Quantcast

What could happen to the stock market if Obama is re-elected?

jt 2012/04/30 01:32:13
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Ira 2012/04/30 01:50:33
    It will be the time to thrive for Socialism...
    Ira
    +4
    How about you tell me what happened to the stock market after his first election? DOW at 8000 on inauguration day. DOW now 13,204.62. Not hard to tell which side of the fence you occupy. But it should be rather obvious to you that the gains over the last 3.5 years speak volumes. I think the data answers the question quite nicely, don't you? BTW, they are higher now then they ever were under Bush.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • stone.aviators 2012/06/02 13:37:37
    It will be the end of Capitalism as we know...
    stone.aviators
    +1
    It will tank, because of the more leftist regualations, hire taxes, punishing the rich and the productive to continue his far left agenda. He will open the flood gates of Mexico and push this country far left. Their will be a thousand year reign of the socialist Democrats. We will be Europe but worse.
  • Herb stone.a... 2012/08/18 22:12:29
    Herb
    +2
    Obviously you have been in a coma the last 7+ years or just dont pay attention to history. Under Clinton the DJ rose to an all time record of 13000 +. With Bush in office the market practically collapsed nosediving to the 8000s. Under Obama the 13000+ level has been restored. I am retired and my IRA says thank you Obams :)
  • Spencer Herb 2012/09/23 19:45:37
  • mwg0735 2012/04/30 16:03:28
  • Maria R 2012/04/30 04:18:36
    It will be the end of Capitalism as we know...
    Maria R
    Actually I think communism will be the new direction and the stock market will necessarily, tank
  • marianne Maria R 2012/04/30 06:49:28 (edited)
    marianne
    +2
    http://currencythoughts.com/2...
    With twenty years on each side and since some of the ups and downs of the U.S. business cycle lie beyond the direct control of policymakers, one would expect similar results in the two groups. Not so. Instead, one discovers below a significant advantage when a Democrat occupied the White House in each of the five categories.
    % Per Annum . Democrat .. Republican .. Bush43
    GDP Growth .......4.1%............... 2.9% ....... 2.2%
    Employment ......... 2.9% ............. 1.7% ...... 0.5%
    CPI ................. ... 4.0% ............... 5.1% ..... 3.0%
    DJIA ............ .. ... 8.1% ............. 6.5% ..... 0.9%
    Dollar ............ .. .. 0.8% ............. -3.6% ...... -5.9%
  • Ken marianne 2012/04/30 13:56:08
    Ken
    +1
    Using 20 years is a bit biased for the Democrats because 8 of that 20 years was the Clinton Administration which resulted in a wonderful economy and 8 was the Bush Administration which produced a terrible economy.

    Do you have the numbers for a 50 year analysis? This would include some notably bad Democratic Administration, e.g., Carter and Johnson, and the Reagan Administration that most conservatives hold up as the example. Thus it would be much more representative of the parties rather than individual successes and failures.
  • marianne Ken 2012/05/01 06:07:03 (edited)
    marianne
    please do show us those numbers....... ;]
  • Ken marianne 2012/05/01 14:23:50
    Ken
    +1
    If I had the numbers, I would. I like basing the analysis on facts like you used rather than soundbytes so loved by our politicians. I was hoping you had a spreadsheet with the numbers and so could do the additional years of analysis.
  • marianne Ken 2012/05/01 18:02:30
    marianne
    if we come across the data and still remember this, we'll post them....... ok....;]
    sounds good to me ....... thanks, ....;]
  • Maria R Ken 2012/05/02 03:44:19
    Maria R
    EXACTLY!!! And all of that Democratic prosperity followed Republican presidents who were mopping up from the previous Democrat idiots
  • Ken Maria R 2012/05/02 04:06:17
    Ken
    I need to agree...Obama is going to look great in history.
  • jon.jov... Maria R 2012/09/24 22:36:45
    jon.jovi.718
    +3
    okkkk.. let us say the right thing. the economy of the USA is not an independent economy anymore since it opened the market to everybody including the world .
    now the USA economy not only depend on the US work force, or the educated professionals, but also depends on the economy of the whole world. now any one of you can give me numbers, and percentages like any other guys in to finances around the world could. the point its very simple the people of the usa and the world got tired of working for a little while the other few guys take a big chunk of the cake and doing so by making deals that only are on their favor, with not a single bit of ethics or professionalism corrupting the economic system and taking it to bankruptcy y simple words stealing money without robing it. so i call investors thieves, so now the people only wants that all these thieves pay a fair tax share stop taking jobs in to china, mexico or south america and mainly stop dealing with people future. If you like to make more money on top of the millions your dad left you START DOING A REAL WORK! AND A REAL WORK IS NOT INVESTING WICH IS ROBING!..and stopspending time on the golf course , drinking on bard whit escorts and most of all stop SCREWING WIT HARD WORKING PEOPLE FUTURE any of you bring me those real numbers and i will say we are on the path of an economic recovery.
  • rlb012955 Ken 2012/05/03 04:18:50
    rlb012955
    +2
    Could you expound on the bias part as Clinton (D) and Bush (R) both had 8 years during that 20 year analysis? Yes Carter was a Democrat. Johnson was a Republican that turned Democrat just to get on the ticket with Kennedy and he only became President by default. Reagan was a Democrat that became a Republican in 1962 long before he ran for office and took the Presidency in 1981 to 1989. Truly, anyone could pick out a select period of timed to make one or the other parties look bad. But, to take the most recent period of time is most appropriate. Also, 20 years vs 50 years shoot why not just go all the way back 100 yrs or to President Washington and see where we end up?
  • Ken rlb012955 2012/05/03 04:35:49
    Ken
    Ok...the explanation is simple. The Clinton administration was a particularly good run for the US economy. Clinton's management of the economy probably contributed but to tout the Democrats because they had one superstar is a bit unfair. Similarly the Bush administration was a particularly bad run for the US economy. It seems unfair to damn the Republicans because they selected one idiot.

