mersenneforum.org New U.S. President
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2008-11-05, 16:21   #727
ewmayer
2ω=0

Sep 2002
República de California

23×3×487 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by diamonddave McCain was quite eloquent in is concession speech! Can't wait for Obama's one.
That reminded me of the "old" John McCain I liked back when he ran in 2000, who has been sadly absent from most of this year's politics.

I apparently missed the Obama concession speech...

 2008-11-05, 16:25 #728 garo     Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 53148 Posts It really is a pity that McCain lost the primary in 2000. I remember my wife saying, "Good, GWB is so hopeless that Gore will easily beat him. McCain was a more formidable opponent!" Oh well. I think his lurch to the right and pandering to the extremists in his party really sealed his fate and he has only himself to blame.
2008-11-05, 23:33   #729

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Democratic presidents: good for the stock market

Investors,

Democratic presidents are better for the stock market than Republican presidents. It isn't even close ... and that's been known since before our current president's election in 2000!

"UCLA Professors Find Higher Average Excess Returns of Stock Market Under Democratic Presidents"

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...11/ai_65931682

(Notes:

1. The comparison is not over stock prices alone, but over the excess return of stocks versus treasury bonds during each administration.

2. Boldfacing at the end is mine.)

Quote:
 The old adage that Republican presidents are good for business may be little more than a myth, according to research recently completed by finance professors Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov, of The Anderson School at UCLA. A close examination by the two researchers of the stock market's average performance during Republican and Democratic presidencies reveals that returns are much higher when a Democrat is in office. The two researchers arrive at their findings by analyzing the returns an investor would receive from placing his or her money in the equity market rather than T-bills over the period from 1927 to 1998. Under Democratic presidents, the average excess return of investments in the stock market over the three-month Treasury bill is about 11 percent. Under Republicans, it is less than two percent; a nine percent difference. Examination of the risk-free interest rate produces another noteworthy result: under Republicans, the real T-bill rate is, on average, higher than the rate under Democrats by more than three percent. The difference is even more striking when Santa-Clara and Valkanov examine stock portfolios formed according to the companies' market capitalization. Small cap stocks realize an average excess return of 18 percent during Democratic presidencies; while under Republican ones, the return was -3 percent. The difference in returns for large caps was approximately seven percent. With hindsight, one can argue that those results are attributable to differences in the business cycle during Republican and Democratic presidencies, and a correlation between the business cycle and expected stock market returns. In fact, it is commonly accepted that the president's policies have an effect on the economy that, in turn, impacts the stock market. To take into account potential differences in economic conditions, the two researchers control for a vast number of macroeconomic variables, such as an indicator of recessions, the slope of the yield curve and credit spreads of bonds, that help remove the effect of business cycle fluctuations. Their surprising results hold: returns under Democrats are still, on average, higher. . . .

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2008-11-05 at 23:38

 2008-11-06, 18:37 #730 ewmayer ∂2ω=0     Sep 2002 República de California 101101101010002 Posts Il Giovane, il Bello, e il Abbronzato (2008) No, its not the title of an Italian spaghetti western... Berlusconi Praises U.S. President-Elect Obama as Young, Handsome, Tanned': Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi today praised Barack Obama, saying the U.S. president-elect is young, handsome and also tanned.'' Clearly, Uncle Silvio recognizes the qualities in Obama which are most impressive to an Italian politician.
 2008-11-06, 22:17 #731 garo     Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 22·691 Posts Che cazzo!
2008-11-07, 02:18   #732

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

11110000011002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ewmayer young, handsome and also tanned
... not to mention being, at 6-foot-1, noticeably taller than 5-foot-6 John McCain, in accordance with the statistically-significant (p < .05) correlation between taller candidate and popular vote winner. (The correlation with Electoral College winner is slightly lower.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights...ial_candidates)

The 7-inch Obama-McCain differential may have been the second-greatest (1988 Bush-Dukakis: 8 inches) since Lincoln's 10-inch advantage in 1864, but heights are not available for the top presidential candidates in four 19th-century elections after Lincoln's.

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2008-11-07 at 02:26

2008-11-07, 11:50   #733

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

11110000011002 Posts
No evidence of the "Bradley Effect"

"No hidden white bias seen in presidential race"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081107/...9HD_EU_3Nh24cA

Quote:

2008-11-07, 12:28   #734

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·641 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cheesehead Folks, this sort of demonizing and emotion will spur assassination attempts, should Obama be elected.
Not that certain groups need any spurring in that direction ...

From a site (Stratfor) I find to have excellent and insightful analysis on almost everything I've read from it:

"Obama and the Presidential Security Challenge"

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081...rity_challenge

Note: "USSS" refers to the United States Secret Service.

Quote:

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2008-11-07 at 12:29

2008-11-07, 14:24   #735
Prime95
P90 years forever!

Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

2×132×23 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cheesehead Investors, Democratic presidents are better for the stock market than Republican presidents. It isn't even close.
The stock market seems thrilled with Obama's election -- down only a thousand points in 2 days.

2008-11-07, 16:18   #736
ewmayer
2ω=0

Sep 2002
República de California

23×3×487 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Prime95 The stock market seems thrilled with Obama's election -- down only a thousand points in 2 days.
And it had been doing so well this year ... figures a damn socialist would ruin the party. Next we'll be hearing all about "reining in excessive speculation," "sane lending practices", "limits on executive compensation" and a bunch of other Marxist-theory claptrap.

2008-11-07, 16:27   #737

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·641 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Prime95 The stock market seems thrilled with Obama's election -- down only a thousand points in 2 days.
George, the study didn't say that Republicans understood that Democratic presidents are good for the stock market. And it analyzed the market over the spans of administrations (you know -- four years at a time "when a Democrat is in office"), not over the spans of two days following an election in the midst of a world crisis.

Anyway, the preceding two days have been part of the Bush administration, not the Obama administration, so they're not really out-of-character!

Perhaps one reason that a change from a Republican president to a Democratic president is good for the stock market's performance during the Democratic president's administration is that so many Republicans have a can't-help-themselves-knee-jerk sell-sell-sell reaction to a Democratic election win, which worsens the overall market performance during the incumbent Republican's administration, and don't recover their senses until they see the improvements during the following administration, whereupon they buy back in, assisting the market's overall performance for the duration of the Democrat's administration.

You can mock me ... or you can pay attention to the lessons of history.

Republican post-election selloffs are fine with me right now -- I've been waiting for the market to bottom before I plunge back in, and post-Democratic-election-win selloffs are one of the most reliably-predictable category of market actions, along with October troubles (I haven't always timed right, but I got mostly out of stocks in September 1987 and advised my friends to do so, too, after seeing a chart comparison of 1983-1987 with 1925-1929 early that month), post-Republican-election-win rallies and year-end rallies.

Excuse me now -- I need to go see my broker.

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2008-11-07 at 16:55

All times are UTC. The time now is 15:12.

Sun Jan 23 15:12:46 UTC 2022 up 184 days, 9:41, 1 user, load averages: 1.01, 1.30, 1.41