By 61% to 34% voters in the newest Quinnipiac poll say Hillary is not honest

[cali]

or trustworthy. That's even worse than Trump.

I don't think she's as admired or beloved as many of her supporters do.

Her favorable ratings is awful and the undeniable trend is clear

You can bla
me it on right wing attacks or the MSM or pernicious progressives or whatever, but it's a big problem.

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Q-poll-Trump-numbers-soar-Hillary-continues-6468552.php

[virtualobserver]

1. it brings another word to mind....vulnerable

hardly a word to describe the ideal nominee

[Dragonfli]

8. I like your sig graphic and have a bumper sticker you may enjoy

Two versions actually.

[Motown_Johnny]

2. You can't defend yourself from smears when only ~34% believe you.

Terrible candidate.

[leveymg]

58. In 2008, Obama said: "47 percent of the country against her. That's a hard place to start if you

want to win an election." She's down another ten to 15 points now. By Nov. 2016, there will be another ten percent who won't vote for her, no matter what. Time for Hillary to step aside while there's still time to sort out a viable Democratic candidate.

[roguevalley]

90. I saw this bumpersticker this morning

Life's a b***h
Don't vote for Hillary.

You have to have steel bearings to run for elected office.

[morningfog]

3. That's only because you can't trust her.

[ismnotwasm]

4. Yawn

Last edited Thu Aug 27, 2015, 01:30 PM - Edit history (3)

It may be a "big problem" but nowhere near as big as some people make it out to be. Do we like or despise MSM today anyway. I can never keep track.

Oops--had to change a letter

[MBS]

6. Quinnipiac poll is a respectable polling organization.

All polling is imperfect, almost by definition, but I personally take their polls seriously.

[George II]

10. Many people would love it to be a "big problem", but it really isn't nor will it ever be.

[cali]

13. do post evidence of that claim

[George II]

19. The ballot will simply have the two names and their affilliation:

Clinton (D0
XXXX (R)

Nowhere on the ballow will there be anything about "unfavorability".

[ismnotwasm]

24. ...

[Genghis Khan]

34. And theres your problem right there

It won't be Clinton on that ballot

[jeff47]

38. Because the only way voters could have an opinion about "unfavorability"

is if it was literally on the ballot.

You have an amazing amount of contempt for the people you need to help you.

[George II]

52. Where do you get that offensive "contempt" angle? Who do I have "contempt" for?

Does it have to deteriorate down to the level of insults again????

[tularetom]

63. It's entirely possible that the ballot will look like that

But if it does, you should be prepared for President XXXX (R) to take office in Jan 2017.

Clinton could possibly bribe, buy or bully her way to the Democratic nomination, but she will not prevail in the general election.

[George II]

66. Again, going back to the polls, Clinton is leading each of the republicans.....

....by a bigger margin than Sanders.

How is Clinton going to "bribe, buy, or bully" her was to the Democratic nomination - the delegates (other than Super delegates) are determined by the voters of each state - the SAME voters who, along with non-Democratic voters, who will be voting in the General Election.

To claim that Clinton will "bribe, buy, or bully" is irresponsible and offensive.

[pocoloco]

79. Kery is gonna win in a fucking landslide!!

.....oops!

[840high]

37. Yes it is.

[cali]

12. do tell. what does the MSM have to do with Quinnipiac?

And sorry, it's an enormous problem.

[ismnotwasm]

25. Sorry, it's not an enourmous problem -- since you mentioned MSM

I couldn't tell if they were in favor or disfavor today.

[moobu2]

5. What do you expect after months of relentless attacks

by the media and Bernie Sanders supporters?

[Paka]

7. And the attacks will stop when she runs in the general??

[George II]

15. She's shown that she can successfully repel the attacks, and has been repelling them for........

.....decades.

I really get a kick out of these "negativity" or "unfavorability" polls. "Unfavorability" won't be on the ballot in November 2016.

As much as some would like to think otherwise, the American electorate can see through all that garbage.

[Lorien]

88. She didn't repel them well enough to beat Obama.

I didn't trust her then and I trust her even less now.

[George II]

93. It was a totally different situation in 2008, and even then she barely lost.

[cali]

14. bwahaha. anyone who thinks that attacks by Sanders supporters

have anything to do with this, isn't living in the real world.