    Having explained 16 of the 20 years as being composed of one superstar and one idiot, 20 years seems inadequate to judge the competence of all party members and party policies.
  • Ken rlb012955 2012/05/03 04:44:40
    Ken
    Sorry I only answered half the question. As for why not go back to Washington? The Republican Party did not exist during the Washington administration. It was not a national force until Lincoln was elected in 1860. Secondly, the statistics used have not been captured for most of US history. The start date for each statistic varies but 1940 is the first year for which I can find 4 of the 5 statistics. Using 1940 as the starting point might be biased by WW II.....so what is the appropriate starting point?

    When I first started doing these numbers, I used my lifetime which is a bit more than 50 years. Since then I have decided 50 years is easier to explain and I don't need to say how old I am. If however you wish a different time frame identify the year I should start....and if it is after 1940, I will summarize the numbers from that starting year. Warning: I will do sensitivity tests on either side of your suggested starting year...and if the year was selected to bias the results, I will report the results of the sensitivity tests.
  • rlb012955 Ken 2012/05/03 05:20:36
    rlb012955
    +4
    Thank you for your explanation I see your point on the 20 years and except your 50. But, I'm not sure that the Republicans only elected 1 idiot. Just so you know I do not vote for a party. I vote for a person in each office. But, I will be excited to see your numbers when you are finish with your analysis.
  • cablegu... Ken 2012/09/23 12:52:40
    cableguy223
    +1
    January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
    BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
    THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
    (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and the sky did fall!)
    And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
    And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
    OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY !!!!

    So when someone tries to blame Bush...
    REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
    Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
    Budgets do not come from the White House.. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2...
    &&



    &








    January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
    BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
    THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
    (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and the sky did fall!)
    And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
    And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
    OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY !!!!

    So when someone tries to blame Bush...
    REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
    Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
    Budgets do not come from the White House.. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
    Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

    In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

    For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget .

    And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
    If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

    If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself .
    In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."
    There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

    " The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."
    (more)
  • Ken cablegu... 2012/09/23 15:39:54
    Ken
    I have no objections to a Republican Congress....unless there is a Republican President....because when the Republicans control the White House, Senate, and House all semblance of fiscal discipline goes out the window....massive new entitlements are implemented....and we make huge commitments of US troops on foreign soil.
  • Howler Ken 2012/09/23 16:13:51
    Howler
    Oh really?...With only the House being Republican, you are noted repeatedly for calling it a Congress that is a "do-nothing" Congress, and one that will not work with Obama, whom you have repeatedly stated you FULLY support in his political decisions across-the board.

    Why do you deem it so necessary to lie?
  • Ken Howler 2012/09/23 17:38:13
    Ken
    I do object to the current House...not because it is Republican but because it is incompetent and unwilling to govern. That is very different from objecting to a Republican Congress like the one we had during the Clinton Administration. That Congress was competent because it worked with the President rather than against the president. ... until Newt Gingrich got too big for his britches and so was thrown out of Washington....never to return. It is a shame to because he was a good politician.
  • Howler Ken 2012/09/23 17:43:47
    Howler
    " That Congress was competent because it worked with the President rather than against the president"

    Oh really?...It certainly seems more like Clinton decided to work with the Republican Congress...and was VERY glad that he did.

