Hmmn… Wonder what the relationship would be??

Don’t have it immediately at hand but saw post not too long ago that showed that post WWII presidential popularity tracked with unemployment rate to an amazing degree.

Actually, a correct measure of the relationship between Obama and the market should be the day Obama was elected. On November 3, 2008, DOW hovered somewhere near 9,600. Since Obama’s election the next day the market has not been able to recover that height.

Just look at the headlines in Gallup page: “Amid Debate, Obama Approval Rating on Healthcare Steady,” “Presidential Approval and the Dow: No Clear Relationship,” “Presidential Approval Usually Falls Below 50%; Timing Varies.” Clearly, the folks at Gallup are trying to find ways to justify why Obama’s ratings are sinking.

The market is a very good measure of the confidence in the president. Most investors believe that Obama and those around him are radical Marxists. So, they figure the worse this guy does with the public, the better their chances that he wil finally leave them alone. Of course, Obama won’t. But the elections are coming.

the vertical axis on the Gallup graphs may not be the best one.

The accompanying graph, and all other graphs in this story, displays Dow closing values and presidential job approval ratings indexed to the respective averages for each presidential administration.

It doesn’t matter, anyway. Many of us had observed long ago that the market started to turn up as soon as ZerO’s popularity started to wane. There is no way to prove it, but we thought it could be because of the very reasons Cramer posited–as ZerO’s ability to completely destroy the free market became more and more in doubt, fear was reduced and confidence restored.

That’s why the other Presidential graphs are irrelevant, other than Reagan’s. None of them were actively interested in interfering in the markets, so there was little correlation of any kind. In Reagan’s case, a lot of things happened at once. He, like ZerO, came into office as a popular figure. Things didn’t improve immediately, and his popularity faltered. But, as his initiatives were implemented and started to work as advertised, both popularity and market success reinforced each other.

A big difference between Reagan and ZerO is that Reagan’s avowed intentions were welcomed by most people, and we believed they would make things better. ZerO’s intentions may have initially been welcomed by a majority, but once they were explained and a price tag was attached, they were very frightening to entrepreneurs and market investors and taxpayers, too.

Also, Reagan’s words were simple and straightforward. He was clear in his intentions, and that he was in charge. ZerO, OTOH, is vague and wordy. It’s never clear just what he means, because he contradicts himself daily. Such a person is hard to trust. What comes through is a shifty, sneaky, manipulator of words, one who isn’t even as good at it as Bill Clinton was.

There are a great many of us now who “want Obama to fail,” in order that we and our children and grandchildren may have a chance to succeed.