Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Which Presidential Candidate is best for stocks?

Recs

11

April 06, 2008 – Comments (15)

As we rapidly approach this year's Presidential election in November, I have been debating with myself which candidate is the best for the stock market.  I figured that I'd share my thoughts on the subject with everyone and see what others think. 

Let's start off with some background on my views to give you some perspective of where I'm coming from.  I am a registered Republican who voted for Bush in the first election, but who subsequently saw the error of his ways and abstained from voting in the last election, not being able to bring himself to vote for either candidate.  I don't think that my vote for Bush in the first election was as much as a vote for him as it was a vote against having to listen to the smug, condescending "I'm smarter than you. Don't worry, I'll do the thinking for all of you ignorant fools" Al Gore (for a great piece on him check out Glen Beck's recent article - I'm not really a fan of Beck's but his observations on Gore are spot on).  I think that what the current administration has done with the war in Iraq and the economy over the past eight years is absolutely disgusting and borders on being criminal.  I am fiscally conservative, but very disenchanted with the current neocon ways of the Republican party.

Well, that's enough on my political background.  Here are my thoughts on the current election and who will be best for stocks.  I won't cop out and say none off the above because in truth I don't like any of the candidates or say Ron Paul, who has no chance in heck of winning.  Someone is going to win so I have to pick the lesser of the evils.  Hillary is out.  She is way to shady for my taste.  She keeps pointing to her time as first lady and saying how much experience she has.  Does anyone actually remember how the Clintons sold pardons to everyone and their brother and stole all of the silverware on the way out the door last time?  Give me a break.  Her recent lying about snipers just reinforces how shady she is.  Besides I don't think that there is any way that she can get the Democratic nomination over Obama.

So this brings us to Obama.  He is extremely charismatic.  I often find myself falling under his spell.  A big plus for Obama in my book is that he voted against the war and he would likely be the quickest of all of the candidates to stop the hemorrhaging of cash from our country in support of it.  If we are going to run a huge budget deficit, let's at least spend the money at home where we derive benefit from it and it can stimulate the economy.  My two main problems with Obama are taxes and the protectionist rhetoric that he was spewing during the Ohio primary.  Both of the Democratic candidates were talking about how NAFTA has to change and that we need to take a close look at future trade agreements with other countries.  My goodness, protectionism is exactly what this country doesn't need right now.  The only good thing about the bottom falling out from under the U.S. dollar is that it makes the goods that we produce here more attractive to other countries.  We should focus our efforts on building more things that other countries want and opening up trade with them so that we can help to reduce our country's disgusting trade deficit.  I suspect that neither Democratic really believes any of the things that they said in Ohio though because if they do and one of them gets elected it would be disastrous.

As I mentioned, the other thing that I don't like about Obama is his stated tax policy, specifically taxes on capital gains and dividends.  Anyone who is here in CAPS is obviously interested in investing so I don't see how any of us would like it if the long term capital gains and dividend taxes increased significantly.  I believe that I heard that Obama wants to raise the tax rate on both of these items to 25%.  Is this correct?  If so, I imagine that this might have a significantly negative impact upon the markets in the form of a massive sell-off right before the new rates went into effect.  

The last realistic candidate is John McCain.  I absolutely hate his warmonger ways and how he's nuzzling up to the conservative right who tried to leave him for dead only a few months ago, but at least he plans to keep the capital gains and dividend rates at 15%.  When that's probably the best thing that you can say about someone, you know that they aren't great.  He probably would be more for free trade than the Dems, which is a good thing for a country with a weak currency.  But that's it.  At this point I think that I am leaning towards saying that McCain is the best candidate for the stock market, but I am still very much up in the air.  Who do you think would be best for stocks and why?  I need someone to help me make up my mind.

Deej

15 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 06, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Tastylunch (29.28) wrote:

Historically democrats have been best for stocks as a whole as they tend to spend spend spend domestically despite wall street's usual preference for republicans (mainly due to regulation issues and until recently fiscal responsibility).Also wall street's reluctance to trust dems actually could cause bigger rallies in the long run as the market tends to underperform the year a democrat is elected vs years where a republican is, setting up big rallies later in their term.

see this article for the data demonstrating the democrats in general are better for stocks than repubs.
 

 however what may be ulitmately be optimal is to vote for gridlock (president one party, congress another) according to this article that is historically when stocks achieve the best results in an election year. 

Still that doesn't necessarily mean that will be the case this year. I think it the presidency will ultimately matter a whole lot less than who wins the senate and house and crucially by what margin.  Major Healthcare reform  imo is very unlikely without a strong democratic majority. Free Trade restrictions could be a problem with a slight dem majority, however I for one didn't believe Obama's protectionist rehetoric to be his actual likely course.. I think he said that merely to try to win here in Ohio, but we'll see.

I'm not going to make up my mind on who to vote for until the election (as there is no benefit to me of deciding now, but plenty in waiting to see). so I'm undecided (over time I've voted for both parties roughly half the time on the state and national levels). I will however pick one or the other, abstaining doesn't sit right with me and I think 2000 proved that protest votes (i.e. Nader then, perhaps Ron Paul now?) aren't effective in causing 3rd party candidates policies to be adopted mainstream...

