Clearly, with the exception of Obama stumbling into the dip in 2009 and then pumping with QE. If you look at the 90's the market took off with the republican revolution. In the 90's the huge rally started in January 1995, almost to the day the republicans swept congress and everyone still talks about the 'good ol days' that was the republican revolution. The left says it was Bill Clinton, however being the slow ones that they are, they forget Clinton's first two years and the republican sweep that forced him rightward.
The following chart summarizes average annual S&P 500 Index returns for various combinations of party in power over the entire 62-year sample period. The number in parentheses after each combination is the number of years during which the combination exists. Some subsamples are extremely small. Results broadly suggest that stocks do better when Democrats (Republicans) control the Presidency (Congress).
The various combinations suggest that Republican control of the Senate may be most decisively favorable for U.S. stocks, with:
Average performance strong when Republicans control the Senate.
Outperformance (underperformance) under Democratic (Republican) presidents associated with Republican (Democratic) control of the Senate.
In summary, evidence from a limited sample suggests that Republican control of the Senate may be the most decisively favorable party-in-power indicator for U.S. stocks.
...In the 90's the huge rally started in January 1995, almost to the day the republicans swept congress and everyone still talks about the 'good ol days' that was the republican revolution. The left says it was Bill Clinton, however being the slow ones that they are, they forget Clinton's first two years and the republican sweep that forced him rightward...
The several times I've mentioned this I never get a response from the left.
