I think real-time approval ratings are silly and possibly the worst way to judge someone's past and future performance, but you think they're valid, so let's do this.
- Every current governor that is a potential presidential candidate is sitting at the lowest ratings of their term. Coincidence? (ex Kasich)
- Jindal's ratings are in line with Obama's when adjusted for time in office.
- Barring something improbable like video of him beating Michelle, do you think Obama could do anything to get into the 20s? Compare that to an Indian in Louisiana, a place that is consistently Democrat at the state level. Only two other republican governors have been elected in the last 140 years. Their floors are completely different.
- I'm not saying this is Jindal by any means - But if someone in office pushes an unpopular law that may cause short term pain for long term gain, wouldn't an overnight approval rating be the worst way to judge that person's performance? Again, not Jindal.
-"The only state where UE went up significantly." You forgot to mention another one. North Dakota. Any connection there?
-Before you said his good data didn't matter, because it would have been hard for anyone not to make things better. But the data does matter if it's bad? Do you see any bias in your argument?
-I think Jindal is terrible at the political game and has embarrassed himself almost every time he's been in the national spotlight. But every president post-Nixon had "laughable presidential ambitions" at some point.