I’ve seen that graph before. You could write a book on what that graph says about, not just americans but human nature in general.

The 9/11 bounce is something. Stern was on the radio that day, saying (during the attacks) that getting behind the president was the right thing to do, that the morning was no time to criticize.

One could say the same thing about the Iraq war. What would be interesting is contrasting that graph with one of the Iraq invasion’s approval.

Saddam’s capture? Something to show for this stupid invasion, I suppose.

The Reagan bounce is smaller than I thought it would be.

Can’t wait to see what the October surprise will do to it LOL.

Posted by: Vince at July 21, 2004 03:10 PM

The graph also serves as a measuring stick for the liberal undermining media to track how well they take Americans from the times they are hearing news that can’t be spun, to where the media takes them with it’s propaganda.

I find this very interesting.

Posted by: No Party at July 21, 2004 03:19 PM

I just heard about the Linda Ronstadt thing in Vegas. That is hilarious! I’m emailing the Aladdin with a big ‘congrats’.

That man deserves some patronage.

Posted by: No Party at July 21, 2004 03:31 PM

Only graph that counts will be in early November.

Posted by: DWC at July 21, 2004 03:46 PM

I work a LOT in data analytics and when I saw that chart some time back, my first impression is that it is suspect. It is too linear, particularly in the 9/11 to Iraq war section, which is dead-on linear with noise. Most natural systems, including human perceptions of value and appreciation follow exponential rises and declines.

Also, you often see disclaimers on polls of about +/- 3-4%. Assuming this chart is valid, you get an indication that the range across numerous polls is really about 10% (+/- 5%). If his approval is 70, it is likely 70, but is really somewhere between 65 and 75.

I like to look at these things on an absolute scale too, such as 0-100 instead of a data-scale, which gives the impression that a 47% approval rating is rock bottom.

The last conclusion I make is that his current rating, while lower, is statistically near what is was when he was elected.

Posted by: Max Darkside at July 21, 2004 05:48 PM

The press was just as hard on Bill Clinton even before he became the Democratic frontrunner in 1992 and all the way through two terms as they are on Bush now. Fundamentally, they are not liberal, they are adversarial.

Posted by: rdelephant at July 21, 2004 06:29 PM

Vince, “The 9/11 bounce is something. Stern was on the radio that day, saying (during the attacks) that getting behind the president was the right thing to do, that the morning was no time to criticize.”

Just as well for Bush the public didn’t see him nearly wetting his pants in that primary school then.

And its telling that he has turned such a position of strength, and of support and sympathy from the international community, into one of such contempt.

Posted by: symptomless at July 21, 2004 09:19 PM

If people really want to inflict damage on John Kerry and his rich old lady, it’s really simple. Stop purchasing Heinz products and start a sell off of Heinz stocks. Hit them where it hurts, in the pocket.

Posted by: Outlaw at July 21, 2004 09:47 PM

Yeah…you do know that she is a (very) minority (less then 4%) shareholder in Heinz?

Posted by: Lakhim at July 21, 2004 09:58 PM

Lakhim hits it on the head there. That would be about as effective as avoiding all women named “Theresa” or “Therese”.

Posted by: gus3 at July 21, 2004 10:44 PM

“Stop purchasing Heinz products and start a sell off of Heinz stocks. Hit them where it hurts, in the pocket.”

Are you nuts? If you look at most ketchups, the first ingredient is water, then tomato puree. Heinz’s first ingredient is tomato puree, then water. It’s the king of condiments.

I love ketchup. It’s soy sauce for whitey.

Heinz stock I know nothing of.

Posted by: Vince at July 22, 2004 08:38 AM