I think it is something we all knew, but it is nice to see the data.
It’s interesting to note that on that first graph, it appears that every candidate with the higher unfavorable rating actually won the election (with the exception of 2000, and Gore actually did wind up winning the popular vote in that election). That makes me think that too much is made of the whole “unfavorables” discussion, especially at this early stage.
Still, holy crap, both of the two presumed major party nominees this year are crazy high on that chart. Maybe as time goes on we’re getting more exposure to the candidates earlier and it’s leading more people to form opinions earlier? Or it could be that these two are actually a couple of unlikable douche-nozzles.
Doesn’t surprise me. Clinton has always been a polarizing figure, both in her own party and certainly amongst Republicans. With the Sanders gang bashing her and the split in the Democrats between those who want to shift the party way left or try and remain in the US political center (more or less), it’s been contentious.
Trump, of course, thrives on this stuff and has deliberately pushed things to where they are. He’s almost playing a reality show and gaming our system to ride populist discontent to the nomination…while alienating everyone who isn’t in that crowd. I mean, the guy is an ass anyway, but he’s a political troll and has stoked the fires so much that I’m actually surprised he is not MORE unpopular…goes to show how large the populist discontent is on the Republican side. Kind of scary, really. :eek:
I think the second graph down, which compares the ratio of strong favorables to strong unfavorables, is more instructive; it correctly calls every election since 1984 except '88 and '00. And on that one, too, both candidates are off the chart relative to historic norms.
I think you’re on to something there.
Too bad the tables only go back to 1980. In 1968 and 1972 I recall my father agonizing over whether he could ever get past his hatred for Nixon enough to vote for him over Humphrey and McGovern, who he had nothing against personally, but really, really hated what he felt they represented.
My vote in 1988 could’ve gone either way. I had problems with both GHWB and Dukakis and ended up voting only because of the lower ticket races.
I can’t help but fantasize what a different race this would be if it was Elizabeth Warren vs. Paul Ryan. Or really anyone that didn’t feel like choosing the lesser of two evils.
They’d be just as polarizing, since the HATE propaganda machines would have been working overtime to get voters to hate them.
Maybe…but I don’t think they would be as unpopular since neither is as polarizing within the context of their own party base or support. Warren would be just about as unpopular with Republicans as Clinton is (or Sanders is), as Paul would be with Democrats, but I doubt they would be anything near getting the push back within their own parties that Clinton and Trump are. Hell, I thought I read something earlier where Ryan said he can’t and won’t support Trump…so, the Republican establishment itself, at this late date, is STILL opposed to Trump even though he’s sown up the nomination and pretty much everyone else has fled.
I’m sure Republicans would find plenty of reasons to hate Warren if she ran, but she doesn’t have the same amount of baggage that Clinton has.
Ryan is one of the only conservatives who doesn’t make me hurl. I wouldn’t vote for him, but he’d be a decent candidate.
Clinton doesn’t have the same amount of baggage that Clinton has. It’s mostly made up shit from Karl Rove. Check Snopes someday. They make up shit and pass it around.
They could easily make up the same shit about anyone. Ever hear about “Swiftboating”?
John Kerry went to unpopular in a hurry.
How long did it take the GOP to make up shit about the almost unknown Obama? They have been piling it on for almost nine years, now.
Yep.
There’s a glaring omission in that 538 article: the correlation between “favorability/unfavorability” and name-recognition.
The more we know about our politicians, the less we tend to like them. So saying “X has 47% unfavorability but Y has only 21% unfavorability” means little unless we know the degree to which X and Y are familiar to the respondents.
I mean, John Kasich has had pretty decent favorability ratings during the campaign, but how many respondents were really clear on who he is?
I don’t think the point of the article is to decide if the rating is justified or not. They are just reporting on what the rating is.
To build on that, the incumbents in that chart invariably had higher disapproval ratings than they did the first time around.
If the point of reporting the favorability ratings is to comment on electability, or at least to expect your readers to make inferences about electability, then the correlation between ‘being well-known’ and ‘getting high unfavorability ratings’ is certainly relevant.
Right, and it would have been reasonable for the author to note that fact and to comment on it.