Dan Connelly wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> Dan Connelly wrote:
>>
>>> P.S. encouraging:
>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/bushjobapproval.png
>>
>>
>> I had to extend the left axis to handle the most recent polls. The old
>> plot is:
>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/oldbushjobapproval.png
>>
>>
>
> Interesting observations:
>
> 1. Fox registers consistently high numbers, Zogby consistently low.
Most national polls use "adults of voting age." Fox uses "registered"
voters. Zogby uses "likely" voters. In addition, most of the other polls
ask a (binary) approve or disapprove question. Zogby asks a four-part job
rating question as: excellent/good/fair/poor/not sure." What I've plotted
for Zogby is (excellent+good) - (fair+poor).
> 2. Two clear spikes: 911 and Saddam capture. He needs to get Osama,
> or he loses in 2004 (Go, Osama, Go! [*])
Third spike is "Mission accomplished."
GWB has never had an extended bounce in his job approval ratings; he's
actually never had a stable flat plateau.
> Also, two very interesting plots:
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/exp-percap.png
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/pct-gdp.png
>
> Can you say "value on the dollar"?
Those focus on disability-adjusted expectation of life at birth, but by
almost any measure the US is smack dab in the middle of the developed
countries (we're certainly better off than third-world countries, but then
that's not who we usually compare ourselves to). The one variable where we
are unambiguously ranked number one is cost. It's not close.
> And, maybe my favorite:
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/fat-vote.png
Ben Weiner pointed out that the Mountain West states have close to the
same slope but a different intercept.
