Yep.
Also, I've read a lot of bespoke articles that almost make me laugh so hard I shoot milk outta my nose.
Conspiracy theories aside, the article mentioned doesn't even list the correlation value...they merely overlayed and eyeballed. They couldn't even be bothered to do something as simple as detrend and normalize to z-scores, which would be standard practice with disparate datasets like the ones used. As someone who has run a lot of statistics I have to say that those two lines would have a correlation value that isn't very impressive. THEN, you have to ask yourself the following question: what is the leading indicator, that we can see today, that would prompt you to actually place a monetary bet on the president's re-election chances? Given all anyone talks about for this election is the economy, I'd wager that a lot of people are placing their bets based on market performance....That, I'd say, might have a little influence on the proposed correlation.
Finally, one of the primary rules of correlation analysis. Correlation, by itself, says nothing about causation.
edit:
added bold to show the most important thing I consider in this analysis.
Also, I'm not trying to pick a fight. Just saying that I'm not particularly impressed with the overlay and my initial comment laying out the equally compelling underlying assumption about the Republican positions.
...it was a floater