NBC Poll: '2016 Field Is Crowded -- and Mostly Unpopular'

[Likely Voter]

Positive/Negative ratings for the 2016ers from new NBC/Wapo poll

Among all respondents:

    Ben Carson 17%-7% (+10)
    Elizabeth Warren 23%-17% (+6)
    Hillary Clinton 43%-40% (+3)
    Rand Paul 26%-23% (+3)
    Marco Rubio 21%-19% (+2)
    Mike Huckabee 25%-24% (+1)
    Scott Walker 15%-14% (+1)
    John Kasich 11%-10% (+1)
    Chris Christie 29%-29% (even)
    Joe Biden 35%-38% (-3)
    Jeb Bush 26%-33% (-7)
    Rick Perry 20%-29% (-9)
    Ted Cruz 16%-26% (-10)

Among Democrats:

    Hillary Clinton 78%-5% (+73)
    Joe Biden 62%-9% (+52)
    Elizabeth Warren 36%-6% (+30)

Among Republicans

    Huckabee 52%-8% (+44)
    Rand Paul 48%-6% (+42)
    Jeb Bush 44%-12% (+32)
    Ben Carson 33%-2% (+31)
    Marco Rubio 37%-7% (+30)
    Scott Walker 29%-2% (+27)
    Chris Christie 40%-19% (+21)
    Rick Perry 33%-13% (+20)
    John Kasich 23%-6% (+17)
    Ted Cruz 27%-12% (+15)

And their analysis:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ljube]

Hillary is in deep trouble. Only +3 points net positive with 100% name recognition and no campaign. Once the campaign starts, her positives are going down the drain.

This also shows that Jeb is a no starter. His last name is simply too much to swallow (he can't be that negative personally).

Warren at +6 is something to watch. If it holds with the growth of her name recognition, she is going to be formidable.

Webb is conspicuously missing from Dem candidates. I hope he is included in the next batch.

Of the Pubs, Christie looks strongest, followed by Paul and Rubio, while Walker and Kasich low name recognition leaves wide open space for improvement.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Oh thank you America! At least Christie is somehow ahead of 3/4 I would not vote for despite his dislikes. Now, it's just time to knock Jeb Bush down a bit and I'll be confident in getting an acceptable nominee.

[Mr. Morden]

Positive/Negative ratings for the 2016ers from new NBC/Wapo poll

NBC/WSJ, not NBC/WaPo.

[retromike22]

I'm surprised Ted Cruz isn't more beloved by the GOP...

[King]

Ted might behave too smug and Ivy League for a lot of Teabaggers.

[Maxwell]

Ted might behave too smug and Ivy League for a lot of Teabaggers.

He's also way too insincere.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I'm surprised Ted Cruz isn't more beloved by the GOP...

Why?

[porky88]

I think this says more about the current view of politics in America than it does the quality of the candidates.

[Mr. Morden]

Positive/Negative ratings for the 2016ers from new NBC/Wapo poll

Among all respondents:

    Ben Carson 17%-7% (+10)

This poll proves once and for all that once you go black, you don't go back.

[IceSpear]

Among Democrats:

    Hillary Clinton 78%-5% (+73)

Someone's ripe for a primary challenge! Clearly progressives despise Hillary.

[IceSpear]

Hillary is in deep trouble. Only +3 points net positive with 100% name recognition and no campaign. Once the campaign starts, her positives are going down the drain.

Nope, you guys got all the low hanging fruit already (Republicans and right-wing independents who saw her favorably as a nonpolitical SoS, but have already switched). Considering she's beloved by Democrats, she'll be staying in the positive range.

[pbrower2a]

It looks much like a quarterback controversy in football -- the team is not going to win many games. Likewise a relief ace controversy for a baseball team.

[dmmidmi]

Hillary is in deep trouble. Only +3 points net positive with 100% name recognition and no campaign. Once the campaign starts, her positives are going down the drain.

This also shows that Jeb is a no starter. His last name is simply too much to swallow (he can't be that negative personally).

Warren at +6 is something to watch. If it holds with the growth of her name recognition, she is going to be formidable.

Webb is conspicuously missing from Dem candidates. I hope he is included in the next batch.

Of the Pubs, Christie looks strongest, followed by Paul and Rubio, while Walker and Kasich low name recognition leaves wide open space for improvement.

What you are saying here is that everybody knows who Hilary Clinton is, and due to universal name recognition, has already made up their mind about her (to top it off, her approvals are in net positive territory). Yet, her approvals are about to drop.

Huh?

[Ljube]

Hillary is in deep trouble. Only +3 points net positive with 100% name recognition and no campaign. Once the campaign starts, her positives are going down the drain.

This also shows that Jeb is a no starter. His last name is simply too much to swallow (he can't be that negative personally).

Warren at +6 is something to watch. If it holds with the growth of her name recognition, she is going to be formidable.

Webb is conspicuously missing from Dem candidates. I hope he is included in the next batch.

Of the Pubs, Christie looks strongest, followed by Paul and Rubio, while Walker and Kasich low name recognition leaves wide open space for improvement.

