I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

I don't buy into the notion that President's have a major influence on the economy one way or the other. Government policies are a factor but these are determined more by congress than the executive. But bigger than that are the natural cycles of market influences, availability of raw materials, natural disasters, and a host of other things. Candidates talk big during campaign season but I wouldn't give them too much credit for their ability to control the economy.

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

What happened this time?

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

What happened this time?

Corporations profits are way up, the stock market is at record highs, unemployment is way down. The worst economic collapse in history was averted.

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

What happened this time?

Corporations profits are way up, the stock market is at record highs, unemployment is way down. The worst economic collapse in history was averted.

Bingo.

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

As previously posted but probably a good reminder for the GOP slurpers, the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH. I'm just guessing that those Trump fans are probably pretty pleased with their return on investments in the market the last almost 8 years.

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

As previously posted but probably a good reminder for the GOP slurpers, the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH.

Interesting....During the period from 12/1/15 to 2/11/16 the S&P 500 plunged 13.2%. Which Obama/Democrat policies caused the index to drop so drastically during this period?

Just as during the period of 2/11/16 to the present, the S&P has rallied 19.1% Please point out specifically what Obama/Democrat policies caused this expansion.

See where this is heading?

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

As previously posted but probably a good reminder for the GOP slurpers, the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH.

Interesting....During the period from 12/1/15 to 2/11/16 the S&P 500 plunged 13.2%. Which Obama/Democrat policies caused the index to drop so drastically during this period?

Just as during the period of 2/11/16 to the present, the S&P has rallied 19.1% Please point out specifically what Obama/Democrat policies caused this expansion.

See where this is heading?

Short month-to-month windows can vary inside the larger trend for a wide range of reasons. But you're an investor so already know that, don't you.

Clearly the stock market has performed well since Obama took office. I'm not arguing causation, but it fits the trend that was mentioned and is an interesting considering the doom and gloom warnings from the right about how he'd destroy everything when he took office.

[Edited on 8/25/2016 by gondicar]

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

As previously posted but probably a good reminder for the GOP slurpers, the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH.

Interesting....During the period from 12/1/15 to 2/11/16 the S&P 500 plunged 13.2%. Which Obama/Democrat policies caused the index to drop so drastically during this period?

Just as during the period of 2/11/16 to the present, the S&P has rallied 19.1% Please point out specifically what Obama/Democrat policies caused this expansion.

See where this is heading?

Short 2-6 month windows can vary inside the larger trend. But you know that, don't you. Clearly the stock market has performed well since Obama took office. I'm not arguing causation, but it is an interesting trend considering the doom and gloom warnings from the right about how he'd destroy everything when he took office.

It's only interesting if you think that the President has a major influence on the market. Not as interesting if you consider that in 2009-10 we were coming out of a major recession and the market had no place to go but up. If you really think politicians have a major influence on the economy (I don't, I think they have a minor influence at best) then you need to consider that the best performance seems to be when we have a divided government, with the Executive controlled by one party and the Legislative controlled by the other. Given that, you need to consider that it may be the Legislative which has the greater influence.

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

As previously posted but probably a good reminder for the GOP slurpers, the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH.

Interesting....During the period from 12/1/15 to 2/11/16 the S&P 500 plunged 13.2%. Which Obama/Democrat policies caused the index to drop so drastically during this period?

Just as during the period of 2/11/16 to the present, the S&P has rallied 19.1% Please point out specifically what Obama/Democrat policies caused this expansion.

See where this is heading?

Short 2-6 month windows can vary inside the larger trend. But you know that, don't you. Clearly the stock market has performed well since Obama took office. I'm not arguing causation, but it is an interesting trend considering the doom and gloom warnings from the right about how he'd destroy everything when he took office.

It's only interesting if you think that the President has a major influence on the market. Not as interesting if you consider that in 2009-10 we were coming out of a major recession and the market had no place to go but up. If you really think politicians have a major influence on the economy (I don't, I think they have a minor influence at best) then you need to consider that the best performance seems to be when we have a divided government, with the Executive controlled by one party and the Legislative controlled by the other. Given that, you need to consider that it may be the Legislative which has the greater influence.

