Placing the Candidates

Interesting chart from the Pew Center. One piece of bad news for liberals is that it seems that the self-assessed ideology of the American people is still somewhat right of center. It's also funny how unhinged Republicans' views of Hillary Clinton are. Contrast their exile of her to the outer fringes somewhere near Lenin and Pol Pot to the "all voters" pool which correctly sees her and Obama as occupying similar ground on the center-left. And that's even with the wacky Republican views factored in.

Looking at the GOP side where ideological distinctions between the candidates are more pronounced, it's interesting that all voters seem to classify the contenders almost entirely on the basis of cultural matters. Thus, Rudy Giuliani who's running to the right of everyone else on economic issues and foreign policy issues is seen as close to the center, while Mike Huckabee is viewed as the most conservative option.

Comments

Where's Edwards?

Posted by Christmas | January 18, 2008 12:50 PM

I guess Edwards is so liberal that he is not even on the charts (/snark). WTF? Its getting plain weird that the Establishment has really just decided that the race is over for Edwards (just like many for Clinton prior to New Hampshire).

Posted by Palooza | January 18, 2008 12:52 PM

No Edwards?

And wow, people really do think of Bush as a far-rightist. I thought it was just us lefties and centrists.

It's also interesting to see that American voters see themselves, generally, on the right side of the spectrum, but think the GOP candidates are still further to the right.

Posted by Persia | January 18, 2008 12:52 PM

But Clinton is a fascist. She should be on the extreme left with the 'progressives', who should be verboten.

(h/t Jonah Lucianne)

Posted by gregor | January 18, 2008 12:57 PM

Interesting that Republicans are further to the right of mainstream than Democrats are to the left. IE Democrat voters are far more centrist than Republican voters, who all seem to be fairly out there.

Posted by freddiemac | January 18, 2008 12:57 PM

This just shows us the pernicious nature of identity politics.

I bet if you laid out policies rather than names the American people would look a lot less moderate and a lot more liberal and Obama and Clinton would look a lot less liberal and more moderate.

Posted by Ricky | January 18, 2008 12:58 PM

it's interesting that all voters seem to classify the contenders almost entirely on the basis of cultural matters. Thus, Rudy Giuliani who's running to the right of everyone else on economic issues and foreign policy issues is seen as close to the center, while Mike Huckabee is viewed as the most conservative option.

This is why one dimensional scales like this are idiotic.

That said, I don't see Republican views of Hillary as being particularly "unhinged". Certainly no less unhinged than the Democrats' view of Hillary. The Democrats seeing her as a moderate is just as much an error as the Republicans seeing her as a far left-winger. She's neither.

Posted by Al | January 18, 2008 1:05 PM

somewhere near Lenin and Pol Pot

Yeah, what gregor said, that should be "somewhere near Mussolini, in light of recent scholarship."

Also, this sort of thing shows the perils of politics always being debated as left vs. right. Issues take a back seat to personalities and tribal politics.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 18, 2008 1:06 PM

Where's John?

Posted by GreenVTster | January 18, 2008 1:08 PM

Sadly, only the Republicans have Clinton and Obama in the right order from the left. He clearly is to her right.

Posted by Jack Lake | January 18, 2008 1:10 PM

Interesting that Republicans are further to the right of mainstream than Democrats are to the left. IE Democrat voters are far more centrist than Republican voters, who all seem to be fairly out there.

Huh? The "mainstream" is where the black dot in the "all voters" is. And the black dot for "Republican voters" is the same distance to the right of that as the black dot for "Democratic voters" is to the left.

If anything, this shows that the ONLY mainstream candidate running is Giuliani. He's almost exactly where the "all voters" black dot is. Hillary and Obama are far, FAR to the left. McCain is somewhat farther away from the median voter, but clearly not the same distance as the other candidates.

Posted by Al | January 18, 2008 1:10 PM

Why no break out for independents? That's what I would find most intersting. The rest of it plays to (my, at least) expectations.

Posted by zaleriana | January 18, 2008 1:10 PM

Where's Edwards? He's history, that's where.

While it may be interesting to see where Edwards would appear on these graphs given his populist rhetoric (my guess is that GOP voters would continue to place Hillary farthest to the left while Dem voters would put Edwards as the leftist), I wish Edwards and his supporters would wake up and smell the coffee. His only chance was to win Iowa, and even then he would have needed either Hillary or Obama to stumble badly.

Posted by Bragan | January 18, 2008 1:14 PM

The placement of McCain by everybody is the most interesting to me. And shows that Americans as a whole are fucking stupid.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | January 18, 2008 1:14 PM

The comment that the typical voter is right of center is probably wrong. Note that the Republican voter self identifies much farther to the right than the dem does to the left. That would put the "average" right of center, but not necessarily the average voter (depending, of course on the methodology used.)

Posted by jayackroyd | January 18, 2008 1:24 PM

The Edwards blackout expands and grows everyday.

