Hillary Clinton Stock Market Bets: A 155 year indicator that tells us why Hillary won't Win

Forbes ^ | 06/24/2015 | Ken Fisher

[SeekAndFind]

I’ve turned up a 155-year indicator that suggests Hillary Clinton will not be elected next year–and offers some interesting perspective as to the market direction in 2016 and 2017.

An old, little-known truth: Overwhelmingly, when Republicans are elected President, stocks soar during the year they are elected (this has held true every single election since World War II, except 2000, an election in which Al Gore won the popular vote). Average S&P 500 gain: 12%, presumably in anticipation of market-friendly policies. Then stocks flipped negative during most GOP inaugural years–presumably when investors realized the new guy was, yes, still just a politician.

By contrast, when Democrats won, election years typically lagged as investors feared an antibusiness, antimarket President. But their inaugural years all surged double-digit positive (except Jimmy Carter’s 1977, off 7.4%), a whopping 21% overall. Presumably when investors realized the new guy was, yes, still just a politician.

Regardless of “why,” them’s the numbers! Playing purely historical odds, for a strong 2016, hope for a Republican; if you prefer a heady 2017, hope for Hillary.

And who will win? There’s some unnoticed historical truth here, too:

Since the Civil War we’ve elected Democrats who were either (1) already President or (2) a fresh new face (Obama, Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, etc.). Democrats have never elected anyone who would have been considered a likely nominee during the previous election cycle (Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, Al Smith, etc.). Debate about FDR if you will, but I’ll win. He was an unlikely 1932 nominee as of 1928.

[RIghtwardHo]

Oh for heaven’s sakes these things are always silly.

So what do the caterpillars say?

[AngelesCrestHighway]

If the Bag Lady gets elected...Kiss America GOODBYE!

[CodeJockey]

We’re in uncharted waters now. All bets are off.

[R_Kangel]

..... Well .... With the dumbing down of America and the advent of the low information voting crowd ..... Unfortunately .... It is my belief that elections will no longer be about the best qualified candidate to run the country and uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States .... but rather about pop culture issues and novelty candidates du jour.

.... That said, a novelty candidate based on the color of his/her skin is quite a worn out notion at this time. Therefore that leaves us with a female or gay candidate to be the next novelty president. Heck .... Hillary is both of those.

.....Like the last few elections This next election will probably be decided by the low information voter once again. Conservative media has been demonized so in a pop culture world it will not be effective in disseminating information to that pop crowd. That will be the task of the MSM.

..... In short ..... I actually think Hillary has a pretty good chance in this next election. Heck ..... Democrats would vote for a sack of potatoes if it was their candidate. They don't really care who .... or what it is ..... as long as it is THEIR candidate. So they will vote for Him/Her/It.

[longfellow]

I’ll tell you why she won’t win.because she
Can’t Understand Normal Thinking.

[Sequoyah101]

Agreed. This is pretty silly to start with but the past is all but useless as an indicator of the future now.

Yes, we are in uncharted waters. Things have just gone nuts. I don’t recognize the country any more.

obuthole got his fundamental change and it has destroyed the US as it was.

[ntnychik]

If it looks like the stock market is inconveniently healthy, Soros can always trigger another event. Bonus: George Bush’s name can be brought up again.

[Michael.SF.]

Since the Civil War we’ve elected Democrats who were either

And since the Civil War the Confederate battle flag has flown in the southern states with some degree of pride. Now it is a negative symbol to many. Obviously this then means that all prognostications are no longer in effect.

[Average Al]

We have moved in to Idiocracy government. All bets are off.

[ForYourChildren]

That’s funny!

[relentlessly]

[WashingtonSource]

The horror! The horror!

[antidisestablishment]

We already have a gay president.

[Michael.SF.]

Brilliant, In That’s Completely Honest.

[R_Kangel]

"We already have a gay president."

..... Ya ... but he is still attempting to hide it.

[SunkenCiv]

There are no 'indicators' per se, because there's no solid connection, no cause-effect relationship, even with something like this, which is based on ad hoc market phenomena. This was interesting, a little anyway:

Since the Civil War we've elected Democrats who were either (1) already President or (2) a fresh new face (Obama, Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, etc.). Democrats have never elected anyone who would have been considered a likely nominee during the previous election cycle (Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, Al Smith, etc.). Debate about FDR if you will, but I'll win. He was an unlikely 1932 nominee as of 1928.

[PhilDragoo]

In 2008 it was a September Surprise.