What you are saying here is that everybody knows who Hilary Clinton is, and due to universal name recognition, has already made up their mind about her (to top it off, her approvals are in net positive territory). Yet, her approvals are about to drop.

Huh?

What we should be looking at two years from the election is not the polls but positives/negatives of candidates. Hillary has 40% negatives with 100% name recognition. Negatives stay. People who form a negative opinion about somebody will keep that negative opinion.

And because she has 100% name recognition, everybody has already heard of her, so she can't get any more positives. So, her ceiling is 43% positive.

There are 17% undecided. These will be swayed by the campaign. The campaign is going to be negative. The negative ads will be aired by both Clinton and her opponent. There will be nothing that will convince these 17% who have not made up their mind about Hillary to start to like her. It is expected that the majority of these will start to hate her.

And, due to her negative campaigning, some of the people who used to have a positive opinion of her are going to start to view her negatively. I predict that she will end up in a below 40% positive territory. And you don't get elected with such low positives.



But she knows this and might choose not to run because of this.

[dmmidmi]

Hillary is in deep trouble. Only +3 points net positive with 100% name recognition and no campaign. Once the campaign starts, her positives are going down the drain.

This also shows that Jeb is a no starter. His last name is simply too much to swallow (he can't be that negative personally).

Warren at +6 is something to watch. If it holds with the growth of her name recognition, she is going to be formidable.

Webb is conspicuously missing from Dem candidates. I hope he is included in the next batch.

Of the Pubs, Christie looks strongest, followed by Paul and Rubio, while Walker and Kasich low name recognition leaves wide open space for improvement.

What you are saying here is that everybody knows who Hilary Clinton is, and due to universal name recognition, has already made up their mind about her (to top it off, her approvals are in net positive territory). Yet, her approvals are about to drop.

Huh?

What we should be looking at two years from the election is not the polls but positives/negatives of candidates. Hillary has 40% negatives with 100% name recognition. Negatives stay. People who form a negative opinion about somebody will keep that negative opinion.

And because she has 100% name recognition, everybody has already heard of her, so she can't get any more positives. So, her ceiling is 43% positive.

There are 17% undecided. These will be swayed by the campaign. The campaign is going to be negative. The negative ads will be aired by both Clinton and her opponent. There will be nothing that will convince these 17% who have not made up their mind about Hillary to start to like her. It is expected that the majority of these will start to hate her.

And, due to her negative campaigning, some of the people who used to have a positive opinion of her are going to start to view her negatively. I predict that she will end up in a below 40% positive territory. And you don't get elected with such low positives.



But she knows this and might choose not to run because of this.

Is this what Republicans tell themselves to make themselves feel better? Because this looks like fantasy that isn't based on anything.

[Brittain33]

100% name recognition doesn't mean "no one can ever change their opinion or how they describe their opinion of a politician."

[dmmidmi]

100% name recognition doesn't mean "no one can ever change their opinion or how they describe their opinion of a politician."

No, but it is a lot harder to move the opinion needle on a politician that is the very definition of a known commodity than it is to move the opinion needle on someone who is only now entering the national spotlight.

[Brittain33]

100% name recognition doesn't mean "no one can ever change their opinion or how they describe their opinion of a politician."

No, but it is a lot harder to move the opinion needle on a politician that is the very definition of a known commodity than it is to move the opinion needle on someone who is only now entering the national spotlight.

This is what I was responding to:

"And because she has 100% name recognition, everybody has already heard of her, so she can't get any more positives. So, her ceiling is 43% positive."

[whanztastic]

Everyone under 38 in 2016 weren't adults during the Clinton administration, that's a large group who will be reassessing and forming new political opinions about Secretary Clinton.

[Mr. Morden]

What we should be looking at two years from the election is not the polls but positives/negatives of candidates. Hillary has 40% negatives with 100% name recognition. Negatives stay. People who form a negative opinion about somebody will keep that negative opinion.

That's true.  That's why public figures with high name recognition never see their popularity change much over time.  E.g.:

[whanztastic]

Another point - the most recognized Republican is -7, Jeb would be in trouble from the start.

[Ljube]

100% name recognition doesn't mean "no one can ever change their opinion or how they describe their opinion of a politician."

No, but it is a lot harder to move the opinion needle on a politician that is the very definition of a known commodity than it is to move the opinion needle on someone who is only now entering the national spotlight.

This is what I was responding to:

"And because she has 100% name recognition, everybody has already heard of her, so she can't get any more positives. So, her ceiling is 43% positive."

I wrote that assuming a negative campaign. If she had a positive message in her campaign and avoided going negative on her opponent, she could increase her positives.

[Ljube]

Another point - the most recognized Republican is -7, Jeb would be in trouble from the start.

Yes, DOA.

[Person Man]

Ted might behave too smug and Ivy League for a lot of Teabaggers.

He's also way too insincere.

I had a professor who went to school with Ted. From what I understand, he makes Louis XVI look like Mother Teresa. In 2006, the Republicans ran a really bad campaign for Governor in Wyoming. Their motto was "A Real Republican!" Guess what Ted Cruz is?