The "Surge" a "Success"? I really don't think so

I found this blog post over at TPM and found it fascinating. I thought it might be nice to re-post the information here. It's certainly worthy of repeating.

There has been a lot of talk lately, especially from the presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain, that the "surge" that took place in Iraq has been a huge success. But has it been? There are a number of factors that would lead one to a different conclusion, such as the point of view of the Iraqis themselves.

What the US has been calling the success of a "surge," many Iraqis see as evidence of catastrophe. Where US forces point to peace and calm, local Iraqis find an eerie silence.

And when US forces speak of a reduction in violence, many Iraqis simply do not know what they are talking about.

Hundreds died in a series of explosions in Baghdad last month. This was despite the strongest ever security measures taken by the US military, riding the "surge" in security forces and their activities.

There has been a separation, rather than a coming together, of Sunnis and Shiites, by a 12-foot high concrete wall.

The actual number of civilian deaths are being cherry picked by U.S. Officials to exclude deaths by car bombs, which are one of the deadliest forms of violence in Iraq.

Let's not forget the number of Iraqis who have been killed. For Iraqi Security Forces, the number of deaths increased in 2007 over 2006 and haven't significantly dropped. Not to mention the civilian deaths, which haven't seen an extremely huge drop, either. Of course, the numbers that we see reported on such websites are estimates, and the actual numbers are probably much higher.

What about non-combatant deaths? We don't hear a lot about those.

Non-combatant deaths in Afghanistan at U.S. and NATO hands grew approximately 74 percent last year.

Huge success.

Or what about military suicides?

A record number of active-duty soldiers killed themselves last year, according to The Washington Post.

The paper cites an internal Army study that shows 121 soldiers committed suicide in 2007. That's a 20% increase over the prior year, the Post says.

Wow.

And if we want to talk about the strength of al-Qaida, why is it that back when the surge was in full-force, al-Qaida was stronger than ever?

U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Associated Press has learned.

Hey, listen, I'm not saying that certain things haven't improved. And when it comes to things like al-Qaida, I would not be surprised to learn that their operating power has dropped since that report. But that does not make it a "success". An improvement, perhaps. But not a "success".

Can the few improvements we have seen really be called a "success"? I think it would be a major stretch to do so.

A Split in the Left; A Blatant Divide

There has been a split in the left, a very blatant divide. Division is not surprising. There was a divide during the Democratic Primary: Obama vs. Clinton. But the new divide is malicious and virulent, and I fear that perhaps it, unlike the previous, could truly have lasting and damaging effects this election cycle.

The divide I speak of is ideological, and it stems from two main schools of thought.

The first is concerned with the right and duty to speak out, speak up, and speak loudly, no matter what the repercussions and costs.

The second is concerned with the absolute desire to elect our candidate at all costs, even if that means doing so at the expense of critique and criticism, two fundamentals to free speech.

Both schools of thought are wrong. Both prescribe to absolutist dogma. I've spoken before about absolutism in this election, and how detrimental it can be, and is. Both schools of thought are wrong because there is no compromise, and no middle ground.

One either has to take every opportunity one can to attack and deride Obama, even if it is (and it has been, if one looks at his recent poll numbers and media coverage as it relates to his supporters attacks on him) detrimental to him and his campaign, or one has to just shut the hell up and say nothing, or at least leave him alone to fuck up without holding him accountable (a standard that he himself has said he should be held to, in a response he issued thanks to people not shutting up, and for actually holding him to his own standard).

Now, I am by no means saying that certain people don't hold a middle ground, or even advocate it. But the voice of such rationality has been suppressed under the cocophany of absolutist ideology.

I wonder why it is so hard to not both adamantly support Obama and at the same time call him out on his mistakes and gaffes. Part of it, perhaps, is the perception of certain issues as being "mistakes" on Obama's part, when, in reality, they are not, except under the flag of irrationality and unreasonableness. Things such as gun rights and the death penalty, of which Obama holds quite common and reasonable positions.

There has been a new trend upon calling out and criticizing, attacking and even mocking Obama at every opportunity, even for complete non-issues. This is evident in the onslaught he has recently faced in the media. It has gone too far. It has passed the threshold of "constructive criticism" into the realm of "detrimental criticism".

Yet at the same time, there are those who would rather nothing be said, no criticism, however constructive it may be, to take place, because, they argue, it is inherently damaging to Obama and his campaign. But this is just ludicrous. Obama has shown time and again that he can take such criticism of his policies. He has always shown himself to be open to listening to other opinions and refining his policies and positions based upon such things.

