Here's the link
Posted on 10/05/2004 3:47:22 AM PDT by Liz
The Conference Board says incumbent presidents over the last three decades are thrown out of office when the organization's consumer confidence index is significantly below the 100 level.
Jimmy Carter defeated President Ford when the index was just 87.1 in October, 1976. Ronald Reagan beat Carter four years later when the index dipped to 80.3 in September, which was the survey closest to that election.
In fact, the Board says the only time the pattern was broken was when George W. Bush beat Al Gore — who was the incumbent vice president — in 2000 even though the confidence index was a very lofty 141.9.
Even then, the Conference Board points out that Gore won the popular vote but lost on electoral votes.
The Conference Board says the current president should be even more worried if the consumer confidence index stays below 100 for the three months prior to the election.
Last week the Conference Board announced that the September confidence number fell to 96.8 from 98.7 in August. That's two straight months below 100.
Lucky for this president that confidence was at 105.7 in July.
The last consumer confidence number before the election will be released on Oct. 26.
The president can take comfort from the fact that neither August nor September's number could be described as "significantly" below 100.
* Please send e-mail to: jcrudele@nypost.com
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
And this is supposed to matter how, exactly?
It is all nonsense.
Here's the link
Don't worry about it. The CB index is just another one of those fun-filled election harbingers........like which presidential mask sells most at Halloween.
The first thing Crudele does every morning when he wakes up is remove the pole from his a**..
we don't need no steenkin' conference board!
It's not supposed to be taken as seriously as, say, which presidential mask sells most at Halloween (/sarc).
Last election my back yard was covered with leaves and George Bush won. I noticed my backyard is getting covered with leaves again. So, there you go.
Yeah, sure, but were there more red leaves than orange leaves?
Damn, I don't remember. Nevermind.
Just to knitpick (and I love knitpicking crap like this), but, according to the numbers they gave, it looks like presidents over the past 30 years don't get reelected when the index is under 90, not just 100. There were no examples of it being above 90 with the incumbent losing.
According to this outfit, Gore should have been a slam dunk. This is a lot of bunk and an attempt to influence the election with phony numbers.
He blows.
Guess we'll have to relegate your "prez test" to the dustbin of history. LOL.
This guy writers some convoluted stuff, always has.
I'd ask this question: Of those who were voted out, how many had a 911 to deal with? My point is that we are making history. Who would ever think that the most anti military candidate a party could pick during a war, would be in range of winning at this late date?
History in this case has no effect on events.
None of the pollsters take into account the massive voter fraud that occurs. Gore surely lost by many thousands of votes except that that the fraudulent votes were counted along with the rest.
Democrats big business is subsidizing vote-manufacturing outfits. The votes usually arrive at a precinct at the last minute in used pizza boxes............most of the time the needed votes exceed the number of registered voters in the precinct.
In Fla 2000 the Dems were prepared to count and count and count til they had the nos they needed. The USSC saw what was happening and said Stop The Count.
What's next?...Nostradamus predictions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.