You really can’t follow a simple argument so it’s no wonder you’re so easily duped by just baseless and self-contradictory statements as Keenan’s.

If you buy the argument presented in the article you linked to, Dennis, than you must believe it to be true.

But it seems you realize just how specious that argument is so I have to ask you, why did you link to the article in the first place to support your claims?
–fafaroo

Wow, first a Strowbridgean, and then now a Jaim-ian leap of logic.

Terry Keenan didn’t mention Reagan. I linked to the article because she was writing about the same phenomena I talked about last week, the interesting negative correlation between Bam’s poll number plummeting and the stock market’s rising, and the mirror opposite a few months ago….even his rise in the polls last summer when the market was tanking. Because I linked to it and commented on what I thought was interesting doesn’t mean I stand by all her statements or believe all of them to be true, fafaroo. Surely you aren’t that obtuse.

You just made up that line of argument and attributed a statement to me not made by me, but not even a statement made by the author of an article I linked to.

That’s weird. That’s shit Strowbridge and Jaim do. Now you getting down in the same sewer those two play around in.

“The effect presidents have on the stock market is overrated.”

I agree, but try telling that to little Dennis.

Here’s what we do know: eight years of Bush was a disaster for the markets, and more importantly for the economy in general (jobs, wages). Eight months of Obama? Jury is definitely still out, but there are some positive signs. There are also the historical numbers, which argue that a U-shaped Recession (i.e., the Bush Recession) usually lasts about 24 months, and that we’re 20 months into this one.

Do the math.

If you buy the argument presented in the article you linked to, Dennis, than you must believe it to be true.

But it seems you realize just how specious that argument is so I have to ask you, why did you link to the article in the first place to support your claims?

I don’t know if your obsession is causing your regression, or vice versa, or if the two are just coming on with you at the same time, but something is going on with you that is somewhat alarming.

This from the guy who would have us believe that the stock market feared Reagan was “bent on expanding the role of government.”

I fail to see the reason.

Or is this a case of conservatives picking the explanation they prefer to explain coincidence, not causation?

It’s a work in progress, falafaroo; I told you that last week. Terry and I need more data points. Again, stay tuned.

Dear, dear. And you try so hard, too.

In one sentence you embolden that ‘the worst may be over, and the stock market begins to sense this’, and then in the next sentence you say that is definitive proof that things are turning around.

This is a Strowbridgean leap of logic. For you even. The kind of thing you’d have heart palpitations if I was ever bold enough to try that kind of dishonesty here.

The kind of thing that makes me shake my head and wonder why I even bother trying to educate guys like you. Your method of arguing is bizarre.

The article states this:

According to research from the folks at Ned Davis dating all the way back to 1959, stocks do better when the public thinks the man in the White House is doing worse.

In fact, in weeks when the presidential approval rating sagged below 50 percent, stocks rose at an annual rate of 9 percent — versus only 2 ½ percent when the president in office sported a wildly popular 65 percent approval rating in the polls.

So this apparently holds true for every president going back to 1959. There have been six Republican presidents since 1959.

So how does that jibe with this:

Furthermore, falling approval ratings can hamstring an ambitious chief executive bent on expanding the role of government — a scenario that Wall Street often applauds and which appears to be happening right now.

Are we to believe that all six of the Republican presidents were “bent on expanding the role of government” which had the stock market nervous?

The article doesn’t state this is effect is only apparent during democratic administrations. So what gives?

Or is this a case of conservatives picking the explanation they prefer to explain coincidence, not causation?

Americans witnessed this phenomenon firsthand on Inauguration Day; despite the national excitement about an Obama presidency and an approval rating near 70 percent, the Dow plunged 332 points.

The correlation is stark, and there may be two reasons behind the relationship. First of all, poll numbers are a lagging indicator of voter sentiment.

By the time a president starts to get blamed for a bad economy and high unemployment, the worst may be over, and the stock market begins to sense this.

Furthermore, falling approval ratings can hamstring an ambitious chief executive bent on expanding the role of government — a scenario that Wall Street often applauds and which appears to be happening right now.

The correlation is stark, and there may be two reasons behind the relationship. First of all, poll numbers are a lagging indicator of voter sentiment.

By the time a president starts to get blamed for a bad economy and high unemployment, the worst may be over, and the stock market begins to sense this.

Thanks for the definitive proof that things are turning around Dennis!

Much appreciated.

MARKET APPROVAL
STOCKS RALLY WHEN PREZ RATINGS DIVE
-Terry Keenan

This came out shortly after my post last week. I don’t know Terry reads the comments here or if we were just thinking the same thoughts, but I need to email her and show her some of my findings and monitor this oddity a little closer.