Posted by hcoppola | January 18, 2008 1:29 PM

I'm also disappointed that Edwards isn't included, because I commented at Drum's place just a few days ago that I'd bet most Democrats outside Iowa and NH still consider him the most conservative Democrat.

About Hillary Clinton, I think her centrist image among liberals comes half from her awful votes and statements on Iran and Iraq and half from the awful, half-Republican Bill Clinton administration. I admit, I'm trying to find some way to rationalize voting for her if - God forbid - she gets the nomination.

About Obama's centrist image, I hope more moderates will be fooled into voting for him than "progressives" will be fooled into voting against him.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 18, 2008 1:33 PM

Pew used to include Edwards in their surveys, but dropped him because they no longer see him as a viable candidate.

Posted by Mike | January 18, 2008 1:37 PM

One piece of bad news for liberals is that it seems that the self-assessed ideology of the American people is still somewhat right of center.

Only if you ask them about labels and ignore actual, you know, policies:

Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters think of themselves as conservative, while 29% say they are moderate and just 4% say they are liberal.

...

About a third of Democrats (34%) describe themselves as liberal, 44% as moderate, and 22% as conservative.

The ghost of Arthur J. Finkelstein hangs like a self-hating gay pall over the electorate ... and he's not even dead yet!
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 18, 2008 1:41 PM

If anything, this shows that the ONLY mainstream candidate running is Giuliani. He's almost exactly where the "all voters" black dot is.

Uh, that would be the average of all voters, which is a position without a constituency, to judge by Giuliani's plummet.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 18, 2008 1:44 PM

I think these graphs are just yet another illustration of the perils of placing too much stock in the statistical mean of any survey data.

This data set shows us that Democrats are less likely to consider themselves to be liberals than Republicans are likely to consider themselves to be conservatives. Everything else shown on the chart is weighted by that variable in ways that are impossible to quantify without additional data.

Grand Moff Texan is right... Giuliani seems to be soundly rejected by members of both parties. But if you average all of the data and present it in an incredibly stupid and simplistic way that no statistician in his right mind would ever do, his dot ends up right next to the average voter and one gets the false impression that the median American voter thinks the Republicans are closer to his views than the Democrats.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 18, 2008 1:54 PM

Edwards may be history, but so is Giuliani. So that makes no sense at all. This is more of the same ignoring Edwards as has been going on before.

Posted by Carol | January 18, 2008 2:12 PM

This chart illustrates the Reagan legacy: "Conservative" became what the cool kids want to be, no longer the brand of country-club, stuffed suits with Roman numerals in their names. "Liberal," by contrast, became an insult: the province of hippies, dinosaurs and dweebs.

Even today, after W's significant tarnishment of the brand, Republicans are loud and proud, rating themselves somewhere between "conservative" and "very conservative."

Democrats, on the other hand, are still afraid of the L word, rating themselves somewhere between "moderate" and "liberal."

So the question Democrats should ask themselves is which candidate is more likely to transform Liberalism into something more enduring than a single Presidency? Obama thinks it's he, and I tend to agree.

Posted by Jalmari | January 18, 2008 2:23 PM

Carol -- That's a pretty good point, but I don't entirely agree. Both Edwards and Guilliani have seemingly insurmountable obstacles to overcome. One difference though is that Edwards is the odd man out because he faces two very strong candidates. Guiliani may have a sliver of hope because all the GOP candidates above him have major flaws/vulnerabilities.

While it's unlikely that Guilliani will win Florida given how he's been sinking in the polls, what if he were to finish a strong second ahead of McCain and Romney (with Huckabee winning)? I think that might be enough to give him credibility again going into February 5, which should be favorable to him given the NY and NJ primaries and the fact that the sheer number of races will mean that more voters will be operating on a very superficial impression.

Posted by Bragan | January 18, 2008 2:27 PM

Edwards may be history, but so is Giuliani. So that makes no sense at all. This is more of the same ignoring Edwards as has been going on before.

Personally, I see this more as inflating Giuliani than deflating Edwards (indeed, if they are both history, then the complaint should be that Giuliani should be excluded, not that Edwards should be included). At the omnipotent and infallible Intrade, Rudy is at about a 20% chance of winning and Edwards is at 1%. This is obviously too high for Rudy (he's in a virtual tie with Romney!), but the CW is that Giuliani is still in it and Edwards is not, if only because Rudy's strategy won't officially fail until he loses Florida, while Edwards' failed after losing Iowa. But at least they didn't include Thompson or Paul.

Posted by ibid | January 18, 2008 2:38 PM

I think that what this really means is that after a generation of so-called culture wars, Americans define "liberal" and "conservative" solely on cultural terms. And that we have a cartoon understanding of where other people really stand even then.

But actual policy wankery? Doesn't register, probably can't register with most people, whose inate populist sensibilities are too easily bamboozled by some guys in a suit. Instead, you just line up behind the guy you think is most like you and wave the little flag for everything he comes up with (unless it conflicts with your cultural identity, like Bush's immigration push).

