As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Who Wins: Republicans or Democrats?

This article was written by in Economy. 12 comments.

Jeremy Siegel is asking which political party is better for the economy: Republicans or Democrats. He kills the suspense only a few paragraphs into the story (and I’ll spoil it for you):

Despite the behavior of the market during the last Presidential election, over longer periods of time, the stock market has done significantly better under Democratic administrations.

He presents data on market performance during all presidential administrations since 1948, and stocks have simply performed better when Democrats were in the White House. Siegel does admit that you can’t blame a sitting president for your portfolio returns. The current Bush, for instance, took office at the peak of what we’ve so far determined a bubble; there was almost nowhere stocks could go during his first term but down (other than up).

Updated February 6, 2012 and originally published March 28, 2006. If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to the RSS feed or receive daily emails. Follow @ConsumerismComm on Twitter and visit our Facebook page for more updates.

Email Email Print Print
About the author

Luke Landes is the founder of Consumerism Commentary. He has been blogging and writing for the internet since 1995 and has been building online communities since 1991. Find out more about Luke Landes and follow him on Twitter. View all articles by .

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar Dus10

Interesting, however, he basically argues his results into the ground. For instance, when he states that you can’t blam a sitting president for your returns. That goes for pretty much everything. I think, however, if you could isolate the entire market away from the technology sector (which cannot), then then numbers for the past 30 years would be more in favor of the Republicans. Clinton had a good boost from the tech bubbble, and Bush 43 got burned by it.

There is another interesting coincidence that occurs with the economy and presidential elections. Whenever there is a major shift in party control, the market suffers. When Clinton was elected, the market went down, but was able to rebound. The same has happened for Bush II. However, I think it is great have some volitility in the market, it gives people an opportunity to get into the market and make up for lost ground, and then the market rebounds. That is why you must weather the storm in a down market, and you will even gain from it if you invest more, at that time.

Reply to this comment

avatar Huh?

I guess this show that there are a lot of differences between what a group of people say they support and what actually happens. This is the second example that I have found. The first was written by the dean of Notre Dame almost two years ago:


Reply to this comment

avatar Easy E

I don’t believe that the stock market IS the economy. An analysis of one aspect of the economy does not make any sort of statement about how it has done as a whole. What I would like to see is an analysis of Unemployment ratios, GDP, export/import, average personal income, infaltion, all that stuff that truely makes up our economy. After all the stock market is nothing more than the “I’ll trade you my pudding for your cookie” that kids do in the lunch room. What people think something is worth (stocks for instance) can be right, but can often be wrong (the tech bubble).

Reply to this comment

Leave a Comment

Note: Use your name or a unique handle, not the name of a website or business. No deep links or business URLs are allowed. Spam, including promotional linking to a company website, will be deleted. By submitting your comment you are agreeing to these terms and conditions.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.