Politico/Morning Consult: Clinton +6

[Gass3268]

Clinton 42% (0)
Trump 36% (0)
Johnson 9% (-1)
Stein 4% (+1)

[BoAtlantis]

So no change of minds.

Not surprised.

[Dr. Arch]

So no change of minds.

Not surprised.

Need more time.

[ApatheticAustrian]

according to MC hillary clearly won the debate...a good result, underlining the general consent that trump failed on wednesday.

[Mr. Morden]

Dems
Clinton 84%
Trump 8%
Johnson 2%
Stein 2%

GOP
Trump 78%
Johnson 9%
Clinton 6%
Stein 2%

Indies
Clinton 31%
Trump 27%
Johnson 16%
Stein 9%

As usual, Johnson draws more from Trump while Stein draws more from Clinton:

People who support Clinton in the 2-way matchup:
Clinton 89%
Johnson 5%
Stein 3%
Trump 0%

People who support Trump in the 2-way matchup:
Trump 89%
Johnson 7%
Stein 2%
Clinton 1%

men: Clinton +1
women: Clinton +9
income under $50k: Clinton +4
income $50-100k: Clinton +9
income over $100k: Clinton +5
whites: Trump +4
blacks: Clinton +61
Hispanics: Clinton +40
urban: Clinton +31
suburban: Clinton/Trump tie
rural: Trump +9
Midwest: Clinton +3
Northeast: Clinton +4
South: Trump +4
West: Clinton +16

fav/unfav %:
Pence 41/36% for +5%
Kaine 32/35% for -3%
McMullin 10/14% for -4%
Johnson 21/34% for -13%
Clinton 43/56% for -13%
Trump 37/61% for -24%

Relevant for 2020:
Paul Ryan 33/41% for -8%

So we have yet another poll which shows the West as Clinton’s strongest region…stronger than both the Midwest and Northeast.  Just what kind of numbers is she going to pull in California?

Also, looks like about a quarter of voters claim to have an opinion of McMullin.

[ApatheticAustrian]

guess her winninh rates in new england won't be groundbreaking if those are to be believed.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

guess her winninh rates in new england won't be groundbreaking if those are to be believed.

They're not.

[psychprofessor]

If Turmp is winning whites by four this won't be a 6 point race

[BoAtlantis]

How does Muffin already have net negative favorable rating?

The average American hasn't even heard of Muffin. Heck, about 30-40% don't even know Johnson according to polls I've seen.

Maybe Trumpsters are salty about him creeping up in Utah?

[Mr. Morden]

How does Muffin already have net negative favorable rating?

It's common for people with low name recognition to have negative favorabilities.  I think there's some fraction of poll respondents who just say "unfavorable" when they haven't heard of someone rather than "don't know".  Maybe they don't want to admit to being ignorant of the person in question, and feel it's safer to say "unfavorable" in case the person they don't know is someone awful?  I don't know.  But we've seen similar things before with unknown presidential candidates in the primaries.  E.g., O'Malley was getting #s like that early on when no one had heard of him yet.

[Figueira]

That regional breakdown makes no sense.

How does Muffin already have net negative favorable rating?

It's common for people with low name recognition to have negative favorabilities.  I think there's some fraction of poll respondents who just say "unfavorable" when they haven't heard of someone rather than "don't know".  Maybe they don't want to admit to being ignorant of the person in question, and feel it's safer to say "unfavorable" in case the person they don't know is someone awful?  I don't know.  But we've seen similar things before with unknown presidential candidates in the primaries.  E.g., O'Malley was getting #s like that early on when no one had heard of him yet.

In other words, they're worried about hearing on the news "Shocking poll suggests that only 60% of Americans have a negative opinion of evil dictator Evan McMullin!"

[BoAtlantis]

How does Muffin already have net negative favorable rating?

It's common for people with low name recognition to have negative favorabilities.  I think there's some fraction of poll respondents who just say "unfavorable" when they haven't heard of someone rather than "don't know".  Maybe they don't want to admit to being ignorant of the person in question, and feel it's safer to say "unfavorable" in case the person they don't know is someone awful?  I don't know.  But we've seen similar things before with unknown presidential candidates in the primaries.  E.g., O'Malley was getting #s like that early on when no one had heard of him yet.

More media exposure correlates with negative favorable rating. It's fairly early for him to already be in the negative.

[Mr. Morden]

How does Muffin already have net negative favorable rating?

It's common for people with low name recognition to have negative favorabilities.  I think there's some fraction of poll respondents who just say "unfavorable" when they haven't heard of someone rather than "don't know".  Maybe they don't want to admit to being ignorant of the person in question, and feel it's safer to say "unfavorable" in case the person they don't know is someone awful?  I don't know.  But we've seen similar things before with unknown presidential candidates in the primaries.  E.g., O'Malley was getting #s like that early on when no one had heard of him yet.

More media exposure correlates with negative favorable rating.

I'm sorry, but that's just straight up false.  Politicians with very low name recognition are usually in the red on favorability.  Go back and look up the very early 2016 polls, and you'll see what I mean.  E.g., in this 2012 poll of Iowa, O'Malley and Schweitzer have rock bottom name recognition, and they're both net unfavorable:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_072312.pdf

In fact, I think PPP has tested the favorability of a fictitious name before, and the person ended up with a net unfavorable rating.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

How does Muffin already have net negative favorable rating?

It's common for people with low name recognition to have negative favorabilities.  I think there's some fraction of poll respondents who just say "unfavorable" when they haven't heard of someone rather than "don't know".  Maybe they don't want to admit to being ignorant of the person in question, and feel it's safer to say "unfavorable" in case the person they don't know is someone awful?  I don't know.  But we've seen similar things before with unknown presidential candidates in the primaries.  E.g., O'Malley was getting #s like that early on when no one had heard of him yet.

More media exposure correlates with negative favorable rating.

I'm sorry, but that's just straight up false.  Politicians with very low name recognition are usually in the red on favorability.  Go back and look up the very early 2016 polls, and you'll see what I mean.  E.g., in this 2012 poll of Iowa, O'Malley and Schweitzer have rock bottom name recognition, and they're both net unfavorable:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_072312.pdf

In fact, I think PPP has tested the favorability of a fictitious name before, and the person ended up with a net unfavorable rating.

The real question in my mind is this: Is one's propensity for holding negative opinions about individuals they have never heard of indicative of anything else?  If you rate a fictitious name negatively, are you more likely to be conservative/Republican?

[ProudModerate2]

So no change of minds.
Not surprised.

Need more time.

If things stay the way they are right now, for the presidential race, then I will be happy (with a Clinton +7ish or +8ish lead).