"Poll: Clinton gets high 'no' vote for 2008"
That is the headline of a story on today's CNN web page. Someone who actually reads the story, however, will discover that 47% of those polled said they would definitely vote against Hilary Clinton, 47% against Kerry 48% against Gore, and 63% against Jeb Bush. It is true that McCain scored 34% and Giuliani 30%, but that puts Hilary in the middle of the unpopularity ratings and not, as the headline implies, at the top.
She did, however, have one distinction—the highest positive rating. 22% of those polled said they would definitely vote for her. The other candidates had ratings ranging from 19% (Giuliani) down to 9% (Jeb Bush).
I have to confess that my title for this post is also misleading. My previous example offered statistics that appeared, if you did not pay attention, to support its misleading headline. This one does not. Strictly speaking it is not lying with statistics but about statistics.
I should add, for the benefit of anyone to whom it is not obvious, that I am not a supporter of Hilary Clinton.
Merely of the truth.
That is the headline of a story on today's CNN web page. Someone who actually reads the story, however, will discover that 47% of those polled said they would definitely vote against Hilary Clinton, 47% against Kerry 48% against Gore, and 63% against Jeb Bush. It is true that McCain scored 34% and Giuliani 30%, but that puts Hilary in the middle of the unpopularity ratings and not, as the headline implies, at the top.
She did, however, have one distinction—the highest positive rating. 22% of those polled said they would definitely vote for her. The other candidates had ratings ranging from 19% (Giuliani) down to 9% (Jeb Bush).
I have to confess that my title for this post is also misleading. My previous example offered statistics that appeared, if you did not pay attention, to support its misleading headline. This one does not. Strictly speaking it is not lying with statistics but about statistics.
I should add, for the benefit of anyone to whom it is not obvious, that I am not a supporter of Hilary Clinton.
Merely of the truth.
4 comments:
The term "high" obviously raises the question "relative to what?"
I think it's not necessarily correct to assume it's relative to other candidates.
A good case can be made that 47% is "high" relative to the amount of "non-votes" that make one electable.
A somewhat personal question to David: do you ever vote in elections (national, local, departmental, etc.)?
Also, you would probably enjoy reading this analysis by David Madore of the US presidential election system.
Daniel asks if I ever vote.
Quite often. I regard it as an expressive activity, not as a way of changing the world. I usually vote for libertarian candidates and against spending proposals.
There was one election before which I got a mailing from the Democratic candidate for congress, describing all the evil things her opponent was in favor of. Since I was in favor of all of them, I felt an obligation to vote for him, and did.
tjic,
Do many people really believe Hillary Clinton has a cakewalk to the presidency? From what I've heard, Republicans would love to face her. No other opponent could do as much to energize the Republican money machine.
My wife has worked in the O.R. with many doctors the past 15 years. In that environment, with unconscious patients, surgeons feel free to speak their minds. My wife tells me that MD's still hate Hillary just as much as they did in 1993. My bet is that they'll outspend trial lawyers by a factor of 10.
Post a Comment