I only said it was interesting because of what the GOP and others on the "pro-business" politicians on the right were predicting.

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

As previously posted but probably a good reminder for the GOP slurpers, the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH.

Interesting....During the period from 12/1/15 to 2/11/16 the S&P 500 plunged 13.2%. Which Obama/Democrat policies caused the index to drop so drastically during this period?

Just as during the period of 2/11/16 to the present, the S&P has rallied 19.1% Please point out specifically what Obama/Democrat policies caused this expansion.

See where this is heading?

Short 2-6 month windows can vary inside the larger trend. But you know that, don't you. Clearly the stock market has performed well since Obama took office. I'm not arguing causation, but it is an interesting trend considering the doom and gloom warnings from the right about how he'd destroy everything when he took office.

It's only interesting if you think that the President has a major influence on the market. Not as interesting if you consider that in 2009-10 we were coming out of a major recession and the market had no place to go but up. If you really think politicians have a major influence on the economy (I don't, I think they have a minor influence at best) then you need to consider that the best performance seems to be when we have a divided government, with the Executive controlled by one party and the Legislative controlled by the other. Given that, you need to consider that it may be the Legislative which has the greater influence.

I only said it was interesting because of what the GOP and others on the "pro-business" politicians on the right were predicting.

Understood. You made it clear that you're not arguing causation. I wasn't directing my comments to you, but to anyone who argues that a particular candidate will save or ruin the economy.

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

As previously posted but probably a good reminder for the GOP slurpers, the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH.

Interesting....During the period from 12/1/15 to 2/11/16 the S&P 500 plunged 13.2%. Which Obama/Democrat policies caused the index to drop so drastically during this period?

Just as during the period of 2/11/16 to the present, the S&P has rallied 19.1% Please point out specifically what Obama/Democrat policies caused this expansion.

See where this is heading?

Short 2-6 month windows can vary inside the larger trend. But you know that, don't you. Clearly the stock market has performed well since Obama took office. I'm not arguing causation, but it is an interesting trend considering the doom and gloom warnings from the right about how he'd destroy everything when he took office.

It's only interesting if you think that the President has a major influence on the market. Not as interesting if you consider that in 2009-10 we were coming out of a major recession and the market had no place to go but up. If you really think politicians have a major influence on the economy (I don't, I think they have a minor influence at best) then you need to consider that the best performance seems to be when we have a divided government, with the Executive controlled by one party and the Legislative controlled by the other. Given that, you need to consider that it may be the Legislative which has the greater influence.

Home Run

You can use the same chart to illustrate new welfare recipients, food stamp usage, and people who have given up looking for work since Obama has taken office.

You can use the same chart to illustrate new welfare recipients, food stamp usage, and people who have given up looking for work since Obama has taken office.

Please show us.

You can use the same chart to illustrate new welfare recipients, food stamp usage, and people who have given up looking for work since Obama has taken office.

You can also use this chart to illustrate my general happiness level since I suffered through the decline, eventual bankruptcy, and government bailout at GM in 2008-09 and then I retired at the end of 2009. The ups & downs on this graph directly correlate to my contentedness.

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

As previously posted but probably a good reminder for the GOP slurpers, the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH.

Interesting....During the period from 12/1/15 to 2/11/16 the S&P 500 plunged 13.2%. Which Obama/Democrat policies caused the index to drop so drastically during this period?

Just as during the period of 2/11/16 to the present, the S&P has rallied 19.1% Please point out specifically what Obama/Democrat policies caused this expansion.

See where this is heading?

Are you myopic? The original statement was "the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH". Your response was for a targeted period to prove a snarky point.

Go do a little research with historical perspective, and it may help you understand that over time the premise I stated is accurate.

alloak, just wondering if your returns have been better under Obama than Bush? If you had reasonable investments over the last 8 years you should have been rewarded well.

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

As previously posted but probably a good reminder for the GOP slurpers, the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH.