[George II]

16. Then why do you consistently post anti-Hillary OPs and very few pro-Sanders OPs?

[cali]

21. that is simply false, and proportionately there are far fucking more Bernie bashing

threads by you Hillary supporters than the other way around. And this isn't bashing. It's not a personal attack on her. It's poll findings.

[Fearless]

28. Check your ignore filter

[Fearless]

27. Ohh those awful Bernie supporters!

Save Hillary from those awful opponent's of hers! Reality check, it's a primary and she's not the anointed one.

[Ed Suspicious]

71. She wouldn't look so awful if the mirror Sanders is holding up to her candidacy weren't so clear.

[roguevalley]

91. I expect better politics from her, moobu2. she has dragged out the email thing and it

adds to her negatives. She is a terrible politicer. People will have their perceptions whether anyone feels its 'right' or not. What is she doing to undo that? Nothing. She's just digging that hole deeper every day. If she loses this it will be her own fault because she can't pivot to take things back in hand. If you run for office, that is essential.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Could be why Biden has been

tossed into the mix. A little less baggage, but still represents everything the DNC wants in a candidate. Surely the DNC has done internal polling. They know Bernie's going to win the Primary unless they can stop him - enter Joe Biden.

[stevenleser]

11. Yet in the matchups, she still defeats the 'pugs, so it isnt the problem you make it out to be.

That is an opinion that is subject to change. It's not a deeply held belief like, oh let's say, "I would never consider voting for a Socialist" like 50% of the country says now.

[cali]

17. she is within the margin of error

And the trend shows strongly that voters don't trust her.

[stevenleser]

20. She hasn't even started campaigning. I'm not worried. Once there is a GOP nominee and folks get

to examine them and what they believe, it's not going to be an issue.

[ram2008]

31. She's been campaigning since 07, if not earlier n/t

[stevenleser]

35. That's a cute thing to say, but inaccurate. nt

[Fearless]

32. So you admit she thinks she can coast to a nomination?

[stevenleser]

36. I'm really not sure how you got that from what I wrote. nt

[Fearless]

40. You said she hasn't really started campaigning yet

If not now when?

[stevenleser]

45. Correct, she hasn't. And the "when" is a very good question.

She is clearly trying to avoid the mistakes she made in 2008 where she spent a ton of money way too early and ran out after the first couple of primary contests and also did not build the infrastructure in caucus states past the first two weeks of the primary season.

I think her team is going to have her wait to spend any serious campaign money (and thus not do any serious campaigning) until it is likely to do the most good for her and that may not be for a while.

[Fearless]

47. She has all the money she needs.

And did in 08 too. She just didn't know when to quit.

[stevenleser]

49. That you say that shows you really don't understand. nt

[Fearless]

51. She didn't lose in 08 for lack of money

She had a lack of money because she'd LOST weeks before she quit.

And Sanders has much less money than her... So what's the logic of this argument?

[stevenleser]

54. She lost because she ran out of money early because of bad strategy. The same bad strategy caused

her campaign to not think it needed an infrastructure in the caucus states past the third week or so.

The US is a massive media environment. A national campaign requires a huge amount of staff. There is no such thing as "enough money". Any money a national candidate gets has to be meticulously managed.

[Fearless]

55. The mentality that money buys power is foolish

And one of the reasons she will lose again.

[stevenleser]

56. Use of strawmen is also foolish. And you have done that several times now. nt

[Fearless]

59. I stated fact, you changed the subject...

Rinse and repeat. Insert ad homenium attacks in between. All distractions. No content.

[stevenleser]

68. You haven't stated any facts yet and have deliberately altered what I wrote several times to

attack points I did not make.

[leveymg]

64. Bad strategy was running despite her then high negatives (47%), now 13 points higher. Strategy is

another term for the loss of confidence by key backers that she could win the General Election in 2008. Her prospects are even worse this time, and deteriorating by the day.

You're talking about campaign management, not strategy.

[stevenleser]

69. Bad strategy would be running despite the fact that 50% of the country will not vote for you, period

That's Sanders, not Hillary.

Everything you wrote is wrong.

[leveymg]

70. A couple months ago, I wrote it was really a 3-way tie between HRC, Jeb, and Sanders.

That is, if you calculate powerful and enduring negatives, the "I will never vote for him/her" factor, as I called it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251452687 Time is proving me right - a lot of people seem to have woken up to this, including Joe Biden.

Boy, you still really don't get it.