Stay tuned, my friend.

Oh really Dennis? Have you completed your deep research into the phenomenon? Have you crunched all the numbers?

Dennnis, when you first brought this up you claimed there is a factual causal link between the two numbers:

But the fact is, Obama’s approval numbers being down is comforting to some investors since now his radical tendencies will likely have to be tempered somewhat and held in check.

You didn’t bother to back this statement up in the last thread. But since you brought it up again, I’m certain you have your evidence all to hand, now. So Dennis, let’s have it.

The trend numbers for Obama look like the northern border of Virginia, Jaim. And I’m not talking Tyson’s Corner or Dulles, either. I’m talking VA Beach or Sandbridge. Obama could even see the Outer Banks from his back porch right now.

No, the argument you started to make after President Obama’s innauguration was that daily performance of the DOW = daily (hourly?) performance of the president. And you’ve failed to congratulate Obama for doing a pretty good job of stabilizing and/or improving the US markets.

But let’s stay friends, little Dennis. You gave Bush II eight years to fuck up the economy, you’ve given President Obama seven months to right the wrongs of the GOP.

I’m sure we’ll still be arguing come late 2010, but I’m also sure that I’ll be right and you’ll be wrong once again. Trends look reasonably good for Obama, “HOPING HE FAILS” looks pretty silly.

No one on the Left is calling for anyone to shut up,

Shirley you can’t be serious saying that. Every day someone here tells someone to STFU. Every day someone on the Left tells people on the right to STFU. That statement is laughable. Even for someone who’s not an American citizens.

Sarah Palin; Obama’s “Death Panel” Could Kill My Down Syndrome Baby.
What else you got?

Seriously, Gil, you must believe I have plenty, otherwise you wouldn’t post four diatribes in a row addressing only things I have said on this thread. There are quite a few other conservatives who have commented on the ridiculousness of the assertion that Obama is some sort of economic guru who are much smarter than me, yet you chose four things I’ve said to remark on. Bizarre.

He didn’t even acknowledge there WAS a problem with the banking system until he suspended his Presidential campaign to rush back to Washington to find out why his support of Bush economics had driven the economy to the brink of collapse.

That is a patently false assertion. If you want to revise that statement or retract it before I take the two seconds it would take to thoroughly deconstruct and debunk it, you may have it. Even the day he made the stupid blunder of a statement that the fundamentals of the economy were sound that Obama seized on by taking the one part of the sentence that made McCain look stupid, he went into detail about the financial crisis. That was well before he suspended his campaign. But before I go one, I’ll let you walk that one back if you’d like to.

Holy fuck; so Dumbya gets only praise from you for starting a war in Iraq that was utterly unnecessary and which he completely mishandled, not to mention totally abandoning Afghanistan in order to facilitate his Iraqi debacle, he ushers in the era of fiscal malfeasance which nearly destroys the world economy and severely debilitates yours, but you want to give him credit for briefly surging the Dow YEARS ago?

You have no idea what the conversation/argument with Jaim was, jrfunky. Like another idiot very similar to you here in Zython, you always tend to come in very late to a thread and start spouting off crap as you read it before taking the time to understand what the context of the response was as it pertained to a prior post to someone else. In short, you’re a buffoon. Even a casual glance at your website shows not one original thought on it. Almost without exception, everything on there is the subject of a post that was made here previously. My guess is your Canadian audience isn’t aware of that so no one calls you on your leeching.

The argument I made was that if I should be giving Obama credit for his economic stewardship, then so should have Jaim at at least some point over his eight years. He never did. So we’re both partisans. It’s a circle argument. And jrfunky, you are about the last person who posts here who should be calling someone else obtuse. People for the most part stopped even responding to you after that day you ridiculously asserted that before Michael Jackson came along, no black singers ever even got on the radio, that the ones they played were white guys covering black singers’ songs. I still laugh when I think about it.

Holy fuck; so Dumbya gets only praise from you for starting a war in Iraq that was utterly unnecessary and which he completely mishandled, not to mention totally abandoning Afghanistan in order to facilitate his Iraqi debacle, he ushers in the era of fiscal malfeasance which nearly destroys the world economy and severely debilitates yours, but you want to give him credit for briefly surging the Dow YEARS ago?

How can you be so obtuse?

By your logic, even YOU should be heaping praise on Obama for the positive signs the economy is showing, but you’re still trying to find a way to malign him and shower the kudos on Dumbya.

THAT. MAKES. NO. SENSE.

He didn’t even acknowledge there WAS a problem with the banking system until he suspended his Presidential campaign to rush back to Washington to find out why his support of Bush economics had driven the economy to the brink of collapse.

Yabba Dabba Dumb.