Just how does this square with the “50% wouldn’t vote for her” notion?
I’m guessing that the anti-Clinton contingent is heavily concentrated in states that are safely Republican anyway, and are not a significant presence in the swing states.
Of course, this was taken before Clinton’s stumble in the debate. She doesn’t weather scrutiny well.
People ask that a lot here and I think the answer is the same as those generic congressional polls that show the Dems have a 12-15% lead over Republicans . . . but when it comes time to vote, it is 435 separate races. Hillary's negatives are incredible (and I'm sure much of this reflects DEMS dissatisfied with her, too), but when you actually put a name next to the Republican, most of the indies and Dems who say they would "never" vote for her will change their minds and say, "Oh, well except for THAT Republican." The trouble is, "THAT" Republican is pretty much any of our guys to these indies and Dems.
That's how the MSM almost won it for Gore in 2000--the late-breaking news story (and media frenzy over) Bush's 24-year-old DUI arrest probably caused several million strongly religious voters not to vote for him.
Just how does this square with the “50% wouldn’t vote for her” notion?
But it’s still to early to tell what will transpire over the next months and especially those two months just after the Party Conventions...
Easy. You can’t assume the fifty percent is equally distributed into all states. She could get 52 in one state and 42 in another. In fact, in a lot of states she’ll pull more than fifty percent. Doesn’t mean she’ll pull more than fifty percent across all states.