[George II]

95. Trust her or not, she's still way ahead of her competitors:

Clinton Sanders Margin
National 49 23 2.1X
Iowa 51 27 1.9X
NH 40 44 0.9X
S Car 78 8 9.8X
N Car 54 21 2.6X
Florida 57 16 3.6X
Ohio 47 17 2.8X

Except for New Hampshire (naturally) she's leading her closest competitor by about 2-1 or more.

If that's the result of people not trusting her, I guess being mistrusted isn't such a bad thing.

[6chars]

101. Obama said she was "likeable enough"

I don't expect her to ever win a popularity contest in this country. But people think she is strong, smart, effective. So they don't have to have a beer with her. If she gets the votes, she will be President.

[short circuit]

18. I wonder what the Hillary supporters are going to do?

Even more deflection?

More denials? More showing irrelevant national polls showing that Clinton's numbers has not dropped? When was the last time a Democrat got nominated and won with such high unfavorable as Clinton?

[cali]

23. what is denial, Alex?

[Vattel]

114. It's Alec, not Alex, and you should apologize for your lack of accuracy here. (Just kidding)

[Puzzledtraveller]

30. or the convenient

ignoring of Biden considering a run. Which that goes further in my opinion since Obama expressed his support for a Biden run I think it may very well be likely that there is more and potentially crippling stuff to come of the HC email affair. Biden has been greenlighted by the president. That in and of itself speaks volumes.

[Puzzledtraveller]

22. No worries, according to the many Bagdad Bobs of the HC campaign

Everything is fine, she is running a perfect campaign and is putting on a clinic on how to run for president and she tops ALL the polls and has endorsements!

[Ino]

33. And she has all the money! (nt)

[short circuit]

85. and is universally loved by her Facebook and Twitter fans!

[onehandle]

26. Q poll: Trump numbers soar past Sanders' numbers, Hillary continues to outpoll all

Fixed the actual headline of the article you linked to.

You're welcome.

[Purveyor]

29. No one can will in the general with 'honesty issues' such as hers. eom

[brooklynite]

39. ...and a sizeable chunk of those people are willing to vote for her.

[brooklynite]

41. Sort of depends on the Republican, doesn't it?

[cali]

42. perhaps, but many are not.

[ericson00]

43. I'll go with polls that don't oversample Republicans please

and polls not from 3rd rate party schools that need attention bc they can't move up USNWR

[Fearless]

50. Ohh ad homenium attacks are fun!

[pnwmom]

83. The poll did oversample for Rethugs, as Q. polls usually do.

And some DUers choose to repeatedly post these skewed polls for some strange reason.

While Dems lead Rethugs in the overall population, Q polls usually flip the ratio.


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274

From August 20 - 25, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,563 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones. The survey includes 666 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percentage points and 647 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 3.9 percentage points.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/183887/democrats-regain-edge-party-affiliation.aspx

PRINCETON, N.J. -- In the second quarter of 2015, Democrats regained an advantage over Republicans in terms of Americans' party affiliation. A total of 46% of Americans identified as Democrats (30%) or said they are independents who lean toward the Democratic Party (16%), while 41% identified as Republicans (25%) or leaned Republican (16%).

[HappyPlace]

44. This can only go in one direction, prolonged decline.

There are no remedies, her "positives" have been so epically overplayed that they're all exhausted.

Everyone has now heard of her, there's nothing left to be done.

Bernie has the advantage, there's a newness to him, the honesty and courage.

This won't, this can't, end well for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I, for one, am ready for change.

[HassleCat]

46. The problem here

Obviously, every single Republican respondent is going to list Hillary Clinton as the most untrustworthy person in the race. The hatred for her among Republicans fills the air like farts at a frat party. Among Democrats, her numbers may be slipping, but they're still pretty good. When the polls match her up against any of the Republican candidates, she does pretty well. Yes, I realize Sanders has better "I trust this person" numbers than Clinton, and I like that, but many people will still vote for Clinton even though they don't trust her. This helps Sanders, obviously, but people are still stuck on that, "I like him but he can't win..." thing, and that's OK because we still have some time in the primary season. I hope democrats decide they want a candidate who is honest and consistently stands up for Democratic ideals, but they could still give in to their pragmatic impulses and choose a candidate they don't trust who they feel can win the general election.

[MaggieD]

61. Except she is not dishonest....

Do you go along with all the other things the right wing smear machine says and does, or just this one? Honest question. No disrespect intended. I am just stunned by how widely supposed Democrats have bought into the rethug smears.

