Chart of the Day: Barack Obama, The Candidate of Wall Street

It's an open question which party's policies are better for the economy, but the stock market does much better under Democratic presidents.


On Tuesday, the Dow Jones Industrials Average topped 13,000 for the first time since March 2008. That set off a predictable round of crowing from liberals and sniping from conservatives. Those on the right griped that President Obama, having villainized the financial industry, would now attempt to make political capital from the market's improvement.

That complaint is silly. Whether Obama has "villainized" the sector is both subjective and, in this case, mostly irrelevant: only three members of the Dow's 30-stock index are financials: Bank of America, JPMorgan, and American Express, and the broader market, which it tracks, also consists of more non-bank stocks than bank stocks (obviously).

Who gets credit for what is an important question. As Ezra Klein has pointed out, we're likely to see an improving economy between now and 2016, so whoever is elected in November will preside over a relative boom, and he and his party's policies will receive credit for it, which could have long-lasting effects (see the Democratic Party's dominance in the post-FDR years). But the stock market doesn't really tell us much, since it measures the extent to which equities are gaining in value, not how much the economy is improving.

Even if stocks doesn't prove anything about the wider economy, they show a remarkably strong correlation with the policies of the two parties, even if the causative relationship is unproved. As this excellent Bloomberg Government chart, rescued from behind the paywall by Joshua Green, shows, $1,000 invested in a fund tracking the S&P 500 (an index similar to the Dow) would have grown far more under Democratic administrations than Republican ones going back as far as John F. Kennedy (the assumption is that the money would be pulled out when the other party was in power). It's important to note that two biggest jumps came under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom entered office amid recessions, giving the market little direction to go but up.

So do you want the economy to improve? It's an open question which party would achieve that better. But if your only imperative is an increasing portfolio, the choice is clear. Maybe those Wall Street donors flocking to Mitt Romney should reconsider where their investment will have the best return.

Image: Bloomberg Government

Presented by

David A. Graham is a senior associate editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees the Politics Channel. He previously reported for Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, and The National.

Saving the Bees

Honeybees contribute more than $15 billion to the U.S. economy. A short documentary considers how desperate beekeepers are trying to keep their hives alive.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

blog comments powered by Disqus


How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well.


Before Tinder, a Tree

Looking for your soulmate? Write a letter to the "Bridegroom's Oak" in Germany.


The Health Benefits of Going Outside

People spend too much time indoors. One solution: ecotherapy.


Where High Tech Meets the 1950s

Why did Green Bank, West Virginia, ban wireless signals? For science.


Yes, Quidditch Is Real

How J.K. Rowling's magical sport spread from Hogwarts to college campuses


Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

More in Politics

Just In