Red/blue like hell: We're becoming more like the Vlams and Wallons.

Posted by jlw | January 18, 2008 2:40 PM

"I bet if you laid out policies rather than names the American people would look a lot less moderate and a lot more liberal and Obama and Clinton would look a lot less liberal and more moderate."

Yes! Yes! And thats the clearest case for Obama. His main talent will be to move the American people's perception of themselves to the left. He could make people comfortable with liberals, and thus more likely to openly support liberals. As it is now, liberal is a dirty word and that is the biggest thing we need to change.

Its also very interesting that people think in terms of cultural liberalism or conservatism. This suggests to me that the Democratic strategy should be to focus less on cultural issues and more on economic and foreign policy issues, while allowing organic social change to shift attitudes on sensitive cultural issues, which is happening already.

But then of course, you have people like Matt Stoller who are convinced that "individual responsibility" is a republican talking point, so I wonder what chance Democrats have of convincing middle america that we can solve real world problems.

Posted by Nathan | January 18, 2008 2:47 PM

If you are going to discuss the campaign and its politics, then include all candidates, or QUIT talking about it. You left a number of them out of your discussion.

Posted by Morton Johnson | January 18, 2008 3:54 PM

"And thats the clearest case for Obama. His main talent will be to move the American people's perception of themselves to the left. He could make people comfortable with liberals, and thus more likely to openly support liberals. As it is now, liberal is a dirty word and that is the biggest thing we need to change."

What? The problem with Obama is that he looks like he will continue to push what is considered 'liberal' farther to the right. Kucinich is running a sensible set of progressive policies and he is called a nutcase by the media for even suggesting what many of us in the progressosphere feel are the best policies. Bill Clinton's DLC policies are what is now defined as 'liberal' by the media and most Americans. This pro-corporate tripe is called 'too liberal' by the right. If Obama had used his appeal to actually run on a progressive platform we might have begun to positively shift perceptions of progressive policies instead condemning them as the 'loopy-left' for another generation as we sell the average American down the river for more cash to run the campaigns.

Posted by Ricky | January 18, 2008 4:09 PM

Right, where's Edwards?
And what is with the one dimensional charts? I will look at the source for this post, but I would hope Pew could do better than this.

Posted by where's Edwards | January 18, 2008 4:34 PM

If they're going to include Giuliani in this, then they ought to include Edwards and Ron Paul as well. Edwards has done better in the primaries so far, and Ron Paul has about matched Rudy's performance.

Posted by Susanna | January 18, 2008 4:53 PM

Where the heck is Edwards?

Delegates: Edwards = 4, Huckabee = 2, Giuliani = 0.

How does this make any sense?

Posted by Ron O'Neal | January 18, 2008 6:35 PM

I think one of the enormous flaws of the 2 dimensional political spectrum is that Giuliani gets branded as some sort of moderate because of his "liberal" social views, which pull him towards the the center of this spectrum. However, holding some views on the left and the right does not actually even out in this way. He is not a moderate in the sense of a centrist as much as he is a double extremist and that difference is very important. The media throws around the term moderate when referring to Rudy all the time because of this mistaken and dangerous notion.

Posted by Alex F. | January 18, 2008 6:50 PM

Forget Edwards. Where's THOMPSON?

Posted by Plumb Bob | January 18, 2008 7:02 PM

That said, I don't see Republican views of Hillary as being particularly "unhinged". Certainly no less unhinged than the Democrats' view of Hillary. The Democrats seeing her as a moderate is just as much an error as the Republicans seeing her as a far left-winger. She's neither.

For once I agree with Al. Hillary belongs on the RIGHT side of the chart.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 18, 2008 7:30 PM

It's no indicator of how people actually vote, though, because a lot of people care about character, a lot of people are single-issue, etc. etc. And thank goodness or Guiliani would win.

Posted by Phoebe | January 18, 2008 9:30 PM

I don't trust any poll in a dynamic society such as USA. Besides, what happened to distinguish the social conservative and social liberal from the fiscal ones. Aside from "it's the economic, stupid," it's important to know that some people considers more relevant to base the vote on social issues, while others in fiscal issues.

Posted by rdiazsi | January 18, 2008 9:48 PM

This is worthless without all the candidates. Paul should be there too.

Posted by Vivian | January 18, 2008 11:15 PM

According to the full report, they did in fact poll about Edwards on favorability. It's unclear whether they asked about ideological positioning; they don't say one way or another.

I wish they had. And I really wish more Democratic candidates were addressing the issues he's raised.

Posted by Rob Cottingham | January 19, 2008 2:53 AM

So, If Pew no longer considers Edwards a viable candidate (after just one primary and one caucus), why are they still including Giuliani?

Posted by RonP | January 19, 2008 12:57 PM