Comments on: Stock Market Performance vs Congress Party Control

By: Kennydd

Kennydd — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:53:30 +0000

This happened after the Reagan Landslide election…the election night results turned the whole map blue…the liberal media stopped the practice of alternating colors to represent parties after this…and gave the republicans red ever since

By: SWGutto

SWGutto — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:10:01 +0000

You are just trying to capitalize on the jubilation following the end of WWII. Excluding that data set for obvious bias, Repubicans are better with the economy. Nice try, though.

By: Aranoff

Aranoff — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 16:14:23 +0000

What are the stats regarding the actual economy, growth, employment, GDP, etc?

By: landonswan

landonswan — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:32:58 +0000

Do you have the same info with regard to congress control? Interesting stuff….

By: landonswan

landonswan — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 02:51:59 +0000

For support vs opposition I used simple majority. I ignored years with divided party control. There were 5 sets of data with split congress. (I didn't ignore those sets for presidential data, just house/sentate data).

By: BintoBean

BintoBean — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 02:38:57 +0000

What definition are you using for congressional Support vs Opposition? How are you classifying years with divided party control between houses?

By: laoasodflasdflasdfalsdf

laoasodflasdflasdfalsdf — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:10:55 +0000

In statistics, the larger the sample size, the more accurate the data:

From 1926 through the end of August 2008, according to data from the market researchers at Ibbotson Associates in Chicago, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index has done distinctly better under Democratic presidents (9.2% annually after inflation) than under Republicans (4.6%). While large stocks fared well in Democratic administrations, small stocks have skyrocketed, returning 16.5% a year after inflation, versus just 2.2% annually under Republicans. On the other hand, bonds have done much better in Republican than Democratic administrations (4.8% versus negative 0.4% annually, after inflation).

Inflation does matter, because it's tied in to purchasing power so I respectfully disagree with you on this point.

In addition to the stock market, there is also clear evidence that many other aspects of the economy do far better under Democratic vs Republican administrations: http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep...

By: JakeGint

JakeGint — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:18:26 +0000

I want to know when Reps became “Red” and Dems “blue?” I swear, when I was a kid (70's-80's) it was the other way 'round.

By: landonswan

landonswan — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:27:21 +0000

eh…not really. The numbers are based on % gain/loss period over period. So each data point may be slightly high, but inflation over 2years is negligible and it applies to all points. So no, its no big deal.

By: listener

listener — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:28:35 +0000

prior to making an objective decision, based upon the statistics, should the DJIA be inflation adjusted? after all it is an average of stock prices, and shouldn't prices (the dollar cost) be adjusted for inflation? adjusting pre-2009 prices to 2009 inflationary prices might be a correct set of data to start with.