More Polarization

Here's another look at the polarization question drawing on the data from the Hotline/Diageo poll (PDF). Here, I suppose, we can see a sense in which Hillary Clinton is "polarizing" -- she has relatively few mild detractors. Those who don't approve of her tend to strongly disapprove of her. Of course to really qualify as polarizing, I would want to see someone have a "U"-shaped distribution on this four-point scale -- more strong approval than somewhat approval, more strong disapproval than somewhat disapproval.

We see here that fully forty percent of the population is in one or the other "somewhat" category. I myself would have said I have a somewhat favorable view of Clinton and I think that, despite the "polarizing" label, this is actually pretty common.

Comments

"Polarizing" is a term as inseparable from Clinton in pundit discourse as "aura of inevitability".

And just as stupid.

Posted by Ryan | January 17, 2008 10:56 AM

So, to be clear, some people don't like HRC and some people do. Interesting.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 17, 2008 10:59 AM

I'm a little confused as to why you're comparing her to somebody that isn't running and who is at the nadir of his presidency after seven years in office. I mean, why stop with Bush? Why not compare her numbers with Nixon's circa 1973?

Posted by Helter | January 17, 2008 10:59 AM

The numbers on Clinton are very interesting and show she's not as polarizing as she is reputed to be. But what's the point of comparing her to Bush? Nobody is arguing that she's more polarizing than Bush and, as far as I know, he's not going to be on the ballot in November.....

Posted by Led | January 17, 2008 11:00 AM

Hmm, the sample of 803 people is not much to go by. Where was the poll conducted? If most of the data comes from say California, that would be rather different to data emerging from Texas. Without that information, and a much larger sample, I don't think this proves much of anything.

Posted by nickzi | January 17, 2008 11:00 AM

Strictly speaking, you ought to say that 40 per cent OF THOSE SURVEYED had a certain view, rather than generalizing to the population as a whole. If you mean "people surveyed" by "population", it might be wise to clarify the intent behind what you wrote.

Posted by boratsbabybrother | January 17, 2008 11:09 AM

Your mom is polarizing.

Posted by Adrock | January 17, 2008 11:20 AM

She might well be polarizing compared to other candidates (i.e., attracting a lot more strong approval and strong disapproval). Could we see what the other candidates' numbers look like? That would be a lot more meaningful than a comparison to George Bush, who's not even running.

Posted by Elliot Reed | January 17, 2008 11:21 AM

Running or not, he's a huge dickhead.

Posted by aleks | January 17, 2008 11:22 AM

Of course to really qualify as polarizing, I would want to see someone have a "U"-shaped distribution on this four-point scale -- more strong approval than somewhat approval, more strong disapproval than somewhat disapproval.

Aren't you essentially arguing that the "polarizing" objection falls flat because she's not popular enough to qualify as polarizing? I suppose it's technically accurate, but it's not going to alleviate anyone's concerns.

Posted by Elliot Reed | January 17, 2008 11:27 AM

Is the least popular president of all time really a fair comparison?

That's like saying Bush isn't so bad because Hitler only has a 12% approval rating.

Posted by Soullite | January 17, 2008 11:29 AM

Another way in which someone can be "polarizing" is the degree to which that person is disliked. A four-point scale doesn't capture things like whether the "strongly dislike" group includes people who will mobilize just to keep Hillary out of office, or cross party lines for similar reasons. There can be relatively few people who strongly dislike her, but if people who dislike her tend to hate her, then she's still "polarizing".

I'm not saying that the polarization meme is really legit, just pointing out that this analysis doesn't kill it dead. Just another nail in the coffin.

Posted by Nick | January 17, 2008 11:46 AM

Try asking folks in the swing districts (formerly (R) now Democrat) how they view her... Ask conservative democrats like Heath Schuler if his constituents like her. After all he is up for election again this year. Do you think she would stump for him in Black Mountain N.C.?

I live in Tennessee and the reality is most R’s I know like Obama even if they disagree with him and most of them hate Hillary. Here the Clinton’s are laughed at. Sad but true.