Interesting....During the period from 12/1/15 to 2/11/16 the S&P 500 plunged 13.2%. Which Obama/Democrat policies caused the index to drop so drastically during this period?

Just as during the period of 2/11/16 to the present, the S&P has rallied 19.1% Please point out specifically what Obama/Democrat policies caused this expansion.

See where this is heading?

Are you myopic? The original statement was "the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH". Your response was for a targeted period to prove a snarky point.

Not at all. I wanted you to provide the reasoning to back up your claims. I notice you avoided answering
the questions.

FWIW, I have better returns at the poker table when I eat shrimp and wear blue.

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

As previously posted but probably a good reminder for the GOP slurpers, the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH.

Interesting....During the period from 12/1/15 to 2/11/16 the S&P 500 plunged 13.2%. Which Obama/Democrat policies caused the index to drop so drastically during this period?

Just as during the period of 2/11/16 to the present, the S&P has rallied 19.1% Please point out specifically what Obama/Democrat policies caused this expansion.

See where this is heading?

Are you myopic? The original statement was "the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH". Your response was for a targeted period to prove a snarky point.

Not at all. I wanted you to provide the reasoning to back up your claims. I notice you avoided answering
the questions.

FWIW, I have better returns at the poker table when I eat shrimp and wear blue.

I don't think there's any one policy that points to a president in particular. Others have delved into this - read above. The bigger point is that you nor anyone else can disagree that markets perform better statistically under Dems in the White House. Maybe investors and Wall Street prefer that psychologically. Point is you can't argue with performance of the markets (Dems vs GOP). I challenge you to go back and do a bit of research & tell us what you find. Prove the premise wrong.

In the meantime, enjoy the returns you should be receiving as the market goes up under this president - coincidence or not. If history holds true, and your portfolio matters, you would be concerned about the stock market should the "great businessman" get elected. Trump, his big mouth, and the perception of his unpredictability would scare the crap out of the markets.

If you want to talk poker, I'm all in. Open a new pertinent thread.

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

As previously posted but probably a good reminder for the GOP slurpers, the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH.

Interesting....During the period from 12/1/15 to 2/11/16 the S&P 500 plunged 13.2%. Which Obama/Democrat policies caused the index to drop so drastically during this period?

Just as during the period of 2/11/16 to the present, the S&P has rallied 19.1% Please point out specifically what Obama/Democrat policies caused this expansion.

See where this is heading?

Are you myopic? The original statement was "the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH". Your response was for a targeted period to prove a snarky point.

Not at all. I wanted you to provide the reasoning to back up your claims. I notice you avoided answering
the questions.

FWIW, I have better returns at the poker table when I eat shrimp and wear blue.

See, both in the stock market and poker, you always get better returns with Blue!

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

As previously posted but probably a good reminder for the GOP slurpers, the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH.

Interesting....During the period from 12/1/15 to 2/11/16 the S&P 500 plunged 13.2%. Which Obama/Democrat policies caused the index to drop so drastically during this period?

Just as during the period of 2/11/16 to the present, the S&P has rallied 19.1% Please point out specifically what Obama/Democrat policies caused this expansion.

See where this is heading?

Are you myopic? The original statement was "the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH". Your response was for a targeted period to prove a snarky point.

Not at all. I wanted you to provide the reasoning to back up your claims. I notice you avoided answering
the questions.

FWIW, I have better returns at the poker table when I eat shrimp and wear blue.

I don't think there's any one policy that points to a president in particular. Others have delved into this - read above. The bigger point is that you nor anyone else can disagree that markets perform better statistically under Dems in the White House. Maybe investors and Wall Street prefer that psychologically. Point is you can't argue with performance of the markets (Dems vs GOP). I challenge you to go back and do a bit of research & tell us what you find. Prove the premise wrong.

In the meantime, enjoy the returns you should be receiving as the market goes up under this president - coincidence or not. If history holds true, and your portfolio matters, you would be concerned about the stock market should the "great businessman" get elected. Trump, his big mouth, and the perception of his unpredictability would scare the crap out of the markets.

If you want to talk poker, I'm all in. Open a new pertinent thread.

