So, we agree. Albeit for different reasons. :D

"Yea... I can live with that."
-Keeanu Reeves, THE REPLACEMENTS

:D

Michale

i think it would be a lot better if the funds didn't go to any businesses whatsoever. there are so many state and local governments who need major help, so much infrastructure that's decaying, there's really no pressing need to give those funds to lots of companies that have not been carefully vetted for their viability. political patronage does suck, but it is older than this country and unlikely to end anytime soon.

i'm comfortable saying that the recovery has been limited and largely inefficient, but to say there's been barely ANY recovery denies the facts of where we were four years ago.

Would you also agree that, if Stimulus Funds went to businesses that actually were competent rather than simply rewarding ideological loyalty, that the recovery would be a LOT better than it is??

If you need background, I can list all the hundreds of companies that had two things in common..

They were political donors

AND

They were bankrupt or on the way there soon after receiving stimulus funds...

Michale

Actually, I was thinking more of a 40-60 range on the vertical axis. Since there's no dip or spike after the first half year that goes outside this range, you could just have the first quarter go off the chart (no big deal, really).

While you want to show the steadiness, if that's all you're showing, there really isn't any need for your analyses.

Instead, your analyses look at short-term variation and medium-term trends, so having the middle 20 points highlighted by "magnification" enables that much better.

Not to be pedantic, but the point of descriptive statistics (such as using a graphic to display data) is to show the data in an easier to see way than, say, a table of numbers.

If you felt the need for it, you could have the "click on the graphic" link link to a graph that includes the high and low of the first six months. Personally, I don't see a need for it. You could even have a comment line underneath declaring the high and low point of the first six months (again, I don't think there's a need).

As for linking to your bottom content, keeping such a page "static" while updating it on some regular schedule, great way to deal with that.

While what you say may be true, ask your average Joe Sixpack if he is better off then he was 4 years ago...

I think we both know what the answer would be..

“This is some rescue. You came in here and you didn’t have a plan for getting out?”

Now THAT was funny!! :D

Michale

There has been barely ANY recovery to this point.

michale,

i suppose that depends on one's definition of recovery. if you mean recovering to y2k levels, then yes we have a looooong way to go. but relative to december 2008, we're definitely doing better. this is what i mean when i say obama's supporters and critics both tend to overstate their respective cases. i agree that the spending has been way too high for way too little impact on the general welfare, but that's par for the course since reagan dreamed up SDI. i'm comfortable saying that the recovery has been limited and largely inefficient, but to say there's been barely ANY recovery denies the facts of where we were four years ago.

“This is some rescue. You came in here and you didn’t have a plan for getting out?”
-princess leia, star wars

~joshua

Oh, I largely agree with your enumerated points. I would add

4) because he's been re-elected, he is not as averse to fighting a fight he might lose.

In the first term, one of O's problems was he would shy away from certain battles, so the GOP couldn't paint him as a "failed" president who couldn't get stuff done. He seems a whole lot less interested in such nuance now.

-CW

Newsflash for ya...

There has been barely ANY recovery to this point.

And you know why??

Not because of GOP Obstructionism.. W/o GOP obstructionism, this country would be in the shit hole..

There has been barely any recovery because Democrats have spent spent spent like they can print the money..

AND THEY DO!!!

But ya know.. Even the orgasm of spending MIGHT have prompted a better recovery..

But instead of spending WISELY, Democrats have rewarded POLITICAL loyalty...

NOT competence.

NOT good ideas..

NOT companies that actually can survive...

Democrats have based their spending on ONE thing and ONE thing only..

Ideological loyalty...

THAT is why we have no recovery..

PERIOD...

Michale

1) contrary to popular belief, the way to improve your poll ratings is to fight; he's fighting

2) not only is he fighting, but he's picking good fights

3) and not only is he picking good fights, but he's fighting from a position of strength and he's gotten much better at negotiating (compromise when appropriate, but don't compromise from the start)

I love when I see stuff like this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-fiscal-obama-idUSBRE9160ZI20130207

"I am prepared, eager and anxious to do a big deal, a big package, that ends this governance by crisis where every two weeks, or every two months, or every six months, we are threatening this hard-won recovery."

Yes! Focus on how these cost cuts ... that Republicans keep insisting on ... will crush any recovery we've had to this point.

"But it also means that we've got to be able to close some tax loopholes that the average American cannot take advantage of, to raise the revenue to actually do the job in a way that allows us to continue to grow."

Yes again! Keep fighting to get rid of loopholes for the wealthy.

These are the types of things that I believe will only improve his ratings.

-David

i like this idea. as i wrote above, i think it's not really appropriate to compare any first term with any second term, because the numbers carry a slightly different meaning. even if the difference is not as pronounced as i'm conceiving it to be, people have to at least feel somewhat differently about a new president and one who has already had over four years in office.

perhaps that's why some people on the left even now find it so incomprehensible that bush was re-elected, given his second-term poll numbers. even before his second term, when people reflected upon bush's body of work, overall they found him wanting, as they generally still do. however, their behavior in the voting booths in 2004 (irrespective of some ohio shenanigans) reflected an opinion of a different nature. even if most people thought he was a lousy president, quite a few still felt safer with him in charge.

~joshua

There is a certain "the election's over... whew!" relief factor at play. The interesting thing to me is that, almost without exception, ALL presidents' approval ratings go up right after the election -- even those that LOSE. Americans get keyed up during the election, but right afterwards there seems to be a "well, he wasn't all THAT bad" feeling, win or lose.

-CW

As for the data, I'm thinking of removing "Column Archives" and "Raw Data" for the first term, and creating a static page here I can link to, if anyone's interested. Then maybe I'll continue giving stats for second term at the bottom, I dunno.

One thing I'm sure of: I will be splitting the "all time" listing into first and second term groupings. Obama is not likely to ever hit the high numbers of his initial honeymoon ever again, so this will be much more useful for the second term, I think.

-CW

One note: there are technical reasons why this type of graph wouldn't work for anything other than just the monthly Obama chart. So it might have limited uses.

-CW

You mean something like this?

It was one of the demos I played around with. Cuts out the undec., and has a range determined by highest and lowest ratings (although I fudged the 20% line a little, O's rating at the beginning was like 19% I think).

What do people think?

-CW

"should i vote for this guy again?"

this judgment is probably subject to all sorts of short-term influence from the media, friends, co-workers, anyone with a stake in the outcome. afterward, perhaps it's more personal and reflective. because there isn't as much noise from the outside influencing what we think, it's probably a more honest assessment of whether we believe someone has done well or poorly.

Still think you can do away with the undecideds and show us an easier to see small fluctuations version of all graphics by showing a smaller range on the vertical axis.

As far as the space called for by the raw monthly data listing, linking to that or at least doing two or three columns would enable less scrolling.