Report this comment
#2) On April 06, 2008 at 2:52 PM, abitare (35.89) wrote:

I won't cop out and say none off the above because in truth I don't like any of the candidates or say Ron Paul, who has no chance in heck of winning.  Someone is going to win so I have to pick the lesser of the evils.

Choosing the lessor of evils is still choosing evils. I would not support the evil and ridiculous cannidates they keep offering us. The truth is there is very little difference between Insane and Bill's Wife. The next cannidate is going down like Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter.

The largest credit bubble ever created is deflating and the next President is going to inherit that economy. THEY CAN ONLY MAKE THINGS WORSE by intervening.

As per Ron Paul losing, RP far better off not winning and inheriting the mess GW and the FED created. RP has fought and spoke against:

1. the WAR

2. the FED

3. the artificially low interest rates

4. the excessive taxes

5. the excessive government  spending

6. the excessive government intervention 

There is no reason Dr Paul should take the blame for the things he has fought against his entire time in Congress.

Ron Paul takes out a NeoCon: 

 

Report this comment
#3) On April 06, 2008 at 3:05 PM, abitare (35.89) wrote:

McCain is an insane NeoCon. He has been proven insane, wrong, dumb, corrupt and a liar. You should have the moral courage to write in any cannidate, besides McCain. 

If McCain wins: short the US dollar, go long gold and prepare for hyperinflation.

John McCain and Miss Teen USA South Carolina

 

CNN: John McCain's Baghdad Neverland

 

John McCain Gets Owned on Meet The Press:

 

John McCain Lies at Fox Debate and is EXPOSED by Ron Paul

 

McCain wants Greenspan dead or alive:

Report this comment
#4) On April 06, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Harold71 (21.78) wrote:

Well, abitarecatania beat me to it.

The ideals of Ron Paul are what made America great and powerful.  Unfortunately we've been on a wayward path for a long time. 

I agree that drastic changes are going to happen in our economy whether the next administration corrects or ignores the problem.  So in that sense, it may be better that Ron Paul is not sitting in the oval office during the next few years. 

Still, I refuse to settle for some second best, or the lesser of three evils. I also refuse to change my vote based on what everyone else is doing.  I'll be writing in Ron Paul.  To me it is the only choice that makes sense for America and getting back to what made her such a great nation.

Report this comment
#5) On April 06, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Harold71 (21.78) wrote:

Well, abitarecatania beat me to it.

The ideals of Ron Paul are what made America great and powerful.  Unfortunately we've been on a wayward path for a long time. 

I agree that drastic changes are going to happen in our economy whether the next administration corrects or ignores the problem.  So in that sense, it may be better that Ron Paul is not sitting in the oval office during the next few years. 

Still, I refuse to settle for some second best, or the lesser of three evils. I also refuse to change my vote based on what everyone else is doing.  I'll be writing in Ron Paul.  To me it is the only choice that makes sense for America and getting back to what made her such a great nation.

Report this comment
#6) On April 06, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Tastylunch (29.28) wrote:

well I don't disagree Harold and Abitare. I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for myself, but I don't think Ron Paul will even be on the ballot in the fall (especially since he refuses to run as independent and he seems to have integrity) so it's somewhat of a non-issue unfortunately. Of course you can write him in if you want but I've yet to hear of a write-in presidential candidacy having any sort of long term effect. And yes he's probably better off that he's not inheriting this cluster -f@ck, as it would be a painful irony if he ended up getting blamed for something he tried to avert.

If you really want to fix things (assuming you think both parties are crap like most sane people do) the best course of action I would think is to help erect the political infrastructure for say the libertarian party or another party that you think best fits your ideals (or help create a new one) on the local/state level so that presidential run by someone like Ron Paul is actually feasible in the future. 

Since Tmfdeej here seems to be willing to choose (or consider) the lesser of two evils, I framed my original reply in that context. 

Report this comment
#7) On April 06, 2008 at 4:17 PM, abitare (35.89) wrote:

Of interest:

03-APR - Jesse Ventura talks about Obama, Clinton and McCain:

 

Jesse Ventura Calls Out Dick Cheney

 

Report this comment
#8) On April 06, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Harold71 (21.78) wrote:

Well, abitarecatania beat me to it.

The ideals of Ron Paul are what made America great and powerful.  Unfortunately we've been on a wayward path for a long time. 

I agree that drastic changes are going to happen in our economy whether the next administration corrects or ignores the problem.  So in that sense, it may be better that Ron Paul is not sitting in the oval office during the next few years. 

Still, I refuse to settle for some second best, or the lesser of three evils. I also refuse to change my vote based on what everyone else is doing.  I'll be writing in Ron Paul.  To me it is the only choice that makes sense for America and getting back to what made her such a great nation.

Report this comment
#9) On April 06, 2008 at 7:11 PM, leohaas (31.60) wrote:

Deej,

Welcome to CAPS hell. Every slightly political blog will be hijacked by the Ron Paul nuts.

