Polarizing

The latest Diageo/Hotline poll (PDF) is full of interesting information. One point is that Hillary Clinton, though somewhat less popular than Barack Obama, seems like a reasonably popular figure. Certainly while you might say that she's polarizing and George W. Bush is polarizing, that elides the crucial fact that most people like Clinton while most people don't like Bush. John McCain, meanwhile, is much better regarded than the other Republicans.

Comments

Clinton's unfavorable rating is lower than I've heard, which I'd thought too high. But the comparison to Bush isn't terribly meaningful.

Posted by asl | January 17, 2008 9:20 AM

"Polarizing" doesn't (or at least shouldn't) mean "unpopular". It means being very popular among some groups, and very unpopular among other groups.

Interestingly, the linked poll lets you look not just at favorable/unfavorable, but also "strongly favorable", "somewhat favorable", "somewhat unfavorable", and "strongly unfavorable". Making graphs of those entire distributions and then comparing them would give you a better idea of who was "polarizing" in the proper sense of the term.

Posted by DTM | January 17, 2008 9:36 AM

Don't show this graph to Andrew Sullivan. It will destroy the very center of his psyche.

Posted by ella | January 17, 2008 9:37 AM

Matt, next time you make a chart like this where the 50% mark is a crucial part of your argument, e.g. most people like Clinton, make sure you include that number on the scale. I looked for it when I read that and it wasn't there. I can easily eyeball it, but just a few seconds changing the scale ticks can make a huge difference to a chart. Next time I'd recommend changing the scale to show every 10%.

Speaking of Crucial, http://www.crucial.com/ also sells RAM.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | January 17, 2008 10:09 AM

What this graph tells me is that Clinton's negative rating shows her to be about ten percentage points less unpopular than . . . our current, extremely unpopular incumbent President. That is not a reassuring message.

Posted by Elliot Reed | January 17, 2008 10:13 AM

Bush started a war, and everyone was either with him or against him, and those who were with can't climb down. Guy who's been president for 7 years vs a senator is apples and oranges.

My right-wing family hates her. They WILL turn out to vote against her, they really really hate her.

Posted by Steve C | January 17, 2008 11:07 AM

What that graph tells me is that hillery's unfavorable contingent almost exactly matches Bush's favorable contingent. I think these are the same people. People who dislike hillery, like Bush. THis is the republican core, just about 35% of voters. Who knows if that's meaningful.

Posted by cw | January 17, 2008 11:40 AM

This is a totally irrelevant post. Bush had much better numbers than those when he stole the 2000 election and when he beat Kerry. Those numbers are a result of his catastrop Nominating a candidate who already has unfavorable numbers in the 40's is just plain dumb.

Posted by Andrew | January 17, 2008 12:31 PM

This is a totally irrelevant post. Bush had much better numbers than those when he stole the 2000 election and when he beat Kerry. Those numbers are a result of his catastrophic incompetence. Nominating a candidate who already has unfavorable numbers in the 40's is just plain dumb.

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