So look at this article here.
So they talk about investing only in Democrats and only in Republicans and then go ahead and compare, well, how would your investment turn out.
And of course, big surprise, you get more money with a democrat in the White House. First, ignore who is controlling the purse strings in those scenarios, they do not account for control of the congress.
Let's ignore that for a moment. They do give republicans the benefit of the doubt and do not count Herbert Hoover. Ok, fair enough. What they do is show the various percentages by President. Their snapshot for Bush on October 10th - kind of leaves out some important stuff, no?
Then they take credit for Clinton. How absurd, the Dot Com boom was a total bust! How about all the money people lost when the boom went kaboom? So take out Clinton, because it was built on absurdity. Also, fail on including Bush at the low point. Smoothing things out, average return under a dem, 7.3%, with a Republican, 7.8%, or in fact, essentially the same.
Shame on NY Times for such biased, left-leaning reporting.
In Response to: The Invisible Hand of Idiocy