Yes, that's kind of an interest graphing tool, but there seem to be at least two big problems with it, aside from the rather vague methodology you point out. First, it is -- literally -- two dimensional. And one of those dimensions is "how important" the issue is to the candidate, which (although good to know) is more like half a dimension. Frankly, I'd be happy with a candidate who made the right policy choice on health care, regardless of whether they thought it was *really* important or only *kinda* important.) Another conceptual problem is where the put the axes. The bold lines down the middle are there -- so far as I can tell -- only to identify the x and y axis, not to identify some platonic ideal, or the average of voter sentiment. And yet the result is to show various candidates to be far outside the "norm" or the "mainstream" that those bold lines connote. And yes, I acknowledge that it would be really hard to identify any sort of platonic ideal on these issues, and perhaps only slightly less difficult to pin down what the median voter thought about these issues. But one way to ameliorate this kind of pseudo-judgment that the graph seems to imply is to simply remove the bold axes. It would also help to make the box bigger or reduce the scale. This wouldn't change the actual absolute values that the authors have plugged in, but visually, it would remove what are, in effect, some deceptive contextual cues. I mean, is there really more daylight between Huckabee and McCain on "The Uninsured" than between Kucinich and Clinton?

And the issue of how a candidate gets to a particular place on the graph is puzzling, to say the least. Why, for example, on the issue of drug prices is Ron Paul much farther to the "left" (more govt involvement) than Giuliani or Romney, who appear to have virtually identical ideas on the subject (according to the quotes on the PoliGraph) and in reality probably favor a little more govt participation than Paul?

Also, why is Alan Keyes on the graph? Don't tell me he's *actually* running! Dude, I thought that was just a joke! A cruel, silly, joke ...

Some interesting commentary on this project at the Health Care Blog.