I then ask, why can we not get ourselves to the point where we are able to thoughtfully and analytically look at Obama's positions, ideas, opinions, etc., deconstruct them, criticize them, disagree with them, and discuss them, but still hold our support for him, and do whatever we can to see that he is elected in November? Why can't we regulate ourselves against dogmatic ideology to find a balance? That is, after all, part of Obama's message: a coming together not only despite our differences, but also because of our differences.

Absolutism, The Far Left, and the Abandonment of Reason

There is something that I have realized this election, more than anything else, and it's bound to piss a lot of people off, but it really needs to be said.

Let me begin by saying that I am about as far left as one gets in terms of my political ideology and my policy beliefs. I've been verbally attacked, criticized, abused, hurt, and almost beaten down because of the liberal and progressive ideals that I hold. And for the longest time, I felt that my ideas above everyone else's, my staunch, unwavering support for far left positions and policies, were the only true way to think and be. In many ways, it's still hard for me to think otherwise, and to think outside of my own emotions and feelings.

I attend Bard College, which, for anyone that knows about it, is arguably the most liberal college in the country, and certainly on the east coast. The Princeton Review ranked it as the #2 most politically liberal college in the country, and with good reason.

When I got to Bard, I thought I would be perfectly at home, because there would be so many people who shared my far left views on things. I was right, to an extent. But I was wrong in anticipating that most would agree with my views. Instead, they prescribe to an even more leftist view. I like to say there's more Commies than Dems. at Bard, and it would probably be true.

Something I soon realized was how closed-minded many of the far leftists that I met were, to the point of attacking me for my views, which in my life I always believed were further left than normal (and I'm from Vermont of all liberal places). There was a childish immaturity that came into any discussion that did not adhere to their opinions and beliefs, to the point of absolutist doctrines and agendas. "My way or the highway" attitudes that we all know so well, and have for the past seven and a half years criticized unendingly.

Since Obama won the nomination, I have been unable to find much of, if any difference with this absolutist doctrine I see from the far left at my college, and the way in which the far left netroots present themselves online. All dealing in absolutes, all dealing in "my way or the highway," "I know better than anyone else" agendas.

There's no middle ground, and no compromise, and the far left netroots are happy with it being that way, even at the expense of actual progress taking place. As long as you hold to (their idea of) "principles," the world is gonna be OK. Kos recently gave a big "fuck you" to anyone that didn't like his refusal to contribute (talk about reasonableness). And then we have the rhetoric that on first read might not sound so bad, but upon maybe a second or third, really starts to come into fruition. One person (rightly) pointed out on a blog that, (and I'm paraphrasing here), "to the right, if you support choice, you're a murderer. If you support the ACLU, you're unpatriotic and hate America. On the left if you don't think FISA is the end of the world you hate the constitution.

It all deals in absolutes. These are rhetorical devices not used simply by the far right, but by the far left that criticize the far right for that very nature. I wonder how anyone thinks they can enact change and spread progressivism when dealing in such strict absolutes. When did absolutism accomplish anything? Especially in the United States, which founded itself on the concept of "checks and balances"? (I can just see the comments deriding me and Obama for eroding such checks and balances). But things don't work in absolutes. The world isn't so black and white, cut and dry. Such reductive ideology is juvenile in its very nature.

It's amazing to me that such hypocrisy exists, where the far-left criticizes the far-right for saying McCain is too liberal (Ann Coulter was outspoken for this talking point), but then goes ahead and criticizes Obama for being too conservative. Or maybe he's just too black. Or too white.

It doesn't help that once-respected bloggers such as Arianna Huffington and (most especially and disgustingly) Glen Greenwald have prescribed to such an absolutist ideology. Compromise just doesn't exist.

Yet it doesn't matter that the constitution itself was written through years of long, hard-fought battles which resulted in scathing compromises for practically every side. No one got everything they wanted. Many of the founding fathers were furious with the result, but through such compromises, real and true progress was made. But to such absolutist netroots, none of that matters. Compromise is unacceptable. Anything less than their idea of what's right is wrong, without question, without a second-thought.

One of the most eye-opening and rational pieces I've ever read was on The Huffington Post, by Bob Cesca (I would encourage you all to read it). He rightly pointed out, quoting a diary from the DailyKos,

Russ Feingold may have been the lone voice standing up to the first Patriot Act, but he voted for the confirmations of John Ashcroft and John Roberts.