The market gained 227% during Calvin Coolidge's tenure, a Republican generally known as one of the worst Presidents on record. The S&P 500 gained all of 27% under Jimmy Carter. I think it's safe to say there's a myriad of factors more meaningful to market direction than which party happens to be in power. Fun playing along, but I think you already realize this....

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

As previously posted but probably a good reminder for the GOP slurpers, the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH.

Interesting....During the period from 12/1/15 to 2/11/16 the S&P 500 plunged 13.2%. Which Obama/Democrat policies caused the index to drop so drastically during this period?

Just as during the period of 2/11/16 to the present, the S&P has rallied 19.1% Please point out specifically what Obama/Democrat policies caused this expansion.

See where this is heading?

Are you myopic? The original statement was "the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH". Your response was for a targeted period to prove a snarky point.

Not at all. I wanted you to provide the reasoning to back up your claims. I notice you avoided answering
the questions.

FWIW, I have better returns at the poker table when I eat shrimp and wear blue.

I don't think there's any one policy that points to a president in particular. Others have delved into this - read above. The bigger point is that you nor anyone else can disagree that markets perform better statistically under Dems in the White House. Maybe investors and Wall Street prefer that psychologically. Point is you can't argue with performance of the markets (Dems vs GOP). I challenge you to go back and do a bit of research & tell us what you find. Prove the premise wrong.

In the meantime, enjoy the returns you should be receiving as the market goes up under this president - coincidence or not. If history holds true, and your portfolio matters, you would be concerned about the stock market should the "great businessman" get elected. Trump, his big mouth, and the perception of his unpredictability would scare the crap out of the markets.

If you want to talk poker, I'm all in. Open a new pertinent thread.

The market gained 227% during Calvin Coolidge's tenure, a Republican generally known as one of the worst Presidents on record. The S&P 500 gained all of 27% under Jimmy Carter. I think it's safe to say there's a myriad of factors more meaningful to market direction than which party happens to be in power. Fun playing along, but I think you already realize this....

I would assume you know that there are always exceptions to rules and patterns, and you jumped on that...goody. History has shown over time that markets perform better when the GOP does not hold the White House, but you probably knew that also.

Regardless of factors other than which party holds the WH, I doubt even you would argue that if an ivestor placed a sum of money in the market during a GOP president in office, the record clearly proves you would have inferior returns as opposed to if a Dem was in office.

The market gained 227% during Calvin Coolidge's tenure, a Republican generally known as one of the worst Presidents on record. The S&P 500 gained all of 27% under Jimmy Carter. I think it's safe to say there's a myriad of factors more meaningful to market direction than which party happens to be in power. Fun playing along, but I think you already realize this....

I would assume you know that there are always exceptions to rules and patterns, and you jumped on that...goody. History has shown over time that markets perform better when the GOP does not hold the White House, but you probably knew that also.

Regardless of factors other than which party holds the WH, I doubt even you would argue that if an ivestor placed a sum of money in the market during a GOP president in office, the record clearly proves you would have inferior returns as opposed to if a Dem was in office.

I already expressed my opinion that politics in general and the Presidency in particular have little affect on stock market performance, but if you insist on going down that road you need to know that the biggest positive impact seems to come when Republicans control the Senate.

https://www.cxoadvisory.com/4036/political-indicators/revisiting-party-in-power-and-stock-returns/

Of course we all know that an even bigger impact comes from which team wins the Superbowl.

I wonder who this group picked in previous elections? Usually businesses go with the Republicans even though traditionally the economy does better under Democratic presidencies.

As previously posted but probably a good reminder for the GOP slurpers, the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH.

Interesting....During the period from 12/1/15 to 2/11/16 the S&P 500 plunged 13.2%. Which Obama/Democrat policies caused the index to drop so drastically during this period?

Just as during the period of 2/11/16 to the present, the S&P has rallied 19.1% Please point out specifically what Obama/Democrat policies caused this expansion.

See where this is heading?

Are you myopic? The original statement was "the stock market does better when a Democrat is in the WH". Your response was for a targeted period to prove a snarky point.

