Yup, but the two events which US did face on it's soil (Pearl Harbour and 9/11) did boost the support for the sitting presidents though.
He didn't necessarily take responsibility of anything, but he managed to suppress his usual behavior well enough for the people behind him to assure people
If you’re trying to say “who cares about money when lives are on the line”... in this case a strong, life-saving, response begets a positive market response.
People drying en-masse is not good for the economy, or anyone really. Also, recessions are generally not good for people’s health.
Trump going up there and making a bunch of positive statements means zero right now. The public and private sectors have no reason to trust the federal government during this situation.
Literally no one but yourself has implied the stock market going well means Coronavirus is going away.
That’s so absurd I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed something was lost in your wording...
The comment chain is about the effect of the virus on electability of an incumbent.
The stock market’s performance is very much tied to that and while not the only indicator of an election's outcome, is a pretty strong motivator of political change.
On that note... since his speech a ton of bad news has come out, some his claims were proven false, the fed hit the nuclear options, and futures hit a circuit breaker Sunday night which is a terrible indicator for this morning’s market.
So it’s still a strong factor in his electability, just not in the direction it was Friday evening.
On the other hand, it's much easier to rally people when your villain has an actual human face.