Posted by Ann | January 17, 2008 12:15 PM

"Try asking folks in the swing districts (formerly (R) now Democrat) how they view her... Ask conservative democrats like Heath Schuler if his constituents like her."

*Ding*

A lot of folks really don't understand just how much Hillary is hated and how many hate her. And let's remember, being a U.S. Senator is a far lower-profile job than 1st Lady. There's many people who haven't had to pay much attention to Hillary for the last 7 year, so their dislike has gone from full boil to simmer.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 17, 2008 12:32 PM

Actually the data may well bear out that Hilary is the most polarizing; she's she the only one who doesn't have less 'strongly favorable' than 'somewhat favorable', and is the only one other than Bush to have more 'strongly unfavorable' than 'somewhat unfavorable'.

Posted by Ranald | January 17, 2008 12:39 PM

Comparing Hillary or any of the other candidates to Bush is a bit pointless.

We already know what a George Bush presidency would look like. The rest all have potential (John McCain might not be serious about bombing Iran, John Edwards could pass universal health care). Our opinions of the next president will rise or fall on their actions.

Bush was considered a reasonably likable guy in 2000 himself.

Posted by Jinchi | January 17, 2008 12:55 PM

I agree that Hillary Clinton is more popular than George W. Bush. I also agree that "polarization" was never the right term to describe 1990s GOP rage.

Still, Clinton does have extremely high negative ratings compared to the other 2008 candidates. I do think she can probably if nominated; but I'm positive that Republican senators would never have to fear any backlash at home from voting against her proposals.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 17, 2008 12:59 PM

What is a "Hotline/Diageo poll" and why should anyone trust it?

Posted by Shinyk | January 17, 2008 1:47 PM

What was Bush's numbers in 1999 or 2004? Wouldn't that be a better comparison?

Liars, damn liars, and statisticians I say.

Posted by PC | January 17, 2008 2:25 PM

What was Bush's numbers in 1999 or 2004? Wouldn't that be a better comparison?

Good question. (and yes, it would):

(very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, very unfavorable, can't rate)

Bush (5/00): 18 - 40 - 19 - 12 - 10
Bush (9/04): 24 - 25 - 19 - 27 - 5

Bush's numbers in 2004 look about the same as Hillary's numbers do today.

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

Posted by Jinchi | January 17, 2008 2:37 PM

The problem is that all such comparisons are meaningless without knowing the demographic area for the respondees, how the poll was composed/weighted, what the circumstances were under which it was asked etc. The size of the poll cited by Matt is too small to be statistically meaningful in any case. You would need a much larger, nationwide poll, adjusted with a lot of care, to get much of an answer to the question about Hillary's likeability or otherwise.

Posted by nickzi | January 17, 2008 2:47 PM

I agree a U-shaped distribution would be really stark, but that may not be necessary to classify someone as relatively polarizing. For example, if a more typical distribution was bell-shaped (not an implausible hypothesis), then even a flat distribution would count as relatively polarizing.

Which is a roundabout way of agreeing it would be nice to now put together the distributions for the other candidates from this same dataset.

Posted by DTM | January 17, 2008 4:29 PM

"I have a somewhat favorable view of Clinton and I think that, despite the "polarizing" label, this is actually pretty common."

Umm, if you believe the very poll you posted it's a little less than 30% common.

Posted by SZ | January 17, 2008 7:57 PM

I think the point someone made that she's been a bit out of the limelight lately has an impact.

If she is the nominee and then she's on TV daily for the next X months, I think you'll see a higher degree of polarization than you do today. And probably today is higher than it was last year at this time.

Of course, that probably would be true of anybody in a campaign - their "polarization" numbers would go up as people are essentially REQUIRED to make a choice.

But I think Hillary is unlikely to suddenly be viewed with more favor over the course of the campaign then she is right now.

Where's Obama's numbers? I agree comparing her to Bush makes no sense at all. It's apples and oranges. Compare her to McCain or Huckabee or Obama or Edwards.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 17, 2008 11:41 PM