Follow this link to a Reuters report with the above title.
Hardly any Republican would agree with this premise. The PBS show Nightly Business Report assumes that this is not true. The “Money Honey”, Maria Bartiroma of CNBC, openly assumes in her interviewing and reporting that a Democratic sweep would be a disaster.
However, this is what history seems to show. Of course we need more than a story from Reuters with just a bit of convincing evidence to make us believe.
In the seven periods when Democrats had complete control of U.S. political power, the S&P 500 .SPX rose 14.7 percent on average while in the eight times a Republican was president and Democrats controlled Congress, the benchmark index rose 7.4 percent, according to data compiled by research firm Bespoke Investment Group, in Harrison, N.Y.
I’ll see what I can do to come up with some corrobarating numbers to make this idea more palatable to the skeptical.
I have posted a comment on the NBR Blog asking them if they can report what is, rather than what they want to believe?
I did a Google search on Democrats “Stock Market”. There were only 5,660,000 results.
I took a look at the first two results.
The CNN web site had an article titled Surprise: Dems are better for rallies. This was published January 22, 2004.
… study by two finance professors at the University of California at Los Angeles, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov.
According to their paper, entitled, “The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market” and published in the October issue of the Journal of Finance, stock market returns are on average about 5 percent higher when the White House is run by a Democrat than during Republican rule.
There is more interesting information in the rest of the article.
The USA Today web site had the article titled Democrats or Republicans? Just the facts. This was published on 12/2/2005.
Many investors assume that Republican presidents are better for the stock market. That’s not true.
There is much more in the article and more nuance.