[HassleCat]

65. I know

As I pointed out, many of these polls include Republicans, every last one of whom is going to name her as the biggest liar on earth. Take them away, and many Democrats still perceive her as dishonest, slippery, conniving, etc. but say they will voter for her. When you compare her with her Republican counterparts, I would say she comes out at least as direct and forthright as any of them. She only suffers by comparison to Sanders, who is known for speaking directly, not beating around the bush, etc. Of course, both candidates have a public image, and part of that image is probably undeserved, because it's... well... image. Sanders is my favorite, but he's not a saint, even though it benefits Clinton's detractors to portray him that way for some added contrast. So this is probably the way in which the Sanders candidacy hurts Clinton the most. It enables this false comparison, this idea that it's a choice between good and evil, a false dichotomy. Without Sanders, Clinton would be more often compared to her Republican rivals, and that would be a more favorable comparison for her. "Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump: who do you feel is more trustworthy?"

[AtomicKitten]

53. In time that will fester eroding her support and continue her downward trend.

[MaggieD]

57. So I will ask you since Cali hasn't answered....

What does it say about Bernie if she is still so far ahead of him given this stunning information? I mean WOW, they won't even vote for Bernie over someone they consider to be dishonest? Not a great endorsement for him, is it?

[ismnotwasm]

60. Point

Point indeed.

[George II]

62. That is exactly that - if she's SO bad why is she so far ahead of Sanders and the other candidates?

And while her lead is presumably "falling" and we were told that the huge lead was because of Sanders' name recognition and the fact that the undecided category was so big. But the undecided voter number is dropping and Sanders has been all over the news the last month or more.

The fact is Hillary Clinton is still the most desirable candidate in the eyes of voting Democrats.

[morningfog]

67. Her support will continue to fade. Hence the Biden talk.

The support will track and trail the dishonesty. As trust is lost, the voters will turn elsewhere and the polls will reflect it.

Would YOU vote for someone you don't trust? I'll wait 3 months for your answer.

[grasswire]

75. I would like to see the polling broken down by gender.

It is very possible that Hillary's poll numbers remain high despite the distrust because of women voters. They might indeed be willing to vote for a woman even if they don't fully trust her.

[short circuit]

86. And looks like MaggieD is off the air ... (transparency page is shown)

We'll see her (probably) in November.

[ismnotwasm]

104. And you point this out

Why?

[SidDithers]

111. ...

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

116. Welcome to DU.

You're a quick study.

[retrowire]

72. that stinks for the hillary fans

But Bernie is the president for me.

[Thinkingabout]

73. 61% including Republicans sounds really good to me. Whatever the negative comment the

Republicans poll yes so I don't worry. It is conspiracy theory and no proof.

[pnwmom]

74. The news media has been hammering her with the false email story for months.

Not surprising that it's had an effect, but it's delusional to think that any of our candidates are safe from an unfair attack.

[wiggs]

82. Quite right. MSM and the 90% of talk radio that's RW think this is the only

issue worth talking about with respect to Dem primaries. Accurate information and perspective is never discussed, only key buzz words. And when the propaganda moves the public opinion needle, it just rewards the behavior and encourages more.

We have almost no ability to work through an issue in public discourse anymore. There's no incentive for 'journalists', pundits, media outlets, candidates to logically discuss and resolve something like this...an inflamed, uninformed, ignorant, attentive public is more desirable.

[liberal N proud]

76. Propaganda works!

[Lorien]

89. Who needs propaganda?

When she says crap like "you'll find out where I stand on that issue when I'm President" it does NOT inspire trust or confidence! Hillary is Hillary's worst enemy.

[fbc]

77. HillaryPublicOpinion.png

kinda says it all:



Any Hillary Fans want to add those up into positive and negative categories?

I'll start you off with the top 5...

liar, dishonest, untrustworthy: 394
experience, strong: 141

[ismnotwasm]

103. Yawn.

[PatrynXX]

78. I'd be one of them

honestly. Two Conservatives. Running. Naturally people will take the one running as one than the fake one.. Getting more people to recognize that Conservatives control a large block of Democrats that takes longer.

[pnwmom]

80. That poll interviewed more REPUBLICANS than DEMOCRATS -- which doesn't reflect

the population. So, as usual for this pollster, the results are a pile of Republican-skewed crap.

It isn't news that Rethugs don't like Hillary.

And it isn't new for you to post a Rethug-biased Quinnipiac poll without checking the internals.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274

From August 20 - 25, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,563 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones. The survey includes 666 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percentage points and 647 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 3.9 percentage points.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/183887/democrats-regain-edge-party-affiliation.aspx

PRINCETON, N.J. -- In the second quarter of 2015, Democrats regained an advantage over Republicans in terms of Americans' party affiliation. A total of 46% of Americans identified as Democrats (30%) or said they are independents who lean toward the Democratic Party (16%), while 41% identified as Republicans (25%) or leaned Republican (16%).

[morningfog]

84. Your chief complaint is that it used 19 more republicans out of 1,563 total polled? lol.

[pnwmom]

87. When combined with the fact that Dems actually outnumber Rethugs,

that is a significant flip of the results.

It is curious, also, that they don't report how many women vs. men were in their sample. That would be important information to know.

[morningfog]

92. It is not a "significant flip."

The poll used 42.6% Repubs and 41.4% Dems.

Using your numbers of 46% Democrats and 41% identified as Republicans, the difference should be +5 points Dem.

The poll was about +1 point R, so a 6 point swing. Not a "flip" when the total number was 61% to 34%. You overstate the effect that the polling sample had.

[blm]

81. What were polls on ACA? Benghazi? Gun control? Iran nuke deal? Oh yeah, they were positive BEFORE

the corpmedia ran with the GOP narrative nonstop for months. Even improved healthcare access and even the fvckin' Iran nuclear deal.

Applauding the successful efforts of the RW lie machine. Where's MediWhoresOnline when you need them?

[Keep-Left]

94. you know I find it insulting

that I come on the Democratic underground and watch left leaning people be happy that RW lies hurt our front runner.

What is going on here? I love Sanders and would vote for him in a heart beat. But bashing on Hillary is the wrong way to do this. Even Sanders himself will not do it.

Your doing the RW machines work for them. There is a very good chance and I would say the most likely chance that Hillary will be our nominee. You don't bash other Dems like this or be happy the RW is hurting our leader. We should be defending her at this time.

Yes I agree more with Sanders then her on most issues but we should still disagree respectfully and don't let this email smear job hurt the odds on favorite to win the nomination.

[George II]

98. Welcome to DU, in two regards. First, good you're here. Second, your observation is the trend here

[blm]

100. Exactly how I feel. And I have been saying it as a longtime HRC critic.

The difference is that I also work on GOTV in a very purple state and would prefer my fellow Democrats make my job easier, not 10X harder.

I. Am. Not. Carelessly. Stupid.

[George II]

96. Why did you use a totally misleading (I won't say "dishonest") subject line?

That's not even close to the headline of the article you reference, and isn't even directly said in the article.

It's an article about a POLL (but it doesn't even have a link to the poll or the actual question posed. Here is the link to the poll for everyone to see:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274

Polls don't "say" anything, but this poll does indicate flaws.

The fact is that the poll didn't even ask the same questions about all of the candidates! What kind of poll would ask a series of questions about some candidates and not the same questions about the others running for the same nomination? Certainly not a very credible way to determine the opinions of the electorate.

Now here are a few interesting results of this poll.

Question: Would you say that - Hillary Clinton (Bernie Sanders) cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not?

Clinton 46%
Sanders 44%

Question: Is your opinion of Hillary Clinton (Bernie Sanders) favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about her (him)?

Clinton favorable 39, unfavorable 51, haven't heard enough 8, refused 2
Sanders favorable 32, unfavorable 28, haven't heard enough 39, refused 1

The way these polls are presented by some, one could also say that Clinton's favorability rating is higher than Sanders' by 39-32, and that would be true. Would it be fair? No. But then again who is to say that most of those 39% who haven't heard enough won't find him unfavorable?

As for the question about the word that first comes to mind, that was only asked about three of the more than 20 candidates:

Question: What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of (Jeb Bush) (Donald Trump) (Hillary Clinton)

All things considered, this is a very poorly constructed and conducted poll. It makes certain assumptions going in and doesn't even ask the same things about all of the many candidates.

But to get back to my original question - why is the subject line of this OP completely different from the subject and tone of the linked article, negatively skewed toward Hillary Clinton? It is basically a quote of a single line WAY down toward the bottom of the narrative.

[cali]

97. It's not remotely.dishonest

[George II]

99. I didn't say it was dishonest, in fact I pointed out that I wasn't GOING to say it's dishonest.

But it certainly isn't the crux of the article OR the poll, and the "result" that you report up top was to a question that wasn't even asked of any other Democratic candidate.

