Here's the graphs of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (stock symbol $INDU) under Presidents from Kennedy to W. Bush, I'm looking at where they started and where they ended, not what happened in the interim.
Kennedy barely made any advancement:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...M/1kennedy.jpg
Lyndon Johnson did good:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...M/2johnson.jpg
Nixon, the only one of the group to loose ground:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d149/DVOM/3nixon.jpg
Ford, not to shabby at all:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d149/DVOM/4ford.jpg
Carter, narrowly made an advancement:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d149/DVOM/5carter.jpg
Reagan, kicked excellent butt (about 275%):
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d149/DVOM/6reagan.jpg
Bush Senior, good job for only 4 years:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...M/7ghwbush.jpg
Clinton, kicked major excellent butt (about 300%):
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...M/8clinton.jpg
W Bush, has lost some ground but a couple of months to go, could go either way:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d149/DVOM/9w.jpg
So as far as the $INDU goes, while it's not the whole story of the economic activity of this country, I think we can agree that it's certainly representative of how the economy is performing at any given time. I think we can also see that, looking at these graphs, that the Reps aren't necessarily "good" for business and the Dems aren't necessarily "bad" for business. We have Dems and Reps comprising the best, (Reagan and Clinton), and we have Dems and Reps comprising the worst, (Nixon and Carter).
Anyway, take that for what it's worth, and of course: "That's my story and I'm sticking to it."