<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reader Poll</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/01/10/reader-poll/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/01/10/reader-poll/</link>
	<description>Reality-based political commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 04:08:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/01/10/reader-poll/#comment-32010</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:38:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=6816#comment-32010</guid>
		<description>Thanx for the update, S2...

We feel for your relatives that were in harms way.

Being a Floridian, we have been there and they have our utmost empathy for their plight..

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanx for the update, S2...</p>
<p>We feel for your relatives that were in harms way.</p>
<p>Being a Floridian, we have been there and they have our utmost empathy for their plight..</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Speak2</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/01/10/reader-poll/#comment-31998</link>
		<dc:creator>Speak2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2013 00:21:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=6816#comment-31998</guid>
		<description>Sandy recovery is proceeding. 

My folks in Rockaway Beach, NY, received a settlement check (FEMA, Insurance) covering the work needed. My in-laws (also in Rockaway) also received $ and are able to have a livable space before summer.

It isn&#039;t always pretty or smooth, but it isn&#039;t a cluster either. They&#039;re moving forward slowly, but relatively smoothly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sandy recovery is proceeding. </p>
<p>My folks in Rockaway Beach, NY, received a settlement check (FEMA, Insurance) covering the work needed. My in-laws (also in Rockaway) also received $ and are able to have a livable space before summer.</p>
<p>It isn't always pretty or smooth, but it isn't a cluster either. They're moving forward slowly, but relatively smoothly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/01/10/reader-poll/#comment-31995</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:35:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=6816#comment-31995</guid>
		<description>&lt;I&gt; The odd thing is that Obama didn&#039;t spike even higher on killing OBL -- usually this effect is more pronounced. &lt;/I&gt;

I didn&#039;t want to say it, but I am certain that it just burns Obama&#039;s ass that he has never hit the popularity that Bush had...

I too have wondered why Obama&#039;s OBL numbers weren&#039;t higher.  My guess is that the well is poisoned beyond any hope of redemption...

Which is a shame...

About the only thing that could re-unite this country would be a truly earth-shattering event..

&lt;I&gt; I miss Chris1962, hope things are going well for her rebuilding efforts...&lt;/I&gt;

I dropped her an email last week wanting to see how she&#039;s doing...  I hope she&#039;s OK...  But she&#039;s tough..  She&#039;s probably running the entire SANDY cleanup!!  :D


Michale....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i> The odd thing is that Obama didn't spike even higher on killing OBL -- usually this effect is more pronounced. </i></p>
<p>I didn't want to say it, but I am certain that it just burns Obama's ass that he has never hit the popularity that Bush had...</p>
<p>I too have wondered why Obama's OBL numbers weren't higher.  My guess is that the well is poisoned beyond any hope of redemption...</p>
<p>Which is a shame...</p>
<p>About the only thing that could re-unite this country would be a truly earth-shattering event..</p>
<p><i> I miss Chris1962, hope things are going well for her rebuilding efforts...</i></p>
<p>I dropped her an email last week wanting to see how she's doing...  I hope she's OK...  But she's tough..  She's probably running the entire SANDY cleanup!!  :D</p>
<p>Michale....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Speak2</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/01/10/reader-poll/#comment-31994</link>
		<dc:creator>Speak2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:31:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=6816#comment-31994</guid>
		<description>Get rid of the undecideds (perhaps a small note that the numbers don&#039;t add to 100% due to undecideds, or include a side not of where undecideds are at given points in time). This allows you to rescale the vertical axis to expand the view. I would probably use something like a 25-75% range on the vertical axis.

I don&#039;t see the undecideds as being all that useful and I think that for comparisons, you could either expand the vertical axis scale when necessary, or let someone &quot;blip&quot; off the graph for brief periods. Not a big deal when that happens. The point of that data gets made either way.

If there&#039;s something interesting in a comparison of presidents and the undecideds, you could always put that out as a separate chart.

Adding point-in-time notes to the &quot;Obama&#039;s Approval Rating&quot; chart is a good change. I like it for the individual presidential term charts. I think your filters (choice of what to include and omit) are perfectly reasonable so far.

I think that a second-term chart rather than a running total is the way to go to present data for the coming four years. I think the comparison to other second-term presidents is the most useful and avoids the smoothing you discuss.

I would maintain both terms chart, for archival purposes and a general comparison, but it wouldn&#039;t be the primary data presentation.

