Clinton and Obama smooching at the end is wild given the completely different views on their economic performance.
While these data are interesting, this visualization is extremely hard to parse.
The inconsistency between full middle name, middle initial, and middle name being absent is driving me nuts. Who does that? Lol
Sorry, friend, but this is far from beautiful, and may not even be data. I look at that first blue spike over on the left, there, wonder who it is, and try to follow the line to find out. It’s simply impossible to do so.
Calvin Coolidge = PURE ALPHA
This is probably the worst graph I’ve ever seen lol.
Is data supposed to be legible?
talk about irrelevant data.
Impossible to read? Check.
Basic graphing with bad axis? Check
Welcome to the front page of DIB!
**William Jefferson Clinton** sounds like what Hillary calls Bill when he was in trouble.
I should also point out that, while you say ‘Presidents Since Rutherford Hayes’, there are more than a few missing. Carter, Kennedy, Bush Jr., etc.
Could you please share your definition of “beautiful”? I’m honestly curious.
If this is accurate, and I’m not smart enough to say that it is or isn’t.. the Reagan thing is interesting, he’s kind of right in the middle of everyone else. Makes me wonder if that’s part of (not all) the reason he’s so polarizing economically.
Unreadable. I know you wanted to use 2 colours for the purpose of showing parties, but each president different color would be better.
And where are Trump and Biden?
Data is not really beautiful
Content is okay but there are no insights provided by OP, so what to do with it?
IMO, any presidents with less than 4 years don’t truly impact the stock market. I’m sure it happens, but 8 years is a better time span. That being said, I’m shocked FDR numbers are so low. Dude had 12 years starting with a depressed baseline + WW2 to add to it.
This would be a lot clearer if you separated the one termers and two termers into separate graphs.
![[OC] Stock Market Performance Under Presidents Since Rutherford Hayes](https://www.europesays.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/crxl7kp0w5vd1-1920x1024.jpeg)
17 comments
Data and code available at this github (https://github.com/MTabarrok/presidential_stock_market) and an explanation of the chart along with several other charts like it at this blog post (https://www.maximum-progress.com/p/do-presidents-affect-the-stock-market)
Clinton and Obama smooching at the end is wild given the completely different views on their economic performance.
While these data are interesting, this visualization is extremely hard to parse.
The inconsistency between full middle name, middle initial, and middle name being absent is driving me nuts. Who does that? Lol
Sorry, friend, but this is far from beautiful, and may not even be data. I look at that first blue spike over on the left, there, wonder who it is, and try to follow the line to find out. It’s simply impossible to do so.
Calvin Coolidge = PURE ALPHA
This is probably the worst graph I’ve ever seen lol.
Is data supposed to be legible?
talk about irrelevant data.
Impossible to read? Check.
Basic graphing with bad axis? Check
Welcome to the front page of DIB!
**William Jefferson Clinton** sounds like what Hillary calls Bill when he was in trouble.
I should also point out that, while you say ‘Presidents Since Rutherford Hayes’, there are more than a few missing. Carter, Kennedy, Bush Jr., etc.
Could you please share your definition of “beautiful”? I’m honestly curious.
If this is accurate, and I’m not smart enough to say that it is or isn’t.. the Reagan thing is interesting, he’s kind of right in the middle of everyone else. Makes me wonder if that’s part of (not all) the reason he’s so polarizing economically.
Unreadable. I know you wanted to use 2 colours for the purpose of showing parties, but each president different color would be better.
And where are Trump and Biden?
Data is not really beautiful
Content is okay but there are no insights provided by OP, so what to do with it?
IMO, any presidents with less than 4 years don’t truly impact the stock market. I’m sure it happens, but 8 years is a better time span. That being said, I’m shocked FDR numbers are so low. Dude had 12 years starting with a depressed baseline + WW2 to add to it.
This would be a lot clearer if you separated the one termers and two termers into separate graphs.