Not at all. I wanted you to provide the reasoning to back up your claims. I notice you avoided answering
the questions.

FWIW, I have better returns at the poker table when I eat shrimp and wear blue.

I don't think there's any one policy that points to a president in particular. Others have delved into this - read above. The bigger point is that you nor anyone else can disagree that markets perform better statistically under Dems in the White House. Maybe investors and Wall Street prefer that psychologically. Point is you can't argue with performance of the markets (Dems vs GOP). I challenge you to go back and do a bit of research & tell us what you find. Prove the premise wrong.

In the meantime, enjoy the returns you should be receiving as the market goes up under this president - coincidence or not. If history holds true, and your portfolio matters, you would be concerned about the stock market should the "great businessman" get elected. Trump, his big mouth, and the perception of his unpredictability would scare the crap out of the markets.

If you want to talk poker, I'm all in. Open a new pertinent thread.

The market gained 227% during Calvin Coolidge's tenure, a Republican generally known as one of the worst Presidents on record. The S&P 500 gained all of 27% under Jimmy Carter. I think it's safe to say there's a myriad of factors more meaningful to market direction than which party happens to be in power. Fun playing along, but I think you already realize this....

I would assume you know that there are always exceptions to rules and patterns, and you jumped on that...goody. History has shown over time that markets perform better when the GOP does not hold the White House, but you probably knew that also.

Regardless of factors other than which party holds the WH, I doubt even you would argue that if an ivestor placed a sum of money in the market during a GOP president in office, the record clearly proves you would have inferior returns as opposed to if a Dem was in office.

To each his own. If you put a "sum of money" into the market at any given time based on which party happens to occupy the WH, you're liable to get clocked. Downdrafts can and do happen regardless of D or R. Personally, that would be the last factor I would consider (except perhaps who won the Super Bowl.) I can't remember even thinking about it when making buy/sell decisions. Too many other meaningful factors are at play.

The market gained 227% during Calvin Coolidge's tenure, a Republican generally known as one of the worst Presidents on record. The S&P 500 gained all of 27% under Jimmy Carter. I think it's safe to say there's a myriad of factors more meaningful to market direction than which party happens to be in power. Fun playing along, but I think you already realize this....

I would assume you know that there are always exceptions to rules and patterns, and you jumped on that...goody. History has shown over time that markets perform better when the GOP does not hold the White House, but you probably knew that also.

Regardless of factors other than which party holds the WH, I doubt even you would argue that if an ivestor placed a sum of money in the market during a GOP president in office, the record clearly proves you would have inferior returns as opposed to if a Dem was in office.

I already expressed my opinion that politics in general and the Presidency in particular have little affect on stock market performance, but if you insist on going down that road you need to know that the biggest positive impact seems to come when Republicans control the Senate.

https://www.cxoadvisory.com/4036/political-indicators/revisiting-party-in-power-and-stock-returns/

Of course we all know that an even bigger impact comes from which team wins the Superbowl.

I don't disagree with anything you stated although my response was directed at alloak. With that said, the point I made never implied the politics nor a prez is a causation on markets. The fact presented is that markets do perform better under Dems in the WH moreso than a GOPer. It is just a simple way to look at history & performance & could be random results, but all I'm saying is that the numbers support that. It's a simplistic talking point to discuss during the runup to an election.

Quite frankly I'd rather discuss the pros & cons of monetary vs fiscal policy, Heller vs. Friedman, the Federal Reserve's actions or lack of in the last few years, etc., but those are probably more boring topics to delve into on this site.

Then there is the discussion to be had on astro cycles...maybe not.

I understand you were responding to a post by alloak, but this is a public forum so what the hell. Besides, this is one of those rare occasions where his view and mine align.

Here's the thing I can't resolve in my mind. Given that: 1)Market performance usually reflects earnings expectations , and 2) market performance has historically been better under a Democrat president, one would think that it is generally expected by investors that corporate earnings will benefit from the policies of a Democrat president. Yet Democrats are generally considered to be less business friendly than Republicans. How do you reconcile that? I'm not trying to play any partisan games here, it's an honest question.

