The Stock Market Bounce From Bush

TigerHawk

This is how weird the rancor on both sides has become. Maybe not become, maybe it was always this way, but now it's just obvious to everyone thanks to the web.

Nonetheless, the author says that the NYTimes understates the rally. While it is true that the rally could have been portrayed as bigger, the stats on Bush's rally is exactly correct. I do not know if they used all rallies equivalently (all windows were looked at from the day before election day to one week post election day), but again, the data is correct and labelled correctly. Yet because it does not portray Mr. Bush as positive ENOUGH, the author warns about believing the numbers/the Times. I would love people to just attempt to tone it down a little bit. I wonder if you fold in the results from January, would this individual be just as pissed?
Upvote Upvoted 0
2 responses
Nah. That would be fine!

I wasn't pissed -- I'm barely a Bush-supporter. Perhaps I was in a strident tone when I wrote the post.

It would have been an easy thing to point out that the stock market had been running hard for five or six trading days before the election, in addition to the gains after. I appreciate that their comparison chart needed a consistent point of departure for all the campaigns, but that doesn't mean that a sentence somewhere acknowledging the strong rally in the days preceding the election would have much improved the story.
— TigerHawk
To that, I have to agree. I think the real failing of the reporter was not commenting on the context of the situation and, thus, missing an additional important data point. In fact, I believe that would be really valuable, regardless of a person's political leanings... I would want to know what the context in which the story is happening... is Bush's election bucking the trend or slowing it down or just riding the curve. Great point!
— Iron Yuppie
Add Website URL »