Paul Wellstone was a strong liberal voice in the Senate, yet he voted for DOMA and the Patriot Act.

Dennis Kucinich, aside from being on the political fringe, was a lifelong pro-lifer until he decided he wanted to run for president.

Chris Dodd may do quite well on constitutional matters, but he voted for the Iraqi war, the Patriot Act, and is too beholden to the big banks and the hedge funds which he oversees from the Senate Banking Committee.

Talk about hypocrisy from the left concerning Obama's stances and votes. He followed by saying,

You and I could wait a lifetime for a skeleton key presidential nominee to come along who flawlessly interfaces with each of our pet issues, and, consequently, we'd probably die a politically disappointed and overly cynical death.

Honestly, he's right. And so is Obama. We need change. And if he's a "centrist" for his stance on gay rights (for which my gay father and friends cheer him on), and a centrist for his pro-choice and women's rights stance (for which my feminist friends love him), or his stance on energy and the environment (for which my green hippie friends praise him), or his stance on technology and net-neutrality (for which my techie computer geek friends applaud him), then I guess I'll have to consider myself a "centrist" too.

McCain: Master Flip-Flopper

I am copying (and cleaning up) this post from a blog entry someone had at TPM. John McCain has a long-ass record of flip-flopping... It's just sad.

* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/mccains-offsho...

* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15781.htm...

* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15863.htm...

* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/10/mccain-flips-o...

* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15825.htm...

* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion,he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15864.htm...

* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/now-mccain-is-flip-f...

* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/may/28/mccains-abo... /

* McCain supported moving “toward normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15617.htm...

* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15557.htm...

* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15564.htm...

* McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/20/mccains-97-lob...

* He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15633.htm...

* McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15699.htm...

*McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a“‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded.Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14761.htm...

* McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/mccain-...

* McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14818.htm...

*In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15033.htm...

* McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15337.htm...

* McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15370.htm...

* McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15358.htm...

* McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/19/mccain-economy-bloo... /

* McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-earmark /

*McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting“irresponsibly.”His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15176.htm...

* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16mccain....

* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/10/emtimeem-has-m...

* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/oct/31/mccain-... /

* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/oct/31/mccain-... /

* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14447.htm...

*In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving“feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9658.html

* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral...

*McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as“a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.”In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/18/mccain-greatest-cri... /

* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade http://mediamatters.org/items/200610310003 to saying the exact opposite.http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/19/mccain-abortion /

* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/02/mcc...

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6988.html

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6731.html

* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/us/politics/03mccain....

*In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1880630&page=1

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
http://www.nysun.com/national/campaign-finance-effort-r... /

* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070115/pl_usnw/dnc__mcca...

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8313.html

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15637887 /

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610310003

* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/19/mccain-kissinger /

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and acorrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/19/mccain-kissinger /

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20...

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8066.html

Pictures From the Unity Rally

It's nothing extremely special, but I uploaded the 309 photos I took at the Unity Rally to a Photobucket album. Some of the pictures are useless and pointless, I know. I haven't, as of yet, gotten around to cleaning up the good from the bad. I honestly just wanted to save every picture.

I got a good seat by sneaking onto the press bleachers, so some of the pictures are quite nice, I think. I hope you all enjoy!

My Current Electoral College Predictions (It's never too early to have some fun)

These are my opinions of the way things are currently looking for the Electoral College. I know the Election is almost five months away, but as the Political Junkie that I am, I can't help but already start to formulate possibilities. These will most likely change slightly on a weekly basis, but for a while now I've noticed not much of a change in my overall thoughts concerning the EC.

Safe States Obama: ME, VT, MA, CT, RI, DE, NY, NJ, MD, IL, MN, HI, WA, OR, CA, and DC (200 EV)

Safe States McCain: WV, KY, TN, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, AR, TX, OK, KS, NE, SD, ND, MT, WY, ID, UT, AZ, AK (163 EV)

Swing States: NH, PA, OH, VA, NC, FL, MI, IN, WI, IA, MO, CO, NM, NV (175 EV)

I have seen different places label NJ a swing state, but not IN. My reasons for considering them as I do is that IN has polled extremely close (closer than Florida, for example, which is considered a swing state). Obama has even been ahead in a couple of polls. It is geographically near some other very strong Obama states. Historically, maybe it's not a swing state. But I fully consider it one at this time. NJ has consistently polled for Obama, and quite far ahead. I don't think it's a disputed state at all.