Report this comment
#10) On April 06, 2008 at 7:39 PM, abitare (35.89) wrote:

leohaas,

Attack the messengers, because you are too weak to attack the message.

I posted enough information, if you have an issue with information please bring it forward for the community to address. We can look forward to any wisdom you can provide.  Everything I posted addresses  the question asked,  of course maybe I might have provided more examples then needed, but  no one  has to play them all.

Ron Paul is not the perfect candidate, but compared to the other "suspects", he is a saint and a genius. 

Report this comment
#11) On April 06, 2008 at 8:26 PM, TMFDeej (99.33) wrote:

Great articles.  Thanks for the links, Tastylunch.  That's a great point about gridlock.  The less the government gets accomplished, the better off we probably are.  This sort of reminds me of how at first I was annoyed by all of the hearings that the government was having on baseball.  At first I said to myself that I can't believe that the government is wasting so much time and money on the hearings when there are so many other huge problems in this country, but after I thought about it for a while, I decided that I liked the fact that the silly baseball hearings were distracting at least a few politicians and keeping them from doing harm elsewhere.

Deej

Report this comment
#12) On April 06, 2008 at 8:48 PM, TMFDeej (99.33) wrote:

I see your point about the number of Ron Paul posts, leohass.  I actually have quite a few Libitarian beliefs myself.  In fact, I love a lot of what Paul says.  At times he seems to make so much sense.  His ideas like less government, low taxes, a balanced budget, free trade, etc are all amazing.  Too bad the guy is completely off his rocker.  He spews all sorts of batty comspiracy theories about 9/11, the plan to create one huge country out of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, yada, yada, yada.

I am a realist and I have to cast my vote for one of the three candidates that will cause the fewest problems for me and my family.  The theory that the less the government gets done the better it is for the markets makes sense.  Combine the gridlock theory with low cap gains and divvy taxes and you have two things that have a direct impact upon my family's bottom line, at least short term.  I may end up holding my nose and voting for McCain, but I definitely have not decided yet. 

Deej

Report this comment
#13) On April 06, 2008 at 10:59 PM, abitare (35.89) wrote:

TMFDeej,

It is okay not to know something, but you should not make stuff up.  

He spews all sorts of batty comspiracy theories about 9/11,

Please provide a reference. You cannot.....

Do not confuse some supporter's positions, for Dr Paul's positions.Every person in the public eye has crazy supporters.

the plan to create one huge country out of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, yada, yada, yada.

NAFTA exists, the UN exists - a UN Resolution is the reason the US went to war in Korea. US had +50k dead and we have been in Korea 50+ years later.

The North American Highway has been planned for years, but has been held up in Texas legislature.  The US does have an estimated +20 million illegals in the US. McCain tried to pass an amnesty bill last year, so it appears there is some movement in the Amero?

FYI -  

Mexico reconquers California? Absolut drinks to that!

The latest advertising campaign in Mexico from Swedish vodka maker Absolut promises to push all the right buttons south of the U.S. border, but it could ruffle a few feathers in El Norte.

I look forward to your examples of Dr Paul's "spews all sorts of batty comspiracy theories".

Meanwhile, you should not "spews all sorts of batty comspiracy theories" about Dr Paul. Dr Paul is the most conservative member of the congress and an asset to the Nation. He does not deserve your slander.

Report this comment
#14) On April 07, 2008 at 6:26 AM, TMFDeej (99.33) wrote:

Hey abitarecatania.  As I mentioned earlier, I like a lot of what Paul has to say and I resped him for standing up to both parties for what he believes in.  If he didn't personally say these things, then he shouldn't put them in a newsletter that has his name on it.

"Paul's newsletters didn't just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia--specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s. Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed "Ten Militia Commandments," describing "the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty" as "one of the most encouraging developments in America." It warned militia members that they were "possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance" and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama--among them, "You can't kill a Hydra by cutting off its head," "Keep the group size down," "Keep quiet and you're harder to find," "Leave no clues," "Avoid the phone as much as possible," and "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

He has been quoted on the "North American Union" stuff a bunch of times in the past.  Come on.  That combined with the wacky stuff that is published under his name in his newsletter is enough for me to question his sanity.

This is all a moot point and a waste of time anyhow because we both know that there's absolutely no way that he will win.  I am a realist and I need to pick a horse that actually has a shot to win the race.  That will likely be either Obama or McCain, with a slight edge towards the latter for his ideas on free trade and low cap gains / divvy taxes but again I have not decided for sure yet.

Dee

Report this comment
#15) On April 07, 2008 at 5:04 PM, leohaas (31.60) wrote:

abitare, you might start here.

But more to the point, I don't object to you and your half a dozen or so fellow Paul supporters posting the occasional opinion (even though I usually disagree with you). What you are doing is hijacking every discussion. By now, this community knows where you stand. Posting yet another handful or more YouTube clips does not add anything.

I give up. From now on, I will ignore your posts and comments. They typically do not contain any investing advise anyway.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement