If you want Donald Trump to win the election, then you should be rooting for a stock market crash between now and November. As you will see below, if stocks go up during the last three months before an election, the incumbent party almost always keeps the White House. But if stocks go down during the last three months before an election, the incumbent party almost always loses. Yesterday, Trump warned Americans to get out of the stock market, and if his warning turns out to be correct it will likely benefit him politically as well. When the general population believes that things are going well, Americans tend to stick with current leadership, but when the general population believes that we have hit rocky times they are usually ready for a change.
It turns out that this very strong correlation between the direction of the stock market and the outcomes of presidential elections goes all the way back to before the days of the Great Depression. The following comes from Zero Hedge…
Since 1928, there have been 22 Presidential Elections. In 14 of them, the S&P 500 climbed during the three months preceding election day. The incumbent President or party won in 12 of those 14 instances. However, in 7 of the 8 elections where the S&P 500 fell over that three month period, the incumbent party lost.
The last time this correlation failed was back in 1980, and at that time Americans were feeling depressed about the country for other reasons. Overall, the stock market has predicted the outcome of presidential elections with 86 percent accuracy, and that is way too strong of a correlation to ignore. Just consider the gains or losses that we have seen for the S&P 500 during the last three months prior to each election since 1928 and the outcomes of those elections…
1928: 13.6 percent gain – incumbent party won
1932: -2.6 percent loss – incumbent party lost
1936: 7.9 percent gain – incumbent party won
1940: 8.6 percent gain – incumbent party won
1944: 2.3 percent gain – incumbent party won
1948: 5.4 percent gain – incumbent party won
1952: -3.3 percent loss – incumbent party lost
1956: -2.6 percent loss – incumbent party won
1960: -0.7 percent loss – incumbent party lost
1964: 2.6 percent gain – incumbent party won
1968: 6.5 percent gain – incumbent party lost
1972: 3.0 percent gain – incumbent party won
1976: -0.1 percent loss – incumbent party lost
1980: 6.7 percent gain – incumbent party lost
1984: 4.8 percent gain – incumbent party won
1988: 1.9 percent gain – incumbent party won
1992: -1.2 percent loss – incumbent party lost
1996: 8.2 percent gain – incumbent party won
2000: -3.2 percent loss – incumbent party lost
2004: 2.2 percent gain – incumbent party won
2008: -19.5 percent loss – incumbent party lost
2012: 2.5 percent gain – incumbent party won
As you can see, the only times the correlation broke down were during the years of 1956, 1968 and 1980.
But this is a very strange year. We have never seen a candidate like Donald Trump before, and the establishment is pulling out all of the stops in an effort to derail his march to the White House. So the normal rules may not apply this time around.
“There has to come a point at which you say somebody who makes those kinds of statements doesn’t have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world,” Obama said at the event with PM Lee Hsien Loong.
“There has to be a point in which you say this is somebody I can’t support for president of United States,” the president said. “There has to be a point in which you say ‘enough.’”
The funny thing is that the exact same things could be said of Hillary Clinton. In fact, three of the top four hardcover books on the New York Times nonfiction best sellers list are about how Hillary Clinton does not have the judgment, the temperament or the character to be the president of the United States. The following comes from the Washington Examiner…
For the first time, three of the top four New York Times nonfiction best sellers are anti-Clinton books.
They join No. 1 Crisis of Character by former Secret Serviceman Gary J. Byrne which has been on top of the list for four straight weeks.
If you want to see where Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democrats want to take America, all you have to do is to look at the meltdown of the “socialist paradise” in Venezuela. For a while socialism seemed to work just fine there, but now desperate citizens wait in lines for up to 12 hours hoping to get something to feed their families…
A BBC journalist, who attempted to film the crisis, was stopped and forced by soldiers to delete footage of a protest outside a supermarket as desperate Venezuelans waited for food.
Baying crowds shouted “We want to buy stuff!” as they grouped outside the store in the country’s capital, Caracas.
BBC journalist Vladimir Hernandez reports that many people approached him to say they had queued for 12 hours without being able to buy what they wanted.
This is what the endgame of socialism looks like.
Unfortunately, the American people don’t understand this.
Unfortunately, about half the country wants to make Hillary Clinton the next president of the United States.
And in the end, the outcome of this election may be swayed one way or the other based on what the stock market does between now and November.
I don’t know what that says about our country, but it isn’t good.
If the American people still had any sense, an ultra-corrupt, morally bankrupt politician such as Hillary Clinton would not have a prayer of being elected dog catcher, much less president of the United States. The fact that about half the country plans to vote for her at this point is extremely frightening, and it may indicate that this nation is in far worse shape than most of us would like to admit.
Courtesy of End of the American Dream