Here's how (based on current trends) I think it'll go:

McCain Swing States Won: FL, NC, IN, NH and NV (58 EV).
Obama Swing States Won: PA, VA, OH, MI, WI, IA, MO, CO, and NM (117 EV).

Final tally:
McCain: 225 EV
Obama: 313 EV


The thing is, I'm tempted to put NH and NC in Obama's column, and perhaps giving MO to McCain. But here, even if MO did go to McCain, Obama would still win. MI is another one I'm getting more unsure about, but again, even putting that in McCain's column leaves Obama with a decent-sized win.

Obama still squeaks by with a win if you subtract CO and NM (which I think will definitely go Obama). Things get ugly by subtracting (at this point) VA and/or OH.

As (I believe) has been pointed out, if Obama wins all the states Kerry did, and then IA, CO and NM, he wins the election with 273 EV.

If anyone wants to know why I put a SPECIFIC state in the column I did, I can explain it, But I don't feel like giving an in-depth explanation without being prompted to do so first, as going over every state would just be painful in its length.

Anyone interested in analyzing and making their own EC Maps should see here.



One thing I will add the following, as it was a response to someone's comment concerning the States Kerry won in 2004 as they relate to Obama's EC Map.

There are only two states Kerry won that I think Obama will have any trouble with: Michigan and New Hampshire.

In my explanation above, I gave NH to McCain, but that could very well change. The state has been more left-leaning in recent years thanks in no small part, I think, to the influence of us here in VT. I reluctantly gave it to McCain because he seems to be popular there. Of course, recent trends dictate that Obama is doing better there than expected, so... That could change.

MI is a real toss-up. Obama's been doing better than McCain there, but not by much. Geographically Obama has the advantage. But it's really so close that it's hard for me to tell. I'm mostly going on the most recent Rasmussen polling, putting Obama ahead by a few points. Considering the fact that people said he would have trouble because of the primary debacle, if he's polling ahead at all right now it means he's in a very good position.

How important is experience in making a good President?

Well, this was one of the huge arguments in contrasting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. She argued that experience was one of the, if not the, most important factor in choosing a President. She even went so far as to say, because of it, that John McCain, because of his experience, and unlike Obama, had passed the "commander-in-chief threshold".

I know numerous arguments had been made about this, but I recently found a very interesting article that details this question on an historical and statistical basis. The article can be found here.

Basically what's done is, based on the rankings of different historical surveys, studies and opinions, articles, etc., a ranking of the best to worst Presidents is made. Then, each of the points of experience that each President had before taking office is made, coming to a cumulative numerical number.

As if rightly pointed out,

All experience is not the same. How do you compare being governor of a small state with being governor of a big state? Is being Vice President worth a pitcher of warm beer or any other fluid? Is being a state senator more or less relevant to being president than being Secretary of Commerce? Impossible to say for sure, so I have justed added up the total number of years of experience as a proxy for experience.

And he gives the reader the ability to weigh each variable accordingly.

But the conclusion is clear: there does not seem to be a correlation between the experience someone has before taking office, and how good a President they are once in office.

In the table below, the Presidents are sorted on experience. The most experienced President was James Buchanan, with Lyndon Johnson and Jerry Ford getting the silver and bronze medals, respectively. Chester A. Arthur had a mere 1.5 years experience before he was elevated to the Presidency upon the asassination of President Garfield. If experience and greatness correlate, one would expect the top half of the table (the most experienced Presidents) to be mostly green (good) and the bottom half (inexperienced) to be mostly red (bad). If there is no correlation, the red and green should be random. Indeed, the latter seems to be the case. The top half in terms of experience (above the gray bar) has 11 bad Presidents and 10 good ones, essentially no correlation between greatness and experience. If you don't like this result and want to try for a better one, just get the spreadsheet and start weighting the columns. Undoubtedly you will be able to get a different result if you try hard enough. But the point remains, the Presidents with a lot of experience have not been more outstanding than those with little experience.

The table can be viewed on the page. It's in HTML format, so it's too much of a pain to transfer here. But here's a scatterplot of the same data:

Click to enlarge

The Presidents (way) under the line might be regarded as overperformers. They didn't have much experience going into office, but did pretty well once there. The ones (way) above the line had lots of experience but were not good Presidents.