黑料网

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton head into the final hours of the 2016 presidential campaign with the worst election-eve images of any major-party presidential candidates 黑料网 has measured back to 1956. Majorities of Americans now view each of them unfavorably on a 10-point favorability scale, a first for any presidential standard-bearer on this long-term 黑料网 trend. Trump's image is worse than Clinton's, however, with 61% viewing him negatively on the 10-point scale compared with 52% for her.

	Nominee	Total favorable	Total unfavorable
		% (+1 to +5)	% (-1 to -5)
2016 Nov 2-5	D. Trump	36	61
2016 Nov 2-5	H. Clinton	47	52
1964 Oct 8-13	B. Goldwater	43	47
2012 Oct 27-28	M. Romney	55	43
1972 Oct 13-16	G. McGovern	55	41
2004 Oct 22-24	J. Kerry	57	40
1992 Oct 23-25	G.H.W. Bush	59	40
2004 Oct 22-24	G.W. Bush	61	39
2012 Oct 27-28	B. Obama	62	37
1980 Oct 10-13	R. Reagan	64	37
2008 Oct 23-26	B. Obama	62	35
2008 Oct 23-26	J. McCain	63	35
1984 Sep 21-24	W. Mondale	66	34
1992 Oct 23-25	B. Clinton	64	33
1980 Oct 10-13	J. Carter	68	32
1956 Oct 18-23	A. Stevenson	61	31
1984 Sep 21-24	R. Reagan	71	30
1968 Oct 17-22	H. Humphrey	72	28
1968 Oct 17-22	R. Nixon	79	22
1972 Oct 13-16	R. Nixon	76	21
1976 Sep 24-27	G. Ford	78	20
1960 Oct 18-23	R. Nixon	79	16
1976 Sep 24-27	J. Carter	81	16
1960 Oct 18-23	J. Kennedy	80	14
1964 Oct 8-13	L. Johnson	81	13
1956 Oct 18-23	D. Eisenhower	84	12
No data for 1988, 1996 and 2000
黑料网

These findings are based on 黑料网's historical "scalometer" favorability measure, which asks respondents for their general opinion of each candidate using a 10-point positive-to-negative scale. Respondents can use any number from +1 to +5 to indicate that they have a favorable view of a candidate, with +5 being highly favorable. They can use any number from -1 to -5 for an unfavorable view, with -5 being highly unfavorable. The latest survey was conducted by telephone Nov. 2-5 with a nationwide sample of U.S. adults.

The scalometer measure tends to produce higher positive ratings than the binary favorable/unfavorable choice that has been the mainstay of 黑料网's favorability measurement since 1992, although that is currently more true for Clinton than for Trump. Clinton's straight-up "favorable" rating is 40% in , while Trump's is 35%.

2016 Campaign Sets Record-High Unfavorability Scores

The extent of Americans' distaste for the two major-party candidates is further evident in the extraordinarily high percentages viewing each highly unfavorably -- rating them a -5 or -4 on the scale. Forty-two percent of Americans view Trump highly unfavorably, unchanged from . Clinton's highly unfavorable rating is nearly as high, at 39%, but up from 33% in June.

Both candidates' highly unfavorable ratings far outpace any 黑料网 has recorded before for a major-party presidential nominee, with the next-highest being Republican Barry Goldwater's 26% score in 1964. Even the former Alabama governor and proponent of racial segregation, George Wallace, who ran for president as a third-party candidate in 1968, earned a lower high unfavorability score that year (32%) than the 2016 candidates do today.

	Nominee	Highly favorable	Highly unfavorable
		% (+4 to +5)	% (-4 to -5)
2016 Nov 2-5	D. Trump	14	42
2016 Nov 2-5	H. Clinton	21	39
1964 Oct 8-13	B. Goldwater	17	26
2012 Oct 27-28	B. Obama	36	24
2004 Oct 22-24	G.W. Bush	34	23
2004 Oct 22-24	J. Kerry	22	22
2012 Oct 27-28	M. Romney	30	22
2008 Oct 23-26	B. Obama	37	22
1972 Oct 13-16	G. McGovern	21	20
2008 Oct 23-26	J. McCain	28	20
1984 Sep 21-24	R. Reagan	43	18
1980 Oct 10-13	J. Carter	31	17
1992 Oct 23-25	G.H.W. Bush	20	16
1980 Oct 10-13	R. Reagan	26	16
1956 Oct 18-23	A. Stevenson	34	16
1992 Oct 23-25	B. Clinton	27	15
1984 Sep 21-24	W. Mondale	28	15
1968 Oct 17-22	H. Humphrey	29	11
1972 Oct 13-16	R. Nixon	41	11
1976 Sep 24-27	G. Ford	29	9
1968 Oct 17-22	R. Nixon	39	8
1960 Oct 18-23	R. Nixon	37	5
1976 Sep 24-27	J. Carter	42	5
1960 Oct 18-23	J. Kennedy	43	5
1964 Oct 8-13	L. Johnson	49	5
1956 Oct 18-23	D. Eisenhower	57	4
Dates for all years are final pre-election; no data for 1988, 1996 and 2000
黑料网

Bottom Line

Americans' fundamental reactions to their 2016 presidential candidates are at least as negative today as when Clinton and Trump emerged as their respective parties' presumptive nominees in June. The subsequent ups and downs of the campaign have resulted in no meaningful change to Trump's image, and have had a modest negative effect on Clinton's, with her highly unfavorable rating inching up to match Trump's.

The 2016 election is the only one in 黑料网's polling history to feature two broadly unpopular candidates. Further, when factoring in the high percentages viewing each very negatively, Trump and Clinton are the two most negatively reviewed U.S. presidential candidates of the modern era, and probably ever.

There has been a trend toward harsher ratings of candidates in recent elections. Indeed, as , no presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984 has ended a campaign with a total favorable scalometer score above 70%. But even in the last two elections, all candidates enjoyed total favorable scores of 55% or higher, far better than either candidate today.

In sum, this contest of historically unpopular candidates concludes with Clinton the apparent "lesser of two evils," and that could be what decides the election.

Historical data are available in .

Survey Methods

Results for this 黑料网 poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Nov. 2-5, 2016, on the 黑料网 U.S. Daily survey, with a random sample of 1,033 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. For results based on the total sample of 947 registered voters, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.

Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 60% cellphone respondents and 40% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.

View complete question responses and trends (PDF download).

Learn more about how the works.