you are not representative of the American Voter....who are a complicated bunch!

...as the lesser of two evils. They don't want a Clinton, but they want these other Republicans even less!

But as I mentioned in post #7, I think that does imply an additional point of vulnerability for Hillary in the general, in that she actually needs the votes of many people who would rather not vote for a Clinton.

Luckily, she will probably get enough of them to win.

(Which has nothing to do with whether or not I am representative of the American voter, or simple rather than complicated, which seems like a barely veiled and uncalled for personal insult...)

Its not like they have no other choices....apparently as much as they "dislike Clinton" as you claim....they like the other options FAR less!

Well, it kind of IS like that. Unless they vote 3rd-party or stay home. But for most people who vote, the choice will indeed come down to Hillary or a Republican, and no other (realistic) choices.

re: "apparently as much as they 'dislike Clinton' as you claim....they like the other options FAR less!"

Well yes, that's exactly what I was saying. 54% don't want to vote for a Clinton, but since Hillary wins the matchups in the poll, obviously, they like these particular Republican alternatives even less. So we agree about that.

Oh, and it's not "as I claim," it's the figure from the poll, about the percentage of registered voters who would rather not see another Clinton or Bush in the WH. And that doesn't mean they dislike her per se (you put that in my mouth) but rather, as I actually said, "dislike the idea of another Bush or Clinton" as President. They would prefer to vote for someone who is not a Clinton or a Bush... but obviously, they are willing to, if they dislike the alternative even more. Fortunately for Hillary, many of them do.

54% of registered voters would prefer to vote for someone who is not a Bush or a Clinton come November. Though when the same poll puts Clinton up against specific non-Bush Republicans (Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson) she ties or beats them, showing that some voters will vote for her despite not wanting another Clinton in the WH, because apparently they want those Republicans in the WH even less. It's not the ideal position of strength, but at least it seems like she's likely to win, thanks in part to this weak Republican field.

What does the fact that we haven't had the primary yet have to do with that?

So that statement doesn't really play out.

Obviously, if it's Clinton vs. Bush, then neither side has an edge among those voters who feel we've had enough Clintons and Bushes.

However, it is looking very unlikely that Bush will bet he Republican candidate, whereas it is look very likely that Clinton WILL be the Democratic candidate. And that's the issue.

In Clinton-verus-"anyone other than Bush," Clinton has to deal with the fact that 54% of the registered voters would prefer to vote for someone not named Clinton. In this case, she's saved largely by the fact that, as much as these people don't want to vote for a Clinton, they are often even more turned off by Republican opposition. So she will often be able to get the "lesser of two evils" vote from these people, as this poll indicates.

But the fact that these people are choosing her on that basis, i.e. more a vote against the other candidate than a vote for Hillary, means that she has a vulnerability there that someone else might not. It may be easier for an unsavory Republican to sway someone away from an opponent that a voter isn't enthusiastic about voting for than it would be for that same Republican to sway someone away from a Democratic candidate that someone actually feels good about voting for. And we know going in that 54% of the voting public would not feel so good about voting for Hillary, i.e. that they would prefer a non-Clinton (and a non-Bush). The fact that she is likely to win anyway just shows how unappealing these Republican candidates are!

It shows that there is a group out there who would rather see someone other than a Clinton yet they still feel she is the best choice. Interesting dichotomy with that small overlap. A portion of that group says they don't want Clinton yet feel she is better moving forward than O'Malley or Sanders. Now that's a statement.

so the poll did not say what you suggest. However, it does say that there is a group out there who would rather see someone other than a Clinton yet they still feel she is--not necessarily the best choice--but better than these Republicans.

Presumably, some of these likely would prefer an O'Malley or a Sanders.

I posted the link to the full poll. These particular respondents were not asked anything about O'Malley or Sanders, they were not listed as options on any question.

they didn't even bother to include bernie In poll.

or whether there is some undisclosed sponsorship.

It's a bad question - some may object to the Bushes, others to the Clintons, and others to both.

With only a third Democrats, that result is impossible to interpret.

...because it framed it as not wanting either a Clinton OR a Bush. You had to feel negatively about BOTH prospects to answer the question affirmatively. And there are many people who feel that way, regardless of whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or neither.

As for only a third of the respondents being Democrats, in general, that's not a bad skew, as only 30% of the population identify as Democrats.

The poll respondent percentages (registered voters) were actually 34% Dem, 27% Repub, which isn't too far off from the general population, 30% Dem, 26% Repub. If anything, as you can see, it slightly favors Dems.

(Affiliation figures from http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx )