Maybe. The problem is, McCain is likely to be as bad in some ways, with all of his stupid talk about “obscene” profits.
2 thoughts on “Is Correlation…”
Comments are closed.
Maybe. The problem is, McCain is likely to be as bad in some ways, with all of his stupid talk about “obscene” profits.
Comments are closed.
No, correlation doesn’t confirm causation. I don’t think we have a testable hypothesis here. OTOH, prudent people are alert to warnings.
Agreed that McCain is as bad in some ways, but at least he gives lip services to not raising taxes and even to cutting taxes (e.g., on corporate income). He is good on international trade. He has adult advisers. Obama looks worse along every dimension.
A lot of people think Obama will hurt the stock market. One possibility is that he is already doing it, since the market discounts expectations and the expectation of an Obama victory has been increasing for months.
Strictly speaking, when there is correlation, the causation could go in either direction or have something to do with a third factor.
Is the stock market down because Senator Obama’s poll numbers are up, the causation being that Senator Obama is advocating socialized policies? Or is Senator Obama doing well because the bad stock market is leading people to want a change, perhaps any change, from the current course?
Supposedly, Senator Obama is doing well raising campaign contributions from the investment community. Is it A) the educated and monied and bi-coastal really don’t care if they pay higher taxes because they feel that wealthy or alturistic, B) the belief is that the talk about raising taxes “on the rich” is for consumption by the rubes, and besides, the educated, monied, and well-connected can shift their money management accordingly and C) the election is not about the economy, and perhaps not about the War either, because there is a consensus emerging about that the moonbat wing notwithstanding, because it is believed that there is a general consensus among the professional elites who run such things, but is about pro-choice vs pro-life, about which the next President stands to make a huge difference by appointing judges.
Maybe Rudy was on to something when he remained “pro-choice” but promised to appoint strict-constructionist judges. That this election promises to be ever more about Red State-Blue State America, the real irreconcilable difference is on the “social issues” not the economy and perhaps not even the war, and given the way the tide is running, the best deal the social conservatives could get would be to have a “pro-choice” President but one who would appoint judges to strictly interpret the Constitution and let the court decisions fall where they may.
Rudy Gulliani, of course, had a lot of personal baggage going with his stands on these issues and it may be a Good Thing he is not the candidate, but I am speculating on might-have-beens.