There's probably nothing to these trends, Gallup's analysts say.
by Mark Silva and updated at 1 pm EDT
The stock market is up.
And President Barack Obama's stock is down.
A relative rally in the Dow Jones average, climbing out of the pit it hit in March but still well below the soaring peaks reached before last year's stomach-turning dive, has brought some cheer to investors and those still hoping to retire sometime before 2050
But at the same time, the president's job approval has slumped, reaching a new low in the Gallup Poll this week -- 50 percent measured Thursday in the results of the past three days' average of daily tracking surveys, with the potential for a slide below 50 today. The new results from the latest three-day Gallup track are out this afternoon, and Obama is holding at 50 percent job-approval, his all-term low.
Is there any relationship?
None that Gallup's analysts can find.
So why read any further?
Because this is not about Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck -- or is it?
Is the president's slide perhaps attributable in part to the drumbeat of criticism that the White House has faced for its health-care initiative and economic stimulus plans? Or simply because the public's approval of his handling of health care, and the economy, is down?
All that talk about Communists in the White House -- courtesy of FOX News' Beck -- and those "death panels'' in the health-care plan -- courtesy of Palin's Facebook -- certainly cannot help the president's approval rating.
Not that Palin could beat Obama in a matchup, as some would like to see.
But a connection between Obama's summer slide and the stock market's rally? None that Gallup can detect.
So read on. For the non-story of the day, on this welcome Friday, may be more interesting than the recent run of news -- or running of mouthes.
"President Barack Obama's job approval rating has been steadily declining over the past several months at the same time that the Dow Jones Industrial Average has been steadily increasing,'' Gallup's Frank Newport, editor in chief, and colleagues write today.
"This inverse relationship between job approval and the stock market is not a common pattern with recent presidents. In fact, Gallup's analysis of job approval ratings and the Dow going back to 1977 finds few sustained periods where the Dow and presidential approval were strongly related (either positively or negatively).
"Even for Obama, the current pattern is only recent. In the early months of his administration, Obama's job approval was positively related to the Dow, rather than negatively related, as is the case currently,'' they write.
"There was no consistent relationship between public perceptions of Jimmy Carter's job performance and how the stock market performed. The Dow Jones average was essentially flat during Carter's presidency, while his approval rating generally waned during his four years as president, aside from a spike in late 1979 after U.S. hostages were seized in Iran.
"Carter's term was marked by some of the more challenging economic times of the post-World War II era -- resulting in his generally low overall job approval ratings -- but the Dow remained flat for most of his term, rather than declining. The patterns evident in the administration of this Democratic president, in other words, show little relationship to the pattern seen in the current Democratic administration....
"Ronald Reagan took office in a down economy, and in the early phases of his presidency the Dow stayed flat, while Reagan's high initial approval ratings declined as unemployment continued to rise.
"Beginning in mid-1982, the Dow began to rise slowly, as did Reagan's approval rating in early 1983 -- presumably as Americans sensed the economy turning around. In the latter part of Reagan's presidency, the Dow continued to rise but Reagan's approval rating sank as the Iran-Contra scandal erupted. Reagan's approval ratings were relatively unaffected by the Black Monday tanking of the stock market in October 1987.
"During 1988, both the stock market and Reagan's approval rating showed modest gains. In summary, during the Reagan administration as a whole, there was not a consistent pattern of correlation between the president's job approval ratings and the Dow.
"George H.W. Bush took office during generally good economic times, and in the early part of his presidency, both his approval rating and the stock market rose. The threat of war with Iraq and rising gas prices caused both to tumble in the latter part of 1990.
"Bush enjoyed a tremendous rally in support when war with Iraq commenced in early 1991. The stock market also rose, but much less sharply. Even though the country was in the midst of an economic recession in late 1990 and early 1991, the stock market did not show much negative momentum during this time. However, that recession clearly took its toll on public support for Bush, as his approval rating slid throughout 1992 and did not recover until after he was voted out of office that November.
Public approval of Bill Clinton was fairly flat for the first three years of his presidency, averaging just under 50% from 1993 through 1995. At the same time, the Dow Jones Industrial stocks saw modest growth in 1993, no growth in 1994, and substantial growth in 1995. Hence, on its face, at this stage of Clinton's first term, there was no clear relationship between his approval ratings and the performance of the Dow.
The Dow began to rise at the very end of 1994 (timed, coincidentally or not, with the election of a Republican majority in both houses of Congress) and by 1995 was rising at an extremely fast clip. The Dow continued to surge almost unabated through the middle of the dot-com boom in 1998.
Across this period, Clinton's approval rating saw gradual improvement, averaging 56% in 1996, 58% in 1997, and 64% in 1998 -- almost certainly helped by the strong economy. On Aug. 3, 1998, the Dow plunged 300 points in reaction to an escalating Asian financial crisis. Yet Gallup saw virtually no change in Clinton's approval ratings at this time, as they held in the mid- to low 60s. The stock market recovered and experienced another year of sharp growth in 1999. Yet, by this time, Clinton's approval rating had dipped slightly, averaging 61% for the year. Both the Dow Jones index and Clinton's approval ratings were flat in 2000 -- suggesting that the Dow was not dampened by a change in Clinton's ratings, nor were Clinton's ratings hurt by the sluggish Dow.
George W. Bush
George W. Bush's presidency was marked by periods when his approval rating ran parallel to the Dow (the two rose or fell together), and periods when the two moved in different directions.
At the beginning of Bush's first term in 2001, both the Dow Jones Industrial Average and Bush's approval ratings were fairly flat -- a generally acceptable condition for a president above 50% approval, but not the ideal trajectory for U.S. stocks. The Dow was dampened early on by the dot-com crash that was underway, and later by growing evidence that the U.S. was entering a recession. By early September, the weight of economic concerns seems to have helped push Bush's approval rating down to 51% at the same time that the market was sinking.
This link between Bush's approval rating and the economy/stock market may very well have continued and deepened had it not been for the events of Sept. 11. Bush's job approval score skyrocketed (to 90%) in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, the Dow initially plummeted, and the two measures moved in opposing directions for most of the next six years.
Bush's approval rating gradually descended after his huge rally, and, dampened by mounting public opposition to the Iraq war, reached the low 30s by June 2007. Between mid-2007 and September 2008, Bush's job approval line largely flattened out in the low 30s (with occasional dips below 30%).
While Bush's stock was sinking, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was climbing. Between March 2003 and October 2007, the Dow nearly doubled, from about 7,700 to over 14,000. At this point, the Dow began to falter, and gave up more than 2,000 points over the next year (at the same time that Bush's approval rating held steady). The mostly downward path of the Dow continued until September 2008, when -- in response to the failure of Lehman Brothers and AIG in mid-September -- it lost more than 20% of its value in the span of one month, bottoming out below 8,500.
Bush's approval rating was pulled below 30% in late September 2008 and fell to a record-low 25% in October. These ratings could readily be attributed to the economic crisis befalling the country at that time, of which the tumbling stock market was the most dramatic symptom. Although the stock market fell further in November, it rebounded slightly after that, as did Bush's approval rating at the end of his term -- finishing above 30%
"Public approval of Bill Clinton was fairly flat for the first three years of his presidency, averaging just under 50% from 1993 through 1995. At the same time, the Dow Jones Industrial stocks saw modest growth in 1993, no growth in 1994, and substantial growth in 1995. Hence, on its face, at this stage of Clinton's first term, there was no clear relationship between his approval ratings and the performance of the Dow.
"The Dow began to rise at the very end of 1994 (timed, coincidentally or not, with the election of a Republican majority in both houses of Congress) and by 1995 was rising at an extremely fast clip. The Dow continued to surge almost unabated through the middle of the dot-com boom in 1998....
"A wide variety of factors affect presidential job approval ratings, and a similarly wide array of variables are responsible for the rising and falling of the stock market,'' Newport and company note. "It is possible that awareness of a president's popularity could affect how people relate to the stock market, or that awareness of changes in the stock market could affect how people view the president.
"But clearly, many other factors could influence trends in both measures, including the very real possibility that what appears to be a relationship between the two is merely a coincidence.''
Comments
This is just more proof of the incredibly hostile environment that unfair media coverage (from Fox and some mainstream networks) of the president has generated. Good news is everywhere yet people do not get to see or hear about it.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | August 28, 2009 9:57 AM
Sure, there's a connection. The market is becoming more confident as it becomes increasingly evident that Obama's neo-Soviet agenda is in big trouble. If Obama succeeds, capitalism fails, and vice versa.
Posted by: The guy who hides behind false names (so sayeth Don) | August 28, 2009 10:17 AM
But a connection between Obama's summer slide and the stock market's rally? None that Gallup can detect.
But they sure could when it was dropping. Typical!
Posted by: bill r. | August 28, 2009 10:17 AM
Good grief, Mark. So it is Glenn Beck with viewership of about 2 million and Sarah Palin with facebook membership of 800,000 who are to blame? What about all the fawning media coverage of Obama led by you, MSNBC, NY Times, Chicago Obune and all the other media outlets. You gonna tell us that little Glenn Beck and Shotgun Sarah have more sway than just about every media outlet in America?
