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.
