{"id":6945,"date":"2024-10-30T06:36:14","date_gmt":"2024-10-30T06:36:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/finderica.com\/is-a-democratic-or-republican-president-better-for-stocks\/"},"modified":"2024-10-30T06:36:14","modified_gmt":"2024-10-30T06:36:14","slug":"is-a-democratic-or-republican-president-better-for-stocks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/finderica.com\/?p=6945","title":{"rendered":"Is a Democratic or Republican President Better for Stocks?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Politics have always been ugly. Even back in 1840, the campaign song \u201cTippecanoe and Tyler Too\u201d praised the virtues of presidential candidate and eventual winner William Henry Harrison while calling incumbent president Martin Van Buren a \u201cused-up man\u201d and \u201clittle Van.\u201d (Maybe that\u2019s where Donald Trump got the idea to insult Senator Marco Rubio by calling him \u201cLittle Marco.\u201d)<\/p>\n

Not to be outdone, the Van Buren campaign released its own song to the tune of \u201cRock-a-Bye Baby,\u201d questioning Harrison\u2019s war hero status at the Battle of Tippecanoe, where he had earned the nickname \u201cTip\u201d:<\/p>\n

Rock-a-bye, baby, when you awake
You will discover Tip is a fake.
Far from the battle, war cry and drum
He sits in his cabin a\u2019drinking bad rum.<\/em><\/p>\n

That\u2019s pretty good. I particularly like that not only are they calling him a drunk, but they\u2019re also saying he makes poor liquor choices.<\/p>\n

While politicians have been slamming each other for more than 200 years, it\u2019s not debatable how downright nasty they\u2019ve become in the 21st century.<\/p>\n

During George W. Bush\u2019s and Donald Trump\u2019s campaigns and presidencies, Democrats portrayed them as complete morons.<\/p>\n

On the flip side, Republicans labeled Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden as Marxists.<\/p>\n

With morons and Marxists having led our country for nearly a quarter-century, surely the market has taken a nose-dive during that time\u2026 right?<\/p>\n

Not by a longshot.<\/p>\n

Granted, the market did not perform well under Bush, losing 37%, its second-worst performance during a presidential administration. Only Herbert Hoover had a worse showing, and he had the bad timing of entering the White House just as the Great Depression got underway.<\/p>\n

The Great Recession happened on Bush\u2019s watch, but he also inherited the collapsing dot-com bubble, having taken office less than a year after the market had topped out.<\/p>\n

Then, after stocks bottomed in 2002, we got a rip-roaring bull market until the global financial crisis. Whether the Bush administration created conditions that led to the mortgage meltdown can be debated, but leading up to the crisis, the market didn\u2019t seem to care.<\/p>\n

While Bush had the misfortune of becoming president as the market was imploding, Obama had the benefit of being sworn in just two months before the market bottom in 2009.<\/p>\n

Keep in mind, that wasn\u2019t the end of the recession. Obama\u2019s administration had to pull out all the stops to keep the economy from falling off a cliff. But the market, not getting the memo that Obama was a Marxist, started to rally well before the recession ended. Over Obama\u2019s eight years, it rose a sensational 181%.<\/p>\n

During Donald Trump\u2019s four years, the market rose 67%, including the dramatic drop and rebound at the beginning of the pandemic.<\/p>\n

Whether Trump is a \u201cstable genius,\u201d as he claims, or duller than a No. 2 pencil at a crossword puzzle convention, the market didn\u2019t care, as it put in a nice performance over those four years.<\/p>\n

Under Joe Biden, the market has hit record highs and is currently up 51%.<\/p>\n

Even Jimmy Carter saw the market rise 31% during his time in office. While I don\u2019t recall him ever being accused of being a Marxist, his presidency is widely considered one of the most unsuccessful administrations in recent memory (despite his improved reputation in his later years due to his humanitarian efforts).<\/p>\n

You would think the stock market wouldn\u2019t respond well to the Oval Office being occupied by a complete dolt \u2013 or someone whose beliefs aligned more with Lenin\u2019s thinking than Jefferson\u2019s.<\/p>\n

But over the decades, history has shown that markets go up over the long term and that the person residing in the White House does not have much of an effect on market performance. It also shows that you shouldn\u2019t believe all the mudslinging and name-calling that are all too common in our politics.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s the bottom line: Stay invested even if next week\u2019s outcome is the opposite of what you\u2019re hoping for. You may be surprised by how well your investments perform during the next president\u2019s term \u2013 whoever it may be.<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p><\/div>\n