been my chief concern about her electability. Her numbers have plummeted every time she runs campaigns. Voters like the idea of Hillary. They just don't like the reality of her.

Her numbers are already lower than they were at the end of the divisive 2008 campaign. That is not good news for the general election. And those #s are baked in with independents and Republicans. She isn't suddenly going to win them over after decades in the public eye.

Lastly, even more concerning is her trustworthy #s. They are horrible. I don't know that any non-incumbent can get elected with #s that bad. Bill managed to win re-election with his #s that low but that was a 3-person race and he was running for re-election. Hillary is running for her first term and those #s are going to continue to plummet as the e-mail story returns to the news every month through January as batches of new emails are released. It just re-affirms the narrative that Hillary is secretive and a liar.

Up by 40 in one and up by 45 in the other!

I admit I am anxious for 538 to start running its model.

I suspect the poll in the OP is an outlier and the fact that it is a function of its unorthodox methodolgy that go well beyond being conducted online.

It's a bit lower in Huff Po because RCP doesn't include yougov because it's an online poll* and since yougov is publishing the most polls it's affecting the results.





*yeah I know it's a supposedly random sample online poll.

eom

Yet it includes every single Republican clown. Very suspect.