    Phony, phony, liar is Mr. Ken.
  • Ken marianne 2012/05/02 04:52:39
    Ken
    Okay I have found all the statistics for GDP Growth, CPI, DJIA, and the Dollar since 1940. The statistics for the labor market are out there but I don't know how to translate the detail I have found into a simple number without making it a masters thesis....so that one I can't get.

    I will try to summarize them for 50 years, i.e., 1952 through 2011. I believe I have the party in the White House for that period and if I get inspired I may do it for the party controlling the House and the Senate as well.

    Like I said, I love real numbers as the basis for political opinion rather than the hyperbole we see most of the time.
  • Ken Ken 2012/05/02 05:24:35
    Ken
    FYI there is a problem with statistics in 1976. The government changed its Fiscal Year and so there is a fractional year with out a calendar date. This occurred at the end of the Nixon Administration. So I will adjust by taking 1976 the transitionary quarter (TQ) and 1977 out of the calculations. So we have a full 50 years, I will add 1960 and 1961 to the period.

    I am posting this before I have the results so people won't believe these decision were made to influence the results. So our analysis period now is 1960 through 2011.

    At this point, I have had enough for today. So if anyone wants to question the methodology, now is the time.
  • rudy.st... marianne 2012/07/21 12:45:53
    rudy.strasswimmer
    +3
    Clinton is the only reason for these numbers. You can't mix his policies with Obama's. Obama is far from a real Democrat and I find it funny you note Bush alone"s percentages but fail to post Obama's sole percentages. The reason is obvious to educated readers though. NICE TRY!
  • marianne rudy.st... 2012/07/21 19:14:25
    marianne
    wait why, since you are the intelligent one here, explain this party in power

    before the worst economic crash since the great depression, mostly the republicans were in power 1995 thru 2007 almost the whole 12 years both houses.
  • jubil8 BN-0 PON 2012/04/30 03:43:37
    It will be the time to thrive for Socialism...
    jubil8 BN-0 PON
    I think the markets are pretty apolitical over the long run.

    November 4, 2008: DJIA up 305 (the biggest Election Day rally in history).
    November 5, 2008: DJIA down 486.
  • Flamingolady 2012/04/30 03:30:51
    It will be the end of Capitalism as we know...
    Flamingolady
  • Ken Flaming... 2012/04/30 03:43:45
    Ken
    +2
    Perhaps you are right and Obama is a socialist. If so, I like socialism because my stock portfolio lost a lot under Bush. Since Obama has been elected, it has recovered nicely and rewarded me for continuing to invest in America.
  • marianne Flaming... 2012/04/30 07:14:17
  • rlb012955 marianne 2012/05/03 04:00:06
    rlb012955
    +3
    Yes, that was from 2004 - 2008; during the Bush Administration. Actually it started in 2001 but, the full effects hit harder his last 4 years and spilled over to the new administration. Thanks for sharing.
  • Idiot repubs 2012/04/30 02:53:59
    It will be the time to thrive for Socialism...
    Idiot repubs
    +2
    Maybe it will double again like it has since he took over from bush.
  • Ken Idiot r... 2012/04/30 03:45:10
    Ken
    +1
    I hope so because I made a lot money since Obama's election than I made during the 8 years of the Bush Administration.
  • Idiot r... Ken 2012/04/30 11:30:06
    Idiot repubs
    Same here.
  • Maria R Idiot r... 2012/04/30 04:19:14
    Maria R
    Double? Better check the numbers again
  • Idiot r... Maria R 2012/04/30 11:30:31
    Idiot repubs
    6,000 to 13,000
  • Ken Maria R 2012/04/30 13:51:15
    Ken
    +1
    7,974 on January 20, 2009 to 13,312 on Friday....so saying it doubled may have been anticipating what will happen by November. But still most investors have made a lot more money since Obama was elected than they made during the Bush Administration.
  • marianne Ken 2012/05/02 06:18:54
  • M.C 2012/04/30 02:13:53 (edited)
    It will be the time to thrive for Socialism...
    M.C
    +1
    did you do any research before you asked this question, cause you were obviously going for something bad but you are wrong. http://cnsnews.com/news/artic...
  • lauren dull 2012/04/30 02:12:20
    It will be the time to thrive for Socialism...
    lauren dull
    neither choice is good for me. The stock market is doing fine, he hasn't been able to F it up YET. Not from lack of effort.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/01 01:42:15

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals