IA-NBC/Marist: With Hillary's favorables in the dumpster, GOP pulls ahead of her

[Brewer]

Yes, polls 14 months before the general election are always very accurate. If only Obama had declined to run for re-election in 2011 (like you idiots are urging Clinton to do in this thread), he wouldn't have been thrown out of office in a landslide by current President Mitt Romney.

Seriously, I thought the Atlas forum's understanding of this would be a little more advanced than YouTube comment sections. Jesus christ.

[Brewer]

Favorable / Unfavorable in 2011

Barack Obama: 46 / 46
Hillary Clinton: 58 / 31



Favorable / Unfavorable now

Hillary Clinton: 32 / 61


Do you see the difference?

Never did Obama's favorable rating go negative.

http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_fav.htm

That's simply not true.

[Brewer]

Favorable / Unfavorable in 2011

Barack Obama: 46 / 46
Hillary Clinton: 58 / 31



Favorable / Unfavorable now

Hillary Clinton: 32 / 61


Do you see the difference?

Never did Obama's favorable rating go negative.

http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_fav.htm

That's simply not true.

OK, but it wasn't negative by much.
Obama has always been a likable person and he still is.

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that the poster I quoted compared the two things that weren't the same. We should compare 46/46 favorable rating of Obama then, with 32/61 rating of Hillary now.

Excellent shifting of the goalposts.

Regardless, what is your point? Polls showed Obama losing even when he had better favorables? Thank you for arguing my point for me!

[Brewer]

Her favorability has sunk in the midst of this email scandal, which neither you nor I know will or will not still be a thing come November of 2016. You're absolutely comparing apples and oranges -- Obama's favorability this time in 2011 and Hillary's right now are measured under different circumstances.

Also, Quinnipiac had Obama's favorability ranging from 47-47 to 42-53 around this time in 2011. Not sure where you're getting your numbers from. (Not trying to be snarky, just honestly am unaware of what polling agency you're using.) If elections truly were decided by favorability ratings in September of the year prior to the election, this upcoming election would consist of Hillary Clinton running to prevent President Romney from receiving a second term.

[Brewer]

Her favorability has sunk in the midst of this email scandal, which neither you nor I know will or will not still be a thing come November of 2016. You're absolutely comparing apples and oranges -- Obama's favorability this time in 2011 and Hillary's right now are measured under different circumstances.

Also, Quinnipiac had Obama's favorability ranging from 47-47 to 42-53 around this time in 2011. Not sure where you're getting your numbers from. (Not trying to be snarky, just honestly am unaware of what polling agency you're using.) If elections truly were decided by favorability ratings in September of the year prior to the election, this upcoming election would consist of Hillary Clinton running to prevent President Romney from receiving a second term.

Huff Post, Gallup, doesn't matter. It's all the same and can't be that much different.

Romney didn't have a high favorable rating at that same time (2011). It was even or net negative, can't remember exactly.

The only thing that matters right now is favorability. All else is irrelevant.
Hillary's favorability is low and it can go only one way - down. There are many reasons for that, but the principal reason is that she is a poor campaigner.

Ah, so we're all done with logical analysis? Excellent, thanks for your time!