Stock Market Does Better With Democrats. GOP Just Doesn't Want It To

[wyldwolf]

The Stock Market does better with Democrats. Average Republicans just don't know it. That's the impression I got reading the latest column from Jeremy Siegel. Further, the piece made me do something I seldom do - put on my tinfoil hat. Over the last five years, especially in the months leading up to the 2004 Presidential election, was the GOP trying to influence the stocks to make their record look a tad better?

The OpEd explains that on the afternoon of Election Day, November 2, 2004, exit poll numbers were released from both Florida and Ohio that suggested Kerry was doing much better than expected. If the Democrats took Ohio or Florida, electoral math made it very difficult for Bush to win.

Immediately upon the release of Kerry's supposed success, there was a sell-off in stocks. The Dow Industrials, which were up strongly early in the day, plunged about 100 points when the polls were released. But in the evening, the exit polls proved wrong (well, so they say...), and Bush was the clear victor (well. so they say...). The following day stocks made up all the lost ground and then some.

Even today, the piece details, as Bush's popularity hits all time lows and the hopes of the GOP to retain complete power in the coming elections fades, stocks have hit five year highs.

The article does go on to show how the stock market does much better when Democrats are in power. For example, since 1948, Republican Administrations have controlled the White House 57.2 percent of the time. But during the period that the GOP was in office, stock returns have averaged only 9.53 percent per year, while under Democratic administrations, stocks returned 15.25 percent per year, more than five percentage points higher.

At one point the article descends into a cheer leading piece for George W. Bush, (Bush's policies have been very favorable for the market...but the poor stock returns under his administration were almost completely beyond his control.) and then warns Democrats to keep the market healthy. Mr. Siegal? According to you, Democrats do keep it healthy. Why would you question us this year and in 2008? Fortunately, you deny the simple fact: Democrats are better for the stock market.

http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/futureinvest/3022

[fasttense]

1. Jeremy Siegel has the most twisted logic I've ever read.

First he acknowledges that stocks do better under Democratic politicians but says possible overtake of the House by Democrats would be bad for stocks. What?

Then he says stocks are ignoring bush's* awful polls, yet from 11/00 to 2/06 overall stocks were down (-0.92%). Did I miss something? I guess he means the recent up click in the DJIA. Let's see how long that lasts. Other major market indicators have yet to rise to their pre-bush highs.

He writes it's not poor, crazy king george's fault that stocks are down. No one controls the free market. Yeah right, he is just another cheerleader and has to do some mighty fine twisting to write that article so the king comes out sounding good.

But he does make you pause about the strange maneuvering of the DJIA during the election and during the plummeting of his poll numbers. Me thinks the PPT, or another government sponsored and supported market rigging group, has been busy, busy, busy.

[BOSSHOG]

2. Totally amateur analysis here

I got into the stock market in 1993 and made an incredible amount of money for the next seven years. My returns were astronomical in 98 and 99, I could not believe it. We cashed in bigtime in January 2000 to put a down payment on a new home and the next month our stocks became stagnant and have been that way ever since. I ain't no fiduciary expert pro tem, but I knows my quarterly reports when I sees em.