From 1980 to present do you think it makes much of a difference to the market? ignore the moving avg lines. The red trend line is republican and blue trend line is democrat. Republicans have the edge on number of years 20 vs 16 for democrats. Republicans own the most downturns but overall I think it's a tie. I don't think it matters which party holds the white house. What do you think? I'm wondering how the trend line would look if made up of which party controlled congress during the same years. Problem is they can shift every 2 years making it difficult to research. Maybe some day I will
I don't presume it makes much of a difference to the market. Perhaps it is a combination of President/Congressional control. But if I may talk about the Presidential election coming up... Doesn't look like the Republicans will get the Presidency. I mean is Trump really a Republican? I find this election entirely intriguing, because it seems like the voters found a way to break the two-party system apart. By getting a 3rd party candidate (Trump, Sanders) into the primary races. Much smarter than trying to push a 3rd party during the general election, when you'd just be throwing your vote away if you don't vote either Democrat or Republican. The voters, it seems to me, are clearly rejecting the system. No matter how much the system tells them Trump/Sanders would be bad candidates, the voters keep supporting them and spiting the system. Telling them how bad Trump is, is not the way to get them to vote for your system. And that volatility could be bad for the market. If they reject the two party system, then they can turn against the markets. Look at how they're turning against drug pricing too. Honestly, these drugs (like Gilead's Hep C drugs) are worth their price, but people are tired of being taken advantage of and are biting back, even if they aren't being taken to the cleaners -- but if it feels like it, then they will spite the system. Voters want to watch the ones in charge squirm a bit, and are enjoying it. So perhaps it's not the party of the President, but why the voters jumped to that party/candidate at the time.
It's also fun watching the millenials get bent out of shape over Trump. Welcome to their first rodeo, they missed the 80s. Back then it was Ozzy Osbourne putting subliminal messages in his music, and if you played it backwards then you could summon the devil or some shit. And then Ozzy bit the head off a rat on stage! You never knew what that crazy guy was gonna do next, but you knew he was definitely crazy. Turned out he got a reality show, and went on an endless cycle of tours off of old songs. Less than crazy. Trump is the same thing, bringing the game back. You never know what he's gonna do next, but don't take it seriously and enjoy the show. I particularly liked the part where he said Mexico would pay for that wall. Now I see Comedy Central is doing stories about Mexicans living in America and registering to vote. I wonder how much Mexicans worry about Trump each night. But moreso I wonder how hard Trump laughs himself to sleep each night.
I know we are a bit off topic but, you are spot on with your assessment of why Trump and Sanders are doing so well. If you and I understand that, how come it appears that the news media and more importantly the "establishment" have not figured it out yet? It just baffles me that they just keep watching the horse shit in the stall and not realize the horse is eating the endless supply of fuel they are feeding the horse.
I think that your misinterpreting correlation for causation. Having said that from a behavioural point of view there may be intraday fluctuation after the announcement.
I forget to mention that fiscal policy and central banking does have a very big effect on the economy and in turn S&P 500. For example interest rates are a big one.
