From this thread on Delusional Duck:

I would venture to say that most investors, especially those with substantial portfolios, are Republicans. After all, the GOP is the party that champions free markets, capital accumulation, and low taxes, principles that appeal to wealthy investors.

And historically, the initial reaction of the market to a Republican presidential victory confirms this thesis. During the last 120 years, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 0.7% on the day following a Republican victory in the presidential elections while it has fallen 0.5% the day after a Democrat captured the White House

However, a closer look tells a far different story. Over that same 120 year period, the average annual stock market return has totaled only 8.25% under Republican rule, while it has returned 10.85% with Democrats in power.

Over the past 60 years, this trend has been more pronounced. The Democrats have held the presidency only 41% of that time, but under their rule the average annual return has been 15.26%, more than six percentage points higher than the 9.01% return under Republicans.

I’m sure Birdman will have a comment on this!!

Well, I have a great chart in my office that shows that during each four-year term of office over the past century, there really isn’t enough of a difference in market returns to cause anyone to let a potential election outcome influence their decision on investments.  Two notable exceptions to the “average” are both from republican terms.  The Nixon administration, when the market rose by only 4.7% and the Reagan administration, when the market shot up 14.7%.  That’s the low and the high of it.  Think about it.  At the worst the market grew 4.7%.  My rule of thumb is this: Don’t purchase an investment today that you wouldn’t want to own in a recession tomorrow!  Buy quality, long-term investments that pay good dividends, reinvest those dividends, and turn off the news!

[Don’t quote me on this.  I’m not in the office and I’m quoting the figures from memory!]

From my investments the big guys tend to favor a Republican controlled Government- maybe it is not so much the investments but how the tax situation outlook is considerablably different between the two parties. One favors less tax on cAPIATL gAINS AND iNHERITANCE TAXES while the other seem to feel they may be the golden goose for taxes.

Just my read- but the investment giants all seem to dread a Democrat controlled Govt.

Ahhh…  That is absolutely true!  While the market itself experiences little impact by one president or another over time, the tax laws and how the government spends your money is considerably different under Dem or Rep control.  This is why young people tend to be more liberal than older people.  When you don’t have much money, your biggest concern is usually based on emotion and ideology.  As you acquire wealth, the desire to keep what you earn and protect your investments kicks in and, suddenly, former idealists become conservatives!  It’s a beautiful thing!

I was a conservative, and turned more caring- and use money for good for others- my husband and I live as cheaply as when we were young and broke- what I hate is just giving my money to the US Govt for them to use any way they want to, even if it is something I have great feelings about.

Maybe if it was like I would like Cable to be- pick and pay for only the stations you want- OK_ I have to pay this much in taxes- what are my top 10 places I would like the Govt to use it.

I was a conservative, and turned more caring…

Ouch!  I don’t view these things as mutually exclusive.

now you know most Republicans beleive you are born equal- that all have equal opportunities- and all can acheive if they want to.

Not all can, without some or a lot of intervention, programs and an even playing field. I dont beleive the Government should neccessarily supply that- but the Governemnt could make incentives (tax or other) to enable others to provide this support.

The news of the CEO"S parachutes for running a company into the ground, again has me in disgust. Enron, Blue Cross Blue Sheild Shenagins, Red Cross CEO’s entitlement, Smithsonians Small’s kingdom…....
Where the rest of us would be out in disgrace and lose everything we have for a much smaller screw-up- the Boards give failed CEO’s millions to leave and a pat on the back.
What happened to : if you screw up, you are out; with nothing?

Why oh, why are these deeadbeats rewarded, again and again, when investors, employees and creditors lose mmoney.

THIS TIME not only is it the 3 above that are hurt- BUT EVERY TAXPAYER IN AMERICA are paying 2 CEO’s for screwing up- not only is our tax money paying for bailout of two systems but the take for these CEO’s:
Fannie and Freddie’s ousted CEOs may get severance packages of $9.3 million and $14.1 million? Chew on that one !

We are already paying for Governemnt graft, screw-ups and favors (whats 10 million? just a small drop in the bucket for such a good cause- shows how out of touch these folks are to us regular folk- that no, we middle class dont have 5 million-  Mr McCain ) now we have to pay these jerks.

I AM TIRED OF IT! How do we protest this one!

now you know most Republicans believe you are born equal- that all have equal opportunities- and all can achieve if they want to.

Without this philosophy, there will never be equality. If we continue to tip the scales, one way or another, we create injustice for someone. It’s no more fair to deny a middle class, single, white, male a job than it is to deny a lower class, married, black, woman a job. Past injustices should be corrected by statute and society should move forward. Besides, like it or not, this is a class-based society. If you happen to be born into wealth, your opportunities are certainly greater than had you been born into poverty. Having less money may mean that you have to work harder to overcome obstacles but it doesn’t mean that you have to be a gang member, live like a pig, fail to learn to speak properly, dress decently, etc. (and before I get beat up for that comment, I’m not saying that being poor means that you ARE any of these things, it’s just that IMHO, you don’t see too many Harvard educated job applicants wearing their pants so that you can see their underwear or wearing a piercing in their eyebrow. These things matter when you’re trying to get hired). My wife grew up very poor. She was still raised to respect others, keep a clean home, attend school, etc. These are not race-based traits. They are class-based traits. Not saying it’s right, just making an observation.

I have allways said it was about class and rank in society than it is about wealth. I agree with you there.

I also dont want my tax money , paying CEO’s that have been feeding in the trough and making bad choices, get more money for driving something into the ground. Fire’em and if they havent saved some of their millions and the extra millions in perks and options- well, its their own fault. Isnt that what the Govt says to the small folks?

How can we stop this travesty from continueing?