First Read points out that in a Clinton-Trump contest, "both parties would be nominating their most UNPOPULAR candidates":
* Hillary Clinton: 37% positive, 50% negative (-13)
* Donald Trump: 28% positive, 59% negative (-31)
Ted Cruz is at a negative 15; Rubio, -3.
All of these negatives actually mean something in terms of aggregate disapproval. What's interesting is that Clinton's net negative, after a quarter-century of GOP remorselessness, is less than half of Trump's, who's been on the political stage for less than one year.
There is also, among First Read's list, one prominent positive that means nothing whatsoever:
* Bernie Sanders: 42% positive, 35% negative (+7)
Go ahead. Put Brooklyn-socialist Bernie in a general-election contest and just watch his numbers reverse into Trump territory, plus some. A billion or two of Citizens United Koch-brothers cash and Karl Rove boodle would set all but the most progressive voters' hair on fire.
Bernie himself? He's agin super PACs, you know, on principled grounds — hence the genuinely wicked Republican "status quo" would laugh all the way to his slaughter.
I'm still trying to understand the wisdom behind setting oneself up for a powerful kick in the ass. And I'm failing at it.