Anyway, Mark, what about ALL the negative press about George Bush during his term? I don't recall a Swamp or Tribune piece about all the negative coverage for his low poll numbers. Even when the Dow hit 14,000 two years ago, I do not recall you writing about how you and your corrupt minions were the fault of his low 30s approval numbers. Two years ago, unemployment was around 5 percent or less, the stock market was around 14,000, home sales were up and strong, and yet Bush's approval was in the low 30s. Could it be that the constant drumbeat from the press was the reason why?
Mark, please go on vacation. You need it! Between this nonsense excuse for Obama and yesterday's item calling Beck a terrorist, it's clear you need some time off.
Posted by: John D | August 28, 2009 10:38 AM
So !, that goes to show the people have more confidence in free markets then they have in President Nobama. Plain and simple, too much government, too much spending, too, control and too many czars. Not to mention too much OBAMA.
Posted by: Paul | August 28, 2009 10:51 AM
"Good news is everywhere yet people do not get to see or hear about it. "
You simply are not cynical enough. Get with the program.
Posted by: John D | August 28, 2009 11:27 AM
Good news everywhere?
Where, Pollyanna?
USA just got a small dose of what unchecked climate change will bring.
Those 100+ degree days in the Bible Belt...
Few 90 degree days in Chicago, which will be less affected because we have a Great Lake.
Flu epidemic bearing down.
Unemployment checks running out....
Replicans on the attack...
Stock market?
It's rigged.
Any fool knows that.
Posted by: ornery | August 28, 2009 11:46 AM
Finally, J.D., a good idea.
Posted by: Mark Silva | August 28, 2009 12:17 PM
Since Mr. Silva runs what even he admits is a non-story, let's list a few of the actual stories he hasn't written about:
1. Dem Congressman Charlie Rangle once again caught cheating on taxes.
2. Obama's Attorney General quashing an investigation into Dem Governor Bill Richardson of NM.
3. Obama's Attorney General quashing a prosecution of Black Panthers who terrorized voters in Philadelphia.
4. ObamaCare Bill forces IRS to give tax return info to the Health Care Commission.
5. Non-partisan Congressional Research Service announces that illiegal aliens will be included in ObamaCare, contradicting Obama's assertions that it won't.
6. The Trib's sister paper, the LA Times, reports that nobody outside the Beltway watched the 24/7 Teddy Kennedy tributes.
7. Tax Court shoots down taxpayer who used the "Geithner Turbotax dodge" to avoid paying taxes, proving once again there's rules for Obama's cabinet appointees and different rules for the rest of us.
Anyone notice a theme in all the stories NOT reported on?
Posted by: Bruce | August 28, 2009 12:39 PM
What the hey, it's Friday. Yes, Bruce, we do see a trend in the stories you are suggesting -- they all fit your agenda. Now, we could write about the ongoing trouble that Republican Gov. Mark Sanford is having in South Carolina, or how about Sen. John Ensign's mess ?-- that wouldn't fit your agenda, we suppose. We have one agenda here -- some worthy reading this afternoon and a good weekend. Here's hoping you find both.
Posted by: Mark Silva | August 28, 2009 1:01 PM
We seem to be confusing two questions here. The original question is whether The Dow is inversely correlated to Obama's approval. But, to show that, Gallup goes back to previous presidents. Previous presidents are immaterial to the question about Obama.
My argument is the market does not like change or uncertainty. So, as it became less likely the Obama would get through his major changes, the market did gain some confidence.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird | August 28, 2009 1:17 PM
Farewell all, I won't be posting here anymore as I can't take the insane rambling posts from the right wingers who just regurgitate what they hear on Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh et al. (Many of who are on a payroll...You know who you are). So, I won't be baited any longer by your idiotic "Socialism", "Nazi", "birther", "death panel" comments and your gun hugging, paranoid delusions.
Posted by: Tim | August 28, 2009 2:11 PM
Mark,
These kinds of posts are nothing more than catnip for Wingnuts like Johnny D, RNC Brucie and Terri..
Obama's approval rating is fine, any slippage is do to Dems and Independents who want healthcare reform to be passed....yesterday.
Once healthcare reform passes Obama's poll numbers will shoot back up and the GOP's electoral prospects will be destroyed for a generation. The GOP knows Americans will like healthcare reform, that's why they've hired foaming at the mouth Teabaggers to show up at Healthcare townhalls all over America and shout down any rational conversation about it.
Posted by: former Republican | August 28, 2009 2:52 PM
Good riddance, Tim. Some of us right wingers are similarly tired of unthinking, emotion-driven, intellectually dishonest ramblings from you lefties, so the feeling is mutual. I suggest that you use the additional free time to learn how to think.
