There’s no denying that Clinton is among the most polarizing figures in American politics, with staunch opposition from almost every Republican in the country. Add modest Democratic discontent—evidenced by the surprising popularity of Sanders—a series of highly publicized scandals, and Clinton’s legitimate problems with secrecy, and you have a recipe for her low ratings.
But that, I think, is as far as we can go. Beyond a few generalities about Clinton’s present media narrative and the overall landscape of the race, these polls just don’t tell us much. If anything, the breathless media coverage of the results is a good reminder of how not to interpret polls and what everyone should have learned from coverage of the 2012 presidential election.
The big thing is that this early in an election cycle, polls don’t tell us anything. They aren’t predictive or especially useful. For example, at roughly this point in 2011, Barack Obama was a goner. With a net negative job approval rating, he was behind in key swing states and losing to a generic Republican in a nationwide matchup. But the election came, and the picture changed: Discontented Democrats returned to his corner, and the race tightened to a virtual tossup. With economic growth on his side, Barack Obama won, with a victory that matched those fundamentals.
