PPP national: Hillary leads all Republicans

[MT Treasurer]

Clinton (D): 46%
Rubio (R): 43%

Clinton (D): 46%
Carson (R): 43%

Clinton (R): 45%
Bush (R): 41%

Clinton (D): 45%
Christie (R): 41%

Clinton (D): 46%
Walker (R): 42%

Clinton (D): 47%
Huckabee (R): 42%

Clinton (D): 48%
Cruz (R): 42%

Clinton (D): 46%
Fiorina (R): 40%

Clinton (D): 47%
Paul (R): 40%

----

Walker (R): 40%
Sanders (D): 32%

Walker (R): 39%
O'Malley (D): 31%

Walker (R): 39%
Webb (D): 28%

Walker (R): 39%
Chafee (D): 27%

-----
Obama approval rating: 50%-45% disapprove
Clinton favorability rating: 51%-43% unfavorable
Rubio is the only 2016 candidate who is viewed at least somewhat favorably (37%-36%). Carson comes very close (31%-32%).

Typical PPP.
---

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_61615.pdf

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Surprised and somewhat confused to see Paul doing the worst here.

[Skye]

Surprised and somewhat confused to see Paul doing the worst here.

[YaBoyNY]

Surprised and somewhat confused to see Paul doing the worst here.

Paul's polling numbers fluctuate wildly based on the organization doing the polling and the week.

[IceSpear]

Surprised and somewhat confused to see Paul doing the worst here.

Paul's polling numbers fluctuate wildly based on the organization doing the polling and the week.

Though PPP just showed Paul doing best in Ohio. They also showed Hillary doing better in NC than in OH. Quite odd fluctuations they have.

[Gallium]

It is probably is just fluctuations, but Paul does worst against Hillary among women and self-identified Republicans. I think those are precisely the two groups he could fare weakest with in a general election (although he could compensate with strength among young men and independents); one reason he would be a high risk candidate.

[mds32]

It is probably is just fluctuations, but Paul does worst against Hillary among women and self-identified Republicans. I think those are precisely the two groups he could fare weakest with in a general election (although he could compensate with strength among young men and independents); one reason he would be a high risk candidate.

I agree they are likely just fluctuations. It is very early.

[pbrower2a]

The fluctuations involve Republicans.

[Maxwell]

Didn't PPP also show Rand up by 3 in Ohio?

[King]

Months of trashing everything Clinton has ever done and this is the best than can muster.

Hillary will be up double digits after the awful GOP debates.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Months of trashing everything Clinton has ever done and this is the best than can muster.

Hillary will be up double digits after the awful GOP debates.

Right, because the GOP Debates were immediately helpful to the democrats in the 2012 cycle

Per RCP, Obama led Romney 48.6-42.1% at the beginning of June, 2011 (just before Romney participated in a GOP debate for the first time). By the day after the end of the pre-primary GOP Debates (December 16, 2011), Obama's lead had decreased to 46.4-44.6%. Even allowing a little time for the final debate to sink in does not help your argument: On the day of the Iowa Caucus, Obama's lead was just 46.6-45.0%. While this doesn't mean that the 2011 GOP Debates were the (sole) reason for the decreasing Obama lead during them, it illustrates that there is no recent precedent for GOP Debates immediately increasing a democratic polling lead.

Now if you had said "after the early state primaries", you actually would have had a point - Obama had a large bounce in the weeks immediately following the florida primary, and exceeded that 48.6% number. But you said "after the debates", which there is not a recent precedent for.

[King]

Months of trashing everything Clinton has ever done and this is the best than can muster.

Hillary will be up double digits after the awful GOP debates.

Right, because the GOP Debates were immediately helpful to the democrats in the 2012 cycle

Per RCP, Obama led Romney 48.6-42.1% at the beginning of June, 2011 (just before Romney participated in a GOP debate for the first time). By the day after the end of the pre-primary GOP Debates (December 16, 2011), Obama's lead had decreased to 46.4-44.6%. Even allowing a little time for the final debate to sink in does not help your argument: On the day of the Iowa Caucus, Obama's lead was just 46.6-45.0%. While this doesn't mean that the 2011 GOP Debates were the (sole) reason for the decreasing Obama lead during them, it illustrates that there is no recent precedent for GOP Debates immediately increasing a democratic polling lead.

Now if you had said "after the early state primaries", you actually would have had a point - Obama had a large bounce in the weeks immediately following the florida primary, and exceeded that 48.6% number. But you said "after the debates", which there is not a recent precedent for.

Nice arbitrary window. The debates didn't end in 2011. As the finalists competed before NH, SC, FL, and NV in more public debates, Obama blew the thing open on Romney and never really looked back.