[Bluenorthwest]

106. I'm not going to call you ironically passive aggressive, but I will say a rose is a rose.

nt

[ismnotwasm]

102. Misleading

And I'd say Very misleading. Dishonest is your word.

[TheFarS1de]

110. No

that was second on the list for Hillary .

[spyker29]

105. Many Sander's supporters, if asked, probably said she is untrustworthy.

Even though, if she wins primary most will still vote for her.

[friendfire]

107. Hilary - Biden

Mike Barnicle had stated that the White House would be backing Biden: "The White House has a candidate and his name is Joe Biden."

He's also got a perspective on the Hilary emails. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/08/mike_barnicle_bill_clinton_was_fearless_hillary_looks_terrified.html

[hifiguy]

108. Only because she's not,

honest, that is. And I care not one whit, jot or tittle about bogus sideshows like the e-mails and Benghazi. She simply doesn't stand for anything except perhaps reproductive rights - there's no real there there. It appears to me that she wants to be POTUS mainly because that's the only thing missing from her resume.

The Clintons believe in one thing and one thing only - the personal advancement of the Clintons by any means that happen to be available. If that means being joined at the hip to Wall Street or the MIC, they're the first ones to sign up for it. Power over principle 100 times out of 100. No, thank you.

[Doctor_J]

109. she has billions to spend, and her gender

in her favor. On the issues she's either conservative or recently "evolved" - seems to be lacking in principle. But between her bankroll and the fact that many don't want a white male in the white house, I think she'll pull through.

[Bonobo]

112. It's only a flesh wound.

[Muldoon]

113. The uncertainty of polling

Interesting poll on this site showing Clinton and Trump in a face-off.Fiorina in third place.Highest polled career Republican is Kasich in fifth.You can vote and leave comments.


[link:http://www.rankopedia.com/Best-Candidate-to-win-the-2016-US-Presidential-Election/Step1/32775.htm?refresh=52913271|

[Sancho]

115. Some of this was posted in another thread, so it's not a new idea...

If you had a poll on DU of progressive voters and asked if GW Bush was a "liar" (or any other descriptor) you'd get 90% + saying YES. Now, if you added another group from Free Republic - you'd get some, but most would say NO. How do you report that mix? It depends on if you want to bash Bush (or not).

The total would be about half saying either was a "liar" or not. Sampling and reporting controls poll results - and some are not representative of the population of interest. You can't assume, like they often do on TV, that this poll means everyone thinks Hillary is a liar. You can see that 50%-60% consistently would vote FOR Hillary. The descriptor is coming from a flaw in polling that asked GOP Hillary haters to describe Hillary. You'd get the same thing if you posted on DU a poll asking to describe Bush. You'd get similar negatives if you asked repubs to describe Bernie! You'd get an overwhelming majority call him "socialist", "communist", etc. Take that result and put it with a liberal sample of 10% saying the same thing, and you get a about half giving a negative about Bernie!!

Welcome to Quinnapiac polling. In fact, in all sampling there is something called the "non ignorable non respondent". That's the people who NEVER answer polls, because they are unavailable or refuse to answer. If you could actually get them to respond, it would CHANGE the RESULTS.

One classic case from years ago was Geraldine Ferrero who thought, because of BIG CROWDS that she would be a winner. She was on the losing ticket because she thought those crowds represented the actual voters. Unbiased polling was ignored, and biased polling was used to convince Geraldine that she was on the way to being the first female VP!! YEA!!

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164602?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
"Eelworms, Bullet Holes, and Geraldine Ferraro: Some Problems with Statistical Adjustment and Some Solutions"

Bottom line: all this polling has weaknesses, bias, and often is simply wrong. That is particularly true of "open-ended" polls where you ask for descriptors (you have to interpret answers, it makes response time longer which limits the survey, etc.), depend on operators to prompt responders (bias in those asking the questions can easily confound the answers), and mixed group (repubs and liberals) polls where the stratified sample may be misleading.

It's simply wrong to take any one little part of one polls and exaggerate it into some kind of meme. Even though DUers and TV commentators do it all the time, it leads to misleading conclusions that are simply wrong. That's why I provided the example.

If you don't like Hillary, that's your choice, but using a misunderstanding of the process and results is a mistake. It's a stretch, doesn't change anyone's mind, and creates more divisiveness.