I understand you were responding to a post by alloak, but this is a public forum so what the hell. Besides, this is one of those rare occasions where his view and mine align.

Here's the thing I can't resolve in my mind. Given that: 1)Market performance usually reflects earnings expectations , and 2) market performance has historically been better under a Democrat president, one would think that it is generally expected by investors that corporate earnings will benefit from the policies of a Democrat president. Yet Democrats are generally considered to be less business friendly than Republicans. How do you reconcile that? I'm not trying to play any partisan games here, it's an honest question.

It's a fair question & one that I've wondered about too.

The short answer is I'm not sure I have a concrete explanation. It's been many years since I've been removed from the classroom, and there are facts & theories I've forgotten over time; some retained yet others forgotten.

It just seems like this is a phenomenon that seems to play out. There may be a comfort factor in having a Dem in office that represents a psychological stimulus moreso than when a Repub is in office, but that's just a guess or theory.

On the other hand, I don't seem to personally ask as many questions these days (example - to reconcile your question). I just seem to go with history & patterns until that becomes broken or there is a change in what has been proven over time. It might be a bit simplistic, but it seems to work. Kind of like reading stock charts from a technical perspective - to me supply & demand cuts out the noise of fundamental analysis. I can read a chart pretty well, and the results I've gotten tend to be better than drilling down into a bunch of fundamental factors.

Bob - not the best answer. Maybe somebody here can provide insight.

I understand you were responding to a post by alloak, but this is a public forum so what the hell. Besides, this is one of those rare occasions where his view and mine align.

Here's the thing I can't resolve in my mind. Given that: 1)Market performance usually reflects earnings expectations , and 2) market performance has historically been better under a Democrat president, one would think that it is generally expected by investors that corporate earnings will benefit from the policies of a Democrat president. Yet Democrats are generally considered to be less business friendly than Republicans. How do you reconcile that? I'm not trying to play any partisan games here, it's an honest question.

It's a fair question & one that I've wondered about too.

The short answer is I'm not sure I have a concrete explanation. It's been many years since I've been removed from the classroom, and there are facts & theories I've forgotten over time; some retained yet others forgotten.

It just seems like this is a phenomenon that seems to play out. There may be a comfort factor in having a Dem in office that represents a psychological stimulus moreso than when a Repub is in office, but that's just a guess or theory.

On the other hand, I don't seem to personally ask as many questions these days (example - to reconcile your question). I just seem to go with history & patterns until that becomes broken or there is a change in what has been proven over time. It might be a bit simplistic, but it seems to work. Kind of like reading stock charts from a technical perspective - to me supply & demand cuts out the noise of fundamental analysis. I can read a chart pretty well, and the results I've gotten tend to be better than drilling down into a bunch of fundamental factors.

Bob - not the best answer. Maybe somebody here can provide insight.

Thanks for the response. Personally, I don't think there is an explanation. I think it is just a random occurrence.

I understand you were responding to a post by alloak, but this is a public forum so what the hell. Besides, this is one of those rare occasions where his view and mine align.

Here's the thing I can't resolve in my mind. Given that: 1)Market performance usually reflects earnings expectations , and 2) market performance has historically been better under a Democrat president, one would think that it is generally expected by investors that corporate earnings will benefit from the policies of a Democrat president. Yet Democrats are generally considered to be less business friendly than Republicans. How do you reconcile that? I'm not trying to play any partisan games here, it's an honest question.

Hi Bob
How's it going? I saw your post mentioning me. Thanks!

Democrats are not a big fan of trickle down but this is a Republican mainstay. As an example Trump has a sizeable number of hedge fund managers on his economic committee and the reality--one that Trump has pointed out himself--is that hedge fund investors seldom invest in areas that create jobs. A general argument is that they CEOs take care of their own pocket book before worrying about broader economic concerns. Trump's tax plan is a CEO's dream. There is very little in it to benefit the working class.

Democrats promote polices that facilitate growth and not just line corporate profits. Democrats are more open on cultural issues and this creates markets, as well feeding the dream abroad that America is about freedom, hope and prosperity. It is easy to see how the arts, music and the commodity market benefit from the good will created by demographic politics both domestically and in foreign markets.

