Emerson College: Clinton leads GOP by 2-9, only Sanders with positive favorables

[Tender Branson]

In a head-to-head contest, Clinton holds a 2-point lead over Jeb Bush (44% to 42%), an 8-point lead over Walker (49% to 41%), and a 9-point lead over Trump (49% to 40%).

The poll suggests that likely voters are not thrilled with any of the presidential candidate as all held higher negative then favorable opinions except for Sanders who had a 33% favorable and 32% unfavorable opinion.

Clinton has an overall 38% favorable and 48% unfavorable rating; Trump is at 31% to 56%, Bush at 25% to 52% and Walker at 24% to 38%.

...

Caller ID: The Emerson College Polling Society poll was conducted Sunday July 26 through
Tuesday July 28. The polling sample for the Democratic and the GOP primary consisted of 476
and 481 likely voters respectively, with a margin of error of +/-4.4% and a 95% confidence
level. The General Election sample consisted of 950 likely voters with a margin of error of
+/-3.1% and a 95% confidence level. Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response
(IVR) system. The full methodology and results can be found at www.theeecps.com.

[Phony Moderate]

Bush does consistently better in national polls than in statewide polls.

Presumably he's wooing moderates in safely blue states and/or liberal Dem voters are not yet willing to say they will vote for Hillary.

[Eraserhead]

lmao at Bush having worse favorables than Trump, serves him right.

[RFayette]

lmao at Bush having worse favorables than Trump, serves him right.

Still doing much better than Trump against Clinton

Yeah, favorables seem to only have a loose correlation with head-to-head performance.    Part of it is that people who don't like Jeb do not hate him with the passion that they would hate Trump (especially true for Latino voters) and thus are more persuadable.  The other part is that some other candidates people may like personally but would never want as President (Carson, Huckabee) or are only well-known by people with similar ideologies.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I posted elsewhere an article about how favorability has little correlation with electability. Reagan in 1980 and Clinton in 1992 were easily elected despite being personally unpopular.
Is there really anyone who believes that in such a polarized election there will be a sizable number of Democrats and Dem-leaning independents who are going to vote for Bush or Walker because they don't personally like Hillary?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I posted elsewhere an article about how favorability has little correlation with electability. Reagan in 1980 and Clinton in 1992 were easily elected despite being personally unpopular.
Is there really anyone who believes that in such a polarized election there will be a sizable number of Democrats and Dem-leaning independents who are going to vote for Bush or Walker because they don't personally like Hillary?

Plus, it kind of makes sense that those with lower recognition, would have initially higher favourables against unfavourables. I remember making the point about Scott Walker, with everyone going , "wow look at those favourables!!! and that's only with **% name recognition". There's a BIG danger in assuming that positive favourables remain as name recognition increases as well as assuming that people with high name recognition's numbers are immovable.

I understand people wanting to read stuff into every poll and see benefits for our people and horrible icky pain for those we don't support, but it's a poll 5 months before the first PRIMARY contest. Weird s*** happens, frequently, in these races.

[Landslide Lyndon]

LOL Democrats are already getting nervous and unskewing every poll.

[DrScholl]

LOL Democrats are already getting nervous and unskewing every poll.

And considering it was conservatives who created "unskewing", they of all people should know the correct definition.