The stock markets aren't happy with the election results.

For those intersted; part of the article about the poll (thanks DC):

He’s still vastly more popular than Congress, particularly congressional Republicans. But in the biggest political clash of the year – over the federal budget and how to curb deficits – voters split 44 percent to 42 percent between preferring Congress or Obama.

At least some of the president’s fall to Earth lies in the fact that voters no longer see him in the context of an election. He has to stand alone in the eyes of voters again and doesn’t benefit from the comparison with Republican rival Mitt Romney.

“You remove the electoral context and post-election celebration, and some of the numbers are returning to the dissatisfaction people had,” said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in New York, which conducted the poll.

“Any glow from his re-election is starting to fade,” he said.

The national survey, conducted four months after Obama was re-elected with 51 percent of the popular vote, found 45 percent of voters approving of the way he’s handling his job and 48 percent disapproving.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/11/185487/mcclatchy-marist-poll-shows-obama.html#storylink=cpy

 

After reading that article, I'd say it's clear that the American Public is generally unhappy with all of its' leadership.

Kinda interesting that despite the disapproval of Republicans, and the thought that they're to blame for the gridlock, their approach to the deficit is more favored than Obama's.

Huh?

 

That's not true. Unless ol' Denny Crane is managing hundreds of million to several billion dollars.

 

Maybe if you were dumb enough to buy stocks with no liquidity to begin with. If there was a new price printed it's because a transaction was made. The markets fell but they didn't lock up. Similarly in 2008 it was possible to get out of stocks. I had financials stocks, which crashed the hardest and I was still able to get out of those.

Perhaps the exception was the "flash crash" on May 6th 2010. But that was ~10% drop.

 

The thread title embarrasses Republicans. With the Dow Jones average at its all-time high over 14,000, they want it to disappear.

 

in all honesty, only a tiny bit of the success or failure of the stock market should be laid at the feet of the President. But, all the republicans were so quick to make blustery accusations about how reelecting Obama was going to kill the market, that if that logic did hold water, then Obama should receive accolades for the strong market. But of course, republicans are quick to say if anything goes wrong its because of that Kenyon, but if anything goes right its in spite of that Kenyon. Bull Shit. Bull shit on all counts.

 

So nobody finds this odd? Were Democrats confused by the questions?

(For the record, I am Independent, so my comment isn't coming from a Republican trying to knock Dems).

 

I have read many a post by you and no matter what you call yourself, your views are very similar to Republican. And where they do differ, they never seem to align with the Democratic positions. So I call hogwash. If it smells like a Republican...

 

Fair enough. But you still ignored the question, which is not surprising, and was the point of my post, but whatever. If it smells like a Democrat.....

A little background, so you can understand..... aside from a few posters who lean heavily Republican here, there are several posters here jumping up and down and pointing fingers at the Republican. So, it's pretty easy to jump in and defend Republicans. Because so many people are pointing fingers at Democrats. But I have a few posts where I made it clear that the Dems are lame for pointing fingers at Republicans, and vice versa. Because everyone created this mess. It's not a Democratic v. Republican thing, ultimately. For anyone to truly blame this mess on one political party versus the other.... it's naive, short-sided, narrow-minded, ignorant..... whatever you want to call it. And that's when I've jumped it. But cool. Digress from the actual point. You'd make a good politician (does that fall under personal attacks? If so, apologies in advance for comparing you to a politician).

If you would like to see my voter registration, I'd be happy to send it your way. There are some things where I lean very heavily Republican, and some things I lean very heavily Democratic. I can tell you this: While I never voted for Obama, I have also NEVER voted for a Republican president.

 

Very true.

 

I don't find it that odd. Obama has never been given high marks with regard to curbing the deficit. 44% vs 42% isn't a big surprise. I'm more surprised he got 42% on his side in this area.

You asked if anyone still thinks highly of Obama, I guess the answer is 45% of American still do?

 

OK BG, I'll take a stab at your question (as long as you never compare me to a politician again, it really hurt!)

I don't find it odd at all, but then again, I don't really put much faith or trust in the public's view of just about anything. So I go by how I view the situation, and I realize that most people are neither completely one thing or another (Rep or Dem in this case). So it's very possible that people would merge views from one group with the views from another and find create a middle-ground in their minds.

But, taking it even further, those are two very different things.
1) who is responsible for gridlock
2) which proposal is "better"

I am going to take this completely away from politics for a moment. Group A thinks the best way to get Water from the river to the town is to build an aqueduct. Group B thinks the best way is to carry the water in buckets and also to drill wells in town.

Lets assume there is a definitive answer that the aqueduct is the best choice.

Group A is correct but is so dogmatic that only their approach be used that they bicker with Group B, who has said lets do a little of both, lets bring water in buckets for the short term, and build aqueducts for the long term. But group A refuses and wont let the group B people carry any water up to the town. The bickering goes on as reserves of water get drained. Eventually, the townspeople could very well say that the gridlock is group A's fault, now they are thirsty and dying. But the townspeople could also say that group A had the better option.

OK, i have to go back to work and don't have time to read what I just wrote. Hopefully it makes at least a little sense.

 

No, it isn't. This rally is entirely predicated on the previously unprecedented infusion of billions of dollars by the FED (which is now the norm) and keeping interest rates low.

If Romney were elected, it is likely that Bernanke would have quit or someone new in his position. The likely outcome was actually trying to stop the QE program which should have hurt the market, in the short term..but kind of mitigated the impending destruction of the US economy.

The market will correct after QE is stopped. However, through it, its been inflated so greatly that when it does crash its going to actually going to have been better for the election results to result in an immediate negative correction versus what is basically going to be a big crash.

This is going to end worse than the previous financial crisis/housing bubble when its all said and done. Obama and the FED are just keeping the QE and low rates going until 2015 so whoever is coming next will get the blame.

 

I guess I'm in the minority. I found it very odd because everyone is piling on the Republican Party, and blaming them for the mess we're in.

So, let's see. The people are split on Obama's approval; the people are overwhelmingly disapproving of the Congressional Republicans and blame them for the current gridiron and the overall mess we're in.

Yet, they favor the Congressional Republicans' approach to the budget deficit. Maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges, but it just doesn't add up to me (as you have suggested). It just seems it's a bit irresponsible to lay these things out together in the same article, as many people would probably take the stats the way I just did I(not that the media has ever been irresponsible).

I mean, we're talking about this whole deficit issue. At first glance, when I see stats on who is responsible for the mess and who has the better approach, readers are likely going to assume we're comparing apples to apples.

But all this BS is why I generally avoid politics in the first place. A whole lot of manipulation, bitching, and finger-pointing; this then gets used to get one side a deal in their favor while the other party looks like a shit head. You'd think they'd learn to work together to find solutions that make them all look like winners, and ultimately, benefit the American Public. But that just makes too much fucking sense. And common sense is something lacking with our politicians and media.

<jumps off soapbox>

\endscene

Fuck politics.

 

The budget deficit, fiscal cliff or other manufactured crisis has little to do with the market. What the President does day to day has little to do. Its all the FED, but that is related to who is in the oval office.

The bulk of the market are wealthy investors increasing their wealth by using the FED's loose monetary policy as a safety net for their investments. Nothing more. They don't believe the economy is healthy and when the safety net is gone, they'll all pull out causing catastrophe.