i agree....if there was one "democrat" nominated that i wouldnt vote for it would be hillary. i think id rather vote for guiliani....and that is saying a lot.

It's going to end up being Clinton V Giuliani. Two neo-cons. I cannot believe it. Argh

Virtual coup. Elect only independents. Put the parties out of business.

I don't get it... does this mean that 41% of people polled would vote for Clinton vs. 44% Guiliani? That means that Clinton is actually doing better than any other candidate on the graphic?

Can someone explain to me why this is an example of polarization?

I wish they would show Brewster's Millions every November 1st. Where is our "None of the Above" option?

I don't get it... does this mean that 41% of people polled would vote for Clinton vs. 44% Guiliani? That means that Clinton is actually doing better than any other candidate on the graphic?

If you meant "wouldn't vote," you are correct. The voters in this survey hated in order of most hate:

Romney
Thompson
McCain
Guiliani
Clinton

Clinton had the least hate and the largest photo. Isn't that strange? (Not)

To the confused: this graphic probably needs to be a bit more contextualized. It showed up on Olberman's show as part of a story on how the media often portrays Clinton as too polarizing a candidate to win a national election, which is why her graphic is the largest. The point of the story was that this poll suggests the Republican frontrunners are all more polarizing than Clinton, indicating the media's portrayal of her doesn't have much of a basis in reality.

And it looks as though Norm rendered my comment redundant as I was in the midst of writing it. Oh well.

Of the major candidates

What about Obama and Edwards? I think they both have more chance than McCain and Thomson.

(I know it is not the point - but what are their numbers?)

Oops - I meant Thompson

I don't think the poll results directly imply that Hillary's the least polarizing (though I could still definitely believe it to be the case).

For example, if the choices for "I'd Never Vote For" were: a) John Wilkes Booth b) John F. Kennedy c) A potato I'd guess that 99% of people would never vote for a potato, 90%(?) would never vote for Booth, and much less for JFK. However, I think it'd still be hard to argue that John Wilkes Booth is actually less polarizing than a potato.

Redundant commentors are my favorites. I was being lazy, assuming all would get the graphic. I was wrong. Commentors like Kirkinson noticed and corrected my omission. I thank you all.

It seems to me this poll only indicates comparative unpopularity or electability of a sampling of candidates. I don't think it measures the amount of polarization caused by each candidate, which, of course would be the degree of separation and concentration at opposite ends of any given spectrum.

I can't say how exactly a poll would measure the polarization factor, but I'm pretty sure this one question "I'd never vote for_" is not it.

Andy, if these are my options I think I might vote for that potato after all.

So, she's less objectionable than republicans. DUH!

She's the Least Polarizing of the Republicans and her? Where are the other Democrats? I bet they are even less polarizing.

The headline and entire premise are crap without the other Dems there. Other than conclude that Guiliani is the least polarizing Republican... it says nothing.

Polarization is not being measured here. What is being measured is exactly what the poll claims: the percentage of Americans who would not vote for this candidate.

The greater the polarization of the candidate, the more he or she splits the electoral base into pre-defined, distinct and often opposing groups. It is the schism, the distinctness of the two groups that should be measured, not the measure of one end of the spectrum. If the poll had asked for the degree to which a respondent would vote for a candidate, say, "for sure" "maybe" or "never", the candidate with the greatest polarization would be the one with the fewest respondents in the "maybe" category.

I can't find this on the net. Any links, anyone?

This polarizing issue that the media continues to repeat seems as real as the oft-repeated liberals are tax and spend. Republicans are still saying they're better with managing money than Democrats when all the Dems need to do is hammer home constantly that the last time a Dem was in office, there was a huge surplus and that there have been deficits for the last 3 4 republican presidents. Again, another example of the Democrats being ridiculously bad at selling themselves. Sometimes it's seems as if they want to lose.

Hillary is the only Dem capable of losing the general - thus the coming "Dukakis" moment.

Even my two 30ish sisters consider her "creepy" and they have no GOP predilection.

The Dems are sure to fuck up on the proverbial one-yard line.

Hillary and Rudy are each other's dream opponents in the sense that they both have so much dirt in their pasts that neither can really effectively attack the other on personal stuff. Not that they wont try.

If the poll had asked for the degree to which a respondent would vote for a candidate, say, "for sure" "maybe" or "never", the candidate with the greatest polarization would be the one with the fewest respondents in the "maybe" category.

Ok, so maybe Norm should title the post "Hillary is least Negatively polarizing candidate".

There is no delicious title for this post, but I think polarization is not the issue. In a moment of ugliness I would suggest a new title: "Hillary is less unpopular than some of the Republican candidates".

Many of you have noted that Hey where are the other Democrats in this poll? But no one has yet mentioned the fact that McCain is trailing Ron Paul in the polls, and Hey where is Ron Paul in this poll? He would clearly polarize your socks until they fell off, and then who cares about the title of this post?

I'm pleased to see other people are anti-Hillary and have yet to be labeled neocons. Believe me, I don't want to vote for a Republican (never have before) - although Ron Paul doesn't seem that bad a candidate.

But if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, there's no way I'm voting Democrat.

It's not just because she's a woman, which is her only characteristic, position, and platform plank. It's not just because of the tiresome dynasty mentality that this would only exacerbate. It's because she's an inept, heartless drone of a political hack whose leanings seem, ironically, decidedly old-boy's-network.

Is Hillary Clinton really the best the Democratic party has to offer? What about Edwards? Obama? Why is it being decided for us, now, that Clinton is the only real choice?

You know, I've never knew what it would be like to have an out-of-body experience as witnessed by my fellow theists, but after reading Tillerman's reply I quickly fell into one.

This is about the only time I have heard you make sense and have agreed with you on every sentence in an entire post! I'm scared now. Hold me Norm.

I know what you mean. I did a double take myself. The only thing I'd disagree with is that Ron Paul is looking good. The only issue Ron Paul is right on is the war. What is it, do people not know his stands on healthcare, social security etc. I actually got an email from a reader asking why I wasn't supporting him. Duh, because his positions on most issues are exactly opposite of my own.

True, although to be fair, he does have reasonable positions outside of just hit postion on the war. Things like no internet regulations and monetary policy. I think what Tillerman meant was that out of all the circus freaks he seems to sound like the most reasonable. Although I do agree I would never support him.

I've always thought the 1gm readers would support either Kucinich or Paul simply for their position on foreign policy and their honesty on issues.

Norm, I bet you'd be surprised how many Paul supporters visit your site. Your audience-- anti-war atheists hungry for a good argument and some rationality-- are often anti-government (thus pro Paul) as well.

As a woman I'd definitely vote for Hillary. She's smart, politically savvy, and has done far more for women's health care than any of the other candidates.

By this logic, the current president, GW Bush is the most polarizing candidate.

How can america fix the problem that the best and the brightest aren't the people running for office? Why must I choose from Political hacks? The reason why I like edwards at the moment is because he seems to be the most dedicated to his causes, and not changing day to day to fit the political climate

The best and brightest aren't interested in being rulers. Succeeding in politics requires more than a healthy level of narcissism and a willingness to stretch the truth well beyond what the best and brightest of society would be comfortable with.

sometimes they'll admit it!