Posted by: The guy who hides behind false names (so sayeth Don) | August 28, 2009 3:00 PM
Good riddance, Tim. Some of us right wingers are similarly tired of unthinking, emotion-driven, intellectually dishonest ramblings from you lefties, so the feeling is mutual. I suggest that you use the additional free time to learn how to think.
Posted by: The guy who hides behind false names (so sayeth Don) | August 28, 2009 3:00 PM
*********************************
.
Get lost Teresa,
If you were confident in any of the Wingnut garbage that you spread on here everyday you wouldn't have to change your post name so often
Posted by: K | August 28, 2009 3:47 PM
"Get lost Teresa"
Wow, K, you caught me. Yep. You're far too clever for me. Yep. I should never try to outsmart you. Yep. I'm in way over my head with the likes of you. Yep.
Idiot.
Posted by: The guy who hides behind false names (so sayeth Don) | August 28, 2009 4:45 PM
Ahhh, Mark, how many Swamp items have their been on Sanford and Ensign and how many have their been o Rangel or the other scandals regarding Democrats? By an estimation, I would say by 5-1 there were Swamp items on Sanford compared to Edwards.
To date, I have not seen ONE Swamp item on Rangel. I mean, he just "found" $1 MILLION in assets, including a $500,000 checking account he apparently never knew he had!! Now, Mark, who in the world would lose track of a $500,000 checking account? Would you?
You say Bruce only brought up topics he would be interested in because they are about Democratic problems. That is probably true. But then by YOU not covering them and having repeated items on Silva, Palin, Beck, et al, are you man enough to admit that you cover what YOU want to cover and that would primarily be positive things on your Democrats and negative things about the Republicans?
I think what Bruce, I and a few other sane ones here would like to see would be some balance! Is that too much to ask??
Posted by: John D | August 28, 2009 5:04 PM
"Yes, Bruce, we do see a trend in the stories you are suggesting -- they all fit your agenda. Now, we could write about the ongoing trouble that Republican Gov. Mark Sanford is having in South Carolina, or how about Sen. John Ensign's mess ?-- that wouldn't fit your agenda, we suppose. We have one agenda here -- some worthy reading this afternoon and a good weekend. Here's hoping you find both.
Posted by: Mark Silva "
Unfortunately, Mark, some of your readers (not many, but some) can count. And the count so far is 1 Swamp article on the seven news stories I mentioned, versus 19 Swamp articles on Sanford alone.
The Swamp has no political agenda? Insert laugh track.
Posted by: Bruce | August 28, 2009 5:30 PM
Unfortunately, Mark, some of your readers (not many, but some) can count. And the count so far is 1 Swamp article on the seven news stories I mentioned, versus 19 Swamp articles on Sanford alone.
The Swamp has no political agenda? Insert laugh track.
Posted by: Bruce | August 28, 2009 5:30 PM
Most Swamp readers can indeed count. However, only a precious few are prepared to devote time to the pathetic task of doing content analyses of Swamp articles, Capt. Ahab.
Posted by: a blinkin | August 28, 2009 6:44 PM
Oh Blinkin, don't be casting stones. By my recollection, your loony brethren has kept a tally sheet of practically every Swamp item I've posted over the years as well as Bruce and Terry. How do I know? Because on occasion the Loons will post a history of our posts dating back several years! Now, that is what I would call pathetic. Course, just about anything the Loony Left does is pretty darn pathetic!
Posted by: John D | August 28, 2009 11:56 PM
John D and Bruce; DP'd again in public by Mark.
Posted by: T. Herman Zweibel | August 30, 2009 11:04 AM
Oh Blinkin, don't be casting stones. By my recollection, your loony brethren has kept a tally sheet of practically every Swamp item I've posted over the years as well as Bruce and Terry. How do I know? Because on occasion the Loons will post a history of our posts dating back several years! Now, that is what I would call pathetic. Course, just about anything the Loony Left does is pretty darn pathetic!
Posted by: John D | August 28, 2009 11:56 PM
Don't flatter yourself, Dolt (even though we know you LIVE on self-flattery). The miracle of Google can locate those pearls of your "wisdom" in about 4 seconds.
So, if not by tally and if you (apparently) don't know how to use Google, how are YOU keeping records of all those Democrat stories (favorable) vs the Republican stories (of course, UNfavorable)? One might believe that you make the stats up in your head and then speak them from a region more "southerly" in nature.
Good advice about the casting stones thing, though. Pity you never use it yourself.
Posted by: Op109 | August 31, 2009 4:33 PM