I definitely prefer the second of the Obama-Bush comparison charts. Much less busy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Get rid of the undecideds (perhaps a small note that the numbers don't add to 100% due to undecideds, or include a side not of where undecideds are at given points in time). This allows you to rescale the vertical axis to expand the view. I would probably use something like a 25-75% range on the vertical axis.</p>
<p>I don't see the undecideds as being all that useful and I think that for comparisons, you could either expand the vertical axis scale when necessary, or let someone "blip" off the graph for brief periods. Not a big deal when that happens. The point of that data gets made either way.</p>
<p>If there's something interesting in a comparison of presidents and the undecideds, you could always put that out as a separate chart.</p>
<p>Adding point-in-time notes to the "Obama's Approval Rating" chart is a good change. I like it for the individual presidential term charts. I think your filters (choice of what to include and omit) are perfectly reasonable so far.</p>
<p>I think that a second-term chart rather than a running total is the way to go to present data for the coming four years. I think the comparison to other second-term presidents is the most useful and avoids the smoothing you discuss.</p>
<p>I would maintain both terms chart, for archival purposes and a general comparison, but it wouldn't be the primary data presentation.</p>
<p>I definitely prefer the second of the Obama-Bush comparison charts. Much less busy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/01/10/reader-poll/#comment-31991</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:14:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=6816#comment-31991</guid>
		<description>Michale -

Well, I seem to recall both Bushes very briefly topped 90% in at least one poll.  It was an all-time record, beating (I&#039;m guessing) either Eisenhower or JFK.  Of course, polling only goes back to about the middle of FDR, so that&#039;s a limited record at best.  No data on how George Washington would have polled, in other words.

The stratospheric ratings both Bushes got were the &quot;rally &#039;round the president&quot; effect, which always happens in times of war or great crisis.  The odd thing is that Obama didn&#039;t spike even higher on killing OBL -- usually this effect is more pronounced.  But it also usually fades away as well.  Dubya Bush rode his bounce longer than most, I should add.  His numbers didn&#039;t come back to where they previously had been for 2 years (of course, he started a second war in that period, which gave him a more-minor second bounce as well).

Anyway, where&#039;s everyone else?  Nobody has any chart thoughts?  I miss Chris1962, hope things are going well for her rebuilding efforts...

:-)

-CW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michale -</p>
<p>Well, I seem to recall both Bushes very briefly topped 90% in at least one poll.  It was an all-time record, beating (I'm guessing) either Eisenhower or JFK.  Of course, polling only goes back to about the middle of FDR, so that's a limited record at best.  No data on how George Washington would have polled, in other words.</p>
<p>The stratospheric ratings both Bushes got were the "rally 'round the president" effect, which always happens in times of war or great crisis.  The odd thing is that Obama didn't spike even higher on killing OBL -- usually this effect is more pronounced.  But it also usually fades away as well.  Dubya Bush rode his bounce longer than most, I should add.  His numbers didn't come back to where they previously had been for 2 years (of course, he started a second war in that period, which gave him a more-minor second bounce as well).</p>
<p>Anyway, where's everyone else?  Nobody has any chart thoughts?  I miss Chris1962, hope things are going well for her rebuilding efforts...</p>
<p>:-)</p>
<p>-CW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/01/10/reader-poll/#comment-31985</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:45:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=6816#comment-31985</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Actually, that&#039;s 80 percent at the top of the chart.&lt;/i&gt;

I just extrapolated..  The DISAPPROVAL fell below 10% (looks like 9%) so that means that the approval had to be 91%.  Of course, not accounting for undecideds..

I am sure in the aftermath of 9/11, there wasn&#039;t any undecideds..  :D


Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Actually, that's 80 percent at the top of the chart.</i></p>
<p>I just extrapolated..  The DISAPPROVAL fell below 10% (looks like 9%) so that means that the approval had to be 91%.  Of course, not accounting for undecideds..</p>
<p>I am sure in the aftermath of 9/11, there wasn't any undecideds..  :D</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/01/10/reader-poll/#comment-31984</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:29:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=6816#comment-31984</guid>
		<description>Michale -

Actually, that&#039;s 80 percent at the top of the chart.

In fact, both Bushes topped 80 percent at one point.  GHWBush for the Gulf War I, GWBush for 9/11.

In one or two polls, each may have topped 90 (that&#039;s what I remember at any rate), but their monthly average was in the 80s.

Anyway, does anyone else have opinions about the charts???

Do tell.

-CW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michale -</p>
<p>Actually, that's 80 percent at the top of the chart.</p>
<p>In fact, both Bushes topped 80 percent at one point.  GHWBush for the Gulf War I, GWBush for 9/11.</p>
<p>In one or two polls, each may have topped 90 (that's what I remember at any rate), but their monthly average was in the 80s.</p>
<p>Anyway, does anyone else have opinions about the charts???</p>
<p>Do tell.</p>
<p>-CW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/01/10/reader-poll/#comment-31982</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:37:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=6816#comment-31982</guid>
		<description>WOW!

Bush topped 90% approval!!!???   :D

I like the charts that show detail..  I also love the charts that have the labels...

And the multi-term charts, while looking &quot;busy&quot; are still pretty good..

My 2 cents.

Michale</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WOW!</p>
<p>Bush topped 90% approval!!!???   :D</p>
<p>I like the charts that show detail..  I also love the charts that have the labels...</p>
<p>And the multi-term charts, while looking "busy" are still pretty good..</p>
<p>My 2 cents.</p>
<p>Michale</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
