Hillary Clinton favorable rating

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A picture is worth 1000 words here.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

[Phony Moderate]

Yeah, and it's not just a case of 'oh, she's running for office now so it was inevitable.' Both Obama and McCain maintained impressive favorables throughout most of the 2008 cycle.

[Crumpets]

Hillary's approval rating goes up and down all the time. Right now, all the Sanders supporters are giving her negative ratings, even though they probably rated her positively while she was SoS. It might count against her in the primaries (although having a -7 approval rating and a +32.5 spread on RCP isn't the least enviable position) but it probably won't have much impact in the general.

[DrScholl]

And yet she still leads in primary polling. If the past few cycles have taught us anything it is that the favorables don't always line up with how an actual vote might turnout.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yeah, and it's not just a case of 'oh, she's running for office now so it was inevitable.' Both Obama and McCain maintained impressive favorables throughout most of the 2008 cycle.

2008 is like a century ago. The electorate now is ten times more polarized than in those days.
That's the reason also why Obama can't break 47-48% approval despite an improving economy and major foreign policy successes.

[Kingpoleon]

Yeah, and it's not just a case of 'oh, she's running for office now so it was inevitable.' Both Obama and McCain maintained impressive favorables throughout most of the 2008 cycle.

2008 is like a century ago. The electorate now is ten times more polarized than in those days.
That's the reason also why Obama can't break 47-48% approval despite an improving economy and major foreign policy successes.

The economy grows by 2%, mostly for the wealthy. As for a major foreign policy success, 58% of Americans oppose the nuclear deal for Congress. Cuba is more divisive. At least H. W., besides a stagnant 2-3% growth could claim actual foreign policy success.

[Mehmentum]

Right now:

Unfavorable: 48.4
Favorable: 41.5

There's no denying that a -7 favorability is is an unfavorable (get it?) place to be in.  However, look at Obama's approvals.

Disapprove: 50%
Approve: 45.6%

Obama's not in too good of a position either, a -4.5 approval rating isn't a nice position either.  Clinton's unfavorable score is actually lower than his disapproval rating.  Its just that her favorable score is in much lower than his approval rating.

She's not in a hole she can't dig herself out of.  If the email situation blows over and the party unifies behind her once she's nominated, its likely that she's return to break-even.  Of course, if she's indicted, its game over for her.

[HillOfANight]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/upshot/likable-enough-clintons-exaggerated-favorability-problem.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149225/obama-weekly-average-approval-holds-term-low.aspx

Obama had 40% approval August 2011, went on to beat Romney by 4.

[7,052,770]

Any reason why her favorables from 2007-2008 aren't on the chart? That would be a lot more relevant to her 2016 chances than what it was when she wasn't a candidate.

[Maxwell]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/upshot/likable-enough-clintons-exaggerated-favorability-problem.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149225/obama-weekly-average-approval-holds-term-low.aspx

Obama had 40% approval August 2011, went on to beat Romney by 4.

It's a matter of relative favorable ratings too - Mitt Romney and George HW Bush were absolutely toxic.

[Mehmentum]

Any reason why her favorables from 2007-2008 aren't on the chart? That would be a lot more relevant to her 2016 chances than what it was when she wasn't a candidate.

[Mr. Morden]

Any reason why her favorables from 2007-2008 aren't on the chart? That would be a lot more relevant to her 2016 chances than what it was when she wasn't a candidate.

Here's a chart that tracks her favorability going all the way back to 1993:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/upshot/is-hillary-clinton-really-in-danger-of-losing-the-primary.html?ref=topics&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

Though also note from that Cohn piece:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RFayette]

I think the big difference is that even a few months ago, Hillary was the Democratic "uber candidate" with a massive electability advantage compared to other Dems, sky-high name recognition, and crushing poll numbers.  Now, she's a fairly generic Democrat, with some flaws, who still polls decently, especially in the national polls. 

Yes, Hillary's fallen from her pedestal as Secretary of State, and she fell a bit more than I suspected, but I don't think you could really say she's in that much trouble right now, unless you're a Bernie (or GOP) hack.