First, thanks to the poster of that. Nice find. I reach conclusions (remember, everything is relative to the times and prior election): 1968 the move from a liberal democrat to a fiscal liberal conservative was not a huge net win. There was anger over the war, and other things. Bad time 1972 sticking with the tried and true (safe) = consistency and good news. 1976 while kicking the crook out (and pardoner) was good, the market knew a lot about where Carter was taking things. Down. Going to a liberal democrat is never pretty 1980 change is bad, but change to a conservative is not AS bad. That's a really positive outlook based on the time (those were bad times). 1984 and staying with an economic winner is REALLY positive. 1988 still have hope, but Bush was no Reagan. The markets turned out right. 1992 Still went down over last two elections. Moving from a liberal conservative to a conservative liberal wasn't a huge move down -- but less growth than the prior 2 elections. Remember, Bush said, "read my lips, no new taxes" -- then did what the democrat controlled congress wanted, and raised taxes. 1/2 the reason he lost was revenge for that lie. At least with Clinton you knew he was going to screw you. (And he did -- immediately he went back on his word too). 1996 Hey, he wasn't as bad as we thought. Once we gave republicans control of the house and congress and they got ahold of spending in 1994, thing were good. Bill was too busy getting laid to hurt the economy. Some even likely his smarmy style. Big boost for consistency and status quo (in good times). 2000 the down was 90% about the state of the election -- our democracy was in question. Hanging chad's, 12 different appeals. Election by lawyer, when in the end almost any way you cut it, Bush one. (And that was after the Dems got most of the absentee and overseas soldier votes thrown out, in the name of patriotism and service to country). Such a divisive election weighed on the market. 2004 that's better -- trended way up on consistency. 2008 -- depends. Clear winner, we don't get the sucker punch we took in 2000. If it is a close one with lots of controversy, it is going in the crapper like 2000. (And we're already down). History kinda shows the market goes up on conservatives -- Reagan winning re-election, and a moderate President with a conservative congress winning re-election. Transition to Carter, not so good -- and that was moving from Ford/Nixon who governed from the left side of the party (on domestic spending and policy). So a soft transition left hurt. Bush is actually on the left side of many domestic spending issues -- so going to Obama isn't a huge bump if he governs as he campaigned. If he governs how to legislated and wrote about in books, then it's a huge leap left. A lot will matter on appointments, tone, and how bad the congress/senate makeup is.
1 comments:
First, thanks to the poster of that. Nice find.
I reach conclusions (remember, everything is relative to the times and
prior election):
1968 the move from a liberal democrat to a fiscal liberal conservative
was not a huge net win. There was anger over the war, and other
things. Bad time
1972 sticking with the tried and true (safe) = consistency and good
news.
1976 while kicking the crook out (and pardoner) was good, the market
knew a lot about where Carter was taking things. Down. Going to a
liberal democrat is never pretty
1980 change is bad, but change to a conservative is not AS bad. That's
a really positive outlook based on the time (those were bad times).
1984 and staying with an economic winner is REALLY positive.
1988 still have hope, but Bush was no Reagan. The markets turned out
right.
1992 Still went down over last two elections. Moving from a liberal
conservative to a conservative liberal wasn't a huge move down -- but
less growth than the prior 2 elections. Remember, Bush said, "read my
lips, no new taxes" -- then did what the democrat controlled congress
wanted, and raised taxes. 1/2 the reason he lost was revenge for that
lie. At least with Clinton you knew he was going to screw you. (And he
did -- immediately he went back on his word too).
1996 Hey, he wasn't as bad as we thought. Once we gave republicans
control of the house and congress and they got ahold of spending in
1994, thing were good. Bill was too busy getting laid to hurt the
economy. Some even likely his smarmy style. Big boost for consistency
and status quo (in good times).
2000 the down was 90% about the state of the election -- our democracy
was in question. Hanging chad's, 12 different appeals. Election by
lawyer, when in the end almost any way you cut it, Bush one. (And that
was after the Dems got most of the absentee and overseas soldier votes
thrown out, in the name of patriotism and service to country). Such a
divisive election weighed on the market.
2004 that's better -- trended way up on consistency.
2008 -- depends.
Clear winner, we don't get the sucker punch we took in 2000. If it is
a close one with lots of controversy, it is going in the crapper like
2000. (And we're already down).
History kinda shows the market goes up on conservatives -- Reagan
winning re-election, and a moderate President with a conservative
congress winning re-election. Transition to Carter, not so good -- and
that was moving from Ford/Nixon who governed from the left side of the
party (on domestic spending and policy). So a soft transition left
hurt. Bush is actually on the left side of many domestic spending
issues -- so going to Obama isn't a huge bump if he governs as he
campaigned. If he governs how to legislated and wrote about in books,
then it's a huge leap left. A lot will matter on appointments, tone,
and how bad the congress/senate makeup is.
Post a Comment