{"id":975,"date":"2008-10-30T19:50:03","date_gmt":"2008-10-30T23:50:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/?p=975"},"modified":"2008-10-30T22:12:28","modified_gmt":"2008-10-31T02:12:28","slug":"history-shows-democratic-sweep-would-be-better-for-stocks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/2008\/10\/30\/history-shows-democratic-sweep-would-be-better-for-stocks\/","title":{"rendered":"History Shows Democratic Sweep Would Be Better For Stocks"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Follow <a title=\"Reuters Story\" href=\"http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/marketsNews\/idINN3028276120081030?rpc=44\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>this link<\/strong><\/a> to a Reuters report with the above title.<\/p>\n<p>Hardly any Republican would agree with this premise.\u00a0 The PBS show <em>Nightly Business Report<\/em> assumes that this is not true. The &#8220;Money Honey&#8221;, Maria Bartiroma of CNBC, openly assumes in her interviewing and reporting that a Democratic sweep would be a disaster.<\/p>\n<p>However, this is what history seems to show.\u00a0 Of course we need more than a story from Reuters with just a bit of convincing evidence to make us believe.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In the seven periods when Democrats had complete control of U.S. political power, the S&amp;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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I&#8217;ll see what I can do to come up with some corrobarating numbers to make this idea more palatable to the skeptical.<\/p>\n<p>I have posted a comment on the <a title=\"NBR Blog with my comment\" href=\"http:\/\/www.pbs.org\/nbr\/blog\/2008\/10\/60_votes_in_the_senate_and_wha.html\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>NBR Blog<\/strong><\/a> asking them if they can\u00a0 report what is, rather than what they want to believe?<\/p>\n<p>I did a Google search on <a title=\"Google Search\" href=\"http:\/\/www.google.com\/search?hl=en&amp;q=Democrats+%22Stock+Market%22&amp;btnG=Google+Search&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>Democrats &#8220;Stock Market&#8221;<\/strong><\/a>. There were only 5,660,000 results.<\/p>\n<p>I took a look at the first two results.<\/p>\n<p>The CNN web site had an article titled <a title=\"CNN article\" href=\"http:\/\/money.cnn.com\/2004\/01\/21\/markets\/election_demsvreps\/\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>Surprise: Dems are better for rallies<\/strong><\/a>. This was published January 22, 2004.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8230; study by\u00a0 two finance professors at the University of California at Los Angeles, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov.<\/p>\n<p>According to their paper, entitled, &#8220;The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market&#8221; 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>There is more interesting information in the rest of the article.<\/p>\n<p>The USA Today web site had the article titled <a title=\"USA Today Article\" href=\"http:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/money\/perfi\/columnist\/krantz\/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>Democrats or Republicans? Just the facts<\/strong><\/a>. This was published on 12\/2\/2005.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Many investors assume that Republican presidents are better for the stock market. That&#8217;s not true.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>There is much more in the article and more nuance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Follow this link to a Reuters report with the above title. Hardly any Republican would agree with this premise.\u00a0 The PBS show Nightly Business Report assumes that this is not true. The &#8220;Money Honey&#8221;, Maria Bartiroma of CNBC, openly assumes in her interviewing and reporting that a Democratic sweep would be a disaster. However, this [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[166],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-975","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-stevegsposts","7":"czr-hentry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/975","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=975"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/975\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":978,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/975\/revisions\/978"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=975"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=975"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=975"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}