I just saw this SiriuslyLong, I have been busy lately so sorry it took so long to get back here and answer your post:
First that is true, I FIRST said that the elections would need to happen for the markets to go up, that was BEFORE I saw any polls STARTING to show what I had said would happen. If you look at dates of my post you will notice that I added the "polls" STILL, WELL BEFORE the market started to come back and AFTER I saw SOME polls coming out saying what I said would happen is going to happen. Now while I have been proven to be correct to many times to count about this stuff, I did miss that the polls would do what they started to do, I did add them in as soon as I saw the first evidence they were going to show what I said would happen AND I might add STILL WELL BEFORE the market started to come back. I am also just one man and dont have that much pull in the markets so big money never knew what I was saying (you know, when I said almost TWO YEARS ago, "That not only will the republicans take back the house in huge numbers but they will run on a much more conservative platform." I could not have called that one more correct, if I wasn't Nostradamus himself). Now while Big money wants certainty they are not stupid and when they see MOST to ALL polls showing republicans are not just going to take back MAYBE 37 to 40 seats but probably 55 to 70 seats they are not going to wait for elections to bore out, that they will get control of congress back (which only takes them getting 39 seats).
Yes I know what you said and you are telling me that expectations were calling for GDP to come in at less then 1.6%???? I am sorry but I did not see one (although I am sure there were a few that said it would be lower but still much less then the majority of them) that called for Sep. GDP to come in at less then 1.6% and many had it at between 1.7 and 2%. As for Sep. unemployment are you going to tell me 95,000 jobs lost was less then expected to be lost??? Really where are you getting your news from??? Every article I read was that that was not expected and while the big surprise was that unemployment did not go up from 9.6 to 9.7 or 9.8, that that was only because more people have stopped looking and therefore have dropped out of the figure. They are not dumb they know it takes at a very minimum 100,000 to 150,000 jobs created EVERY MONTH to keep unemployment at the same rate. The only other positive was that while the FULL empolyment picture lost 95,000 jobs the private sector gained 65,000 jobs and while that was still in the range of analyst, it was and never will be anything close to a growing economy.
The problem you are falling into is the same one that the Obama media has fallen into, you are cherry picking the ONE and ONLY positive (not even really a positive but the only thing they got when you consider we need 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a MONTH, JUST TO KEEP UNEMPLOYMENT THE SAME, so even the private sector gaining 65,000 jobs is terrible) and missing all the rest of the negitives. Look it is the same as them saying well we may have lost 95,000 jobs in TOTAL but we gained 65,000 private sector jobs. Do you see the problem yet?? It is that the rest of the sectors had to have lost 160,000 jobs to get the total of 95,000 jobs lost. It is the same when they did it before when we lost private sector jobs but gained public sector jobs (cencus) and then touted the 300,000 job gain. They played it up when they needed to and then played it down when they needed to. It has got to be played the same to get the correct picture and trust me big money is not stupid, they know the games the MSM is playing.
Once again I have to ask where are you getting your news from???
Here is a link and I think it proves why it is important to get your news from the riight places.
Play the video it shows just what I am talking about.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/3...less-recovery/
I dont believe, I know. You can not point to one other thing that would bring the market back to those levels besides companies profits being up. Even that does not mean they are up to what they were before the recession and the market being at the level it was before but that they are up. Do a little research and take a look at companies profits and see if they correlate to the same market number. So go back to Aug and Sep of 2009 (when the market was as high as it is now) and see what kinds of profits they were reporting. something tells me already, they are nowhere close.