The dot.com era might not have grown the way it did under Clinton if a Republican was president, as Republicans are into the preservation of old industry and not the exploration of new opportunities. Besides being environmentally correct ideas that support the future of our species, fighting global warming and sponsoring green industries can contribute to economic growth. Republicans are not only negative in these areas but they are in denial about how our lives are inter-
connected with evolutionary factors.

This is a survey of Silicon Valley types. They would be very familiar with policies that promote economic growth.

The surveys were conducted by Gregory Ferenstein, editor of the Ferenstein Wire and author of The Age of Optimists, a free online book about the politics of Silicon Valley. His polls draw random samples of people listed as founders of companies in CrunchBase, TechCrunch’s database of tech startups, incubators, and investors. The small sample—about 50 respondents per poll—makes for a relatively large margin of error, Ferenstein told me. But when it came to support for Trump, the results were unequivocal. The number of respondents who listed Trump as their top choice in the first round of polling: zero. In a second sample drawn from the same database, Trump gathered 4 percent.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2016/07/peter_thiel_will_back_trump_at_the_rnc_but_silicon_valley_mostly_hates_him.html

I understand you were responding to a post by alloak, but this is a public forum so what the hell. Besides, this is one of those rare occasions where his view and mine align.

Here's the thing I can't resolve in my mind. Given that: 1)Market performance usually reflects earnings expectations , and 2) market performance has historically been better under a Democrat president, one would think that it is generally expected by investors that corporate earnings will benefit from the policies of a Democrat president. Yet Democrats are generally considered to be less business friendly than Republicans. How do you reconcile that? I'm not trying to play any partisan games here, it's an honest question.

Hi Bob
How's it going? I saw your post mentioning me. Thanks!

Democrats are not a big fan of trickle down but this is a Republican mainstay. As an example Trump has a sizeable number of hedge fund managers on his economic committee and the reality--one that Trump has pointed out himself--is that hedge fund investors seldom invest in areas that create jobs. A general argument is that they CEOs take care of their own pocket book before worrying about broader economic concerns. Trump's tax plan is a CEO's dream. There is very little in it to benefit the working class.

Democrats promote polices that facilitate growth and not just line corporate profits. Democrats are more open on cultural issues and this creates markets, as well feeding the dream abroad that America is about freedom, hope and prosperity. It is easy to see how the arts, music and the commodity market benefit from the good will created by demographic politics both domestically and in foreign markets.

The dot.com era might not have grown the way it did under Clinton if a Republican was president, as Republicans are into the preservation of old industry and not the exploration of new opportunities. Besides being environmentally correct ideas that support the future of our species, fighting global warming and sponsoring green industries can contribute to economic growth. Republicans are not only negative in these areas but they are in denial about how our lives are inter-
connected with evolutionary factors.

This is a survey of Silicon Valley types. They would be very familiar with policies that promote economic growth.

The surveys were conducted by Gregory Ferenstein, editor of the Ferenstein Wire and author of The Age of Optimists, a free online book about the politics of Silicon Valley. His polls draw random samples of people listed as founders of companies in CrunchBase, TechCrunch’s database of tech startups, incubators, and investors. The small sample—about 50 respondents per poll—makes for a relatively large margin of error, Ferenstein told me. But when it came to support for Trump, the results were unequivocal. The number of respondents who listed Trump as their top choice in the first round of polling: zero. In a second sample drawn from the same database, Trump gathered 4 percent.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2016/07/peter_thiel_will_back_trump_at_the_rnc_but_silicon_valley_mostly_hates_him.html

Thanks Swifty. But how have the Republicans maintained their "business friendly" reputation for decades if their policies are actually less effective than the Democrats? I'm asking the question in a general way, not necessarily as it pertains to market performance. I still think political policies have a minor, not major, influence on market performance. But somehow the party with the superior strategy for sustained growth has a reputation of being bad for business. How is that?

[Edited on 8/31/2016 by bob1954]