Comparative Economic prosperity under democrats and republican presidents

[O. W. Kone]

The UCLA professors looked at data going back to 1927. Our own study of the post-World War II presidencies confirms their results. We found that the S&P 500 has averaged a total return of 14.1% per year under Democratic presidents since April 1945, and 11.8% under Republicans. The best total returns--17.4% per year--were under Bill Clinton, whose presidency ranked first in economic results. (see: "Presidents And Prosperity") Gerald R. Ford ranks second, followed by Harry S. Truman.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/21/cx_da_0721presidents_print.html

[larchmont]

Yes indeed -- I came across similar info about 25 years ago, and I was surprised. (I guess you could say pleasantly surprised.)

And this is why reasonably centrist Democrats don't scare the business community. Many or most of the business people tend to support the Republicans, but they're aware of these surprising facts -- and therefore a goodly number of them wind up siding with the Democrat, or at least not minding terribly if it looks like the Democrat will win.

With this in mind, in the weeks leading up to presidential elections, I always keep an eye on how the gyrations in the stock market correlate with the evolving fortunes of each candidate. In the current season, it has looked to me like there has been perhaps some positive correlation with Kerry's fortunes, although far from clearly so.
For one thing, there just hasn't been any clear direction in the market.

[bob shiftright]

Warming the deep cockles of my Libertarian heart, I appreciate that during the Clinton administration, the market "took off" only after the Republicans took over Congress in January 1995 and it continued almost until the Republicans captured the White House in November (or was it December?) 2000. The stock market just loves gridlock!

http://www.djindexes.com/images/avgimages/graph1990-1999.gif

[Ferg]

The stock market just loves gridlock!


You know bob, this is an interesting observation (as almost all bob observations are)....I've thought several times over the last few months that installing a tax-and-spend democrat may actually slow gov't spending since every time he asks for money the Repubs in congress will run shrieking with their hands over their ears, simply because a Democrat asked for the cash! As it stands, congress passes just about any damn fool spending ideas Bush has. :rolling_e

[larchmont]

Quote from Harry Truman about the Eisenhower administration:

"The people wanted nothing done, and he done it."

[larchmont]

.....With this in mind, in the weeks leading up to presidential elections, I always keep an eye on how the gyrations in the stock market correlate with the evolving fortunes of each candidate. In the current season, it has looked to me like there has been perhaps some positive correlation with Kerry's fortunes, although far from clearly so.....
From this morning's stock market activity, I think we can pretty much say that's true -- i.e. the business community is actually preferring Kerry.

The main news between yesterday's close and today's opening was, of course, the debate. And the result of the debate, by a clear consensus despite protestations by some (but far from all) Bushies, was to elevate Kerry's chances.

And the stock market today is showing by far its biggest one-day gain in some time.

Coincidence? I doubt it.