If you want to compare it though, give this a look http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Seems pretty far from the stats you mentioned about Chicago.

This isn’t the place for this discussion, I know. So I’ll leave it at that…

Seriously, while I voted for McCain, and I don’t like many of Obama’s proposals, I agree with poster’s above who said the democratic victory was priced into the market already. Markets are always looking ahead. There is plenty of bad economic news to justify the drop. In fact, there was no really good news to justify the rally preceding the election except for there is a lot of cash on sidelines. What the market will do will depend on many things.

@Term pro life: “While the Republicans and Bush were both in charge, everything was great (and they got little to no credit, even though it all came after the .com burst and the terrorist attacks). Then Nancy and the democrats stepped in and things blew up. The explosion of course was Bush’s fault (even though it was all related to Fannie and Freddie and Republicans have been calling for reform there for years).”
It’s not just Fannie and Freddie that caused this crisis. Have you ever heard about 2004 SEC decision – part of Bush’ deregulation – that exempted 5 major investment bankers (Lehman, Merill, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sacks and Morgan Stanley) from limits on leveraging so that they can invest in mortgage-backed securities? Do you think it is a coincidence that 3 out of these 5 companies are out of business? The fact that these companies were leveraged 30 to 1, even 40 to 1 in some cases amplified the problems exponentially. So both democrats and republicans contributed. Also, the crisis was years in the making, so it is wrong to say “oh it was great then”. It was great because we had this huge real estate boom that prepared us for this crash. Crediting Bush for good years during real estate bubble is just as wrong as crediting Clinton for good years during internet bubble or blaming Bush for internet bust.

@Adam: “I’ve been reading up on Hoover and FDR’s policies made in reaction to the great depression and expect that inflation and unemployment will rise due to new government programs. I am plannion on selling a large percentage of my stock and instead allocating those funds into tax-free bonds.”
If you read anything about the Great Depression, you’d know that they didn’t have inflation, they had deflation. 40% deflation between 1929 and 1933 alone. By definition recession+deflation is called “depression”; recession + inflation is called stagflation. Also, Hoover raised interest rates after the 1929 crash. I don’t see the government doing the same thing. Yes, new taxes are bad for economy, but we aren’t exactly talking 90% top rate. The difference is measured in a few percentage points. I am not sure at the moment what it’ll do to my employer: on the one hand taxing foreign income would be bad as I work for a company that sells lot of stuff overseas; on the other hand Obama promised more tax breaks for investment in R&D, and my company does a lot of that. At any rate, nobody really knows what the actual actions will be. Programs and promises are one thing. What really happens is quite another.

Also, markets look ahead, so do you seriously think what you know hasn’t been considered by many fund managers by now and isn’t already priced in?

If you are so sure about stock market going down – sure, feel free to sell. But if you are mistaken, and if we are indeed close to the bottom, then you’ll end up selling low stuff that you probably bought high. If you think you are sufficiently smart to predict the movement, why didn’t you sell last November? Or bought bonds at the height of credit crisis when you could get 7% on tax-free municipal bonds and 18% on some corporate bonds like AmEx? The yields are coming down now. Two weeks ago I saw 6.5% yield-to-maturity (YTM) on some NY state bonds (AA and AAA), the following week when I transferred some of my cash to the brokerage, I only got 5.3% YTM (AAA, 10-year remaining. This week I bought a little more, but could only find 5.3 YTM on AA bond that matures in 2024. By the time you get to it, you’ll not be able to get even that. Incidentally, I didn’t sell stocks to invest in bonds, I used my cash for it. I was 40% in cash before this crash in taxable accounts and 50% in stable in 401K. At the height of credit crisis I transferred a little in high quality corporate bond fund. Now I am actually considering moving some of stable value money back into stocks. But not right away: a little at a time.

And I know historically the market does best when one party controls the white house and another controls congress, but you should really give some sort of examples of what has happened in the past when a party took control of both.

Then Nancy and the democrats stepped in and things blew up. The explosion of course was Bush’s fault (even though it was all related to Fannie and Freddie and Republicans have been calling for reform there for years).

I’m pretty sure if things stay bad, the Republicans and Bush will still be to blame. After all, Obama’s never done anything wrong in his whole life, and Nancy and Harry are too slick for anything to stick.

It’s too bad people don’t realize that neither legislation nor politicians create prosperity. It’s the ingenuity, hard work, and risk taken by individual Americans that create the economic prosperity in America. Unfortunately, most of the time politicians just screw things up.

Seems kind of unfair since it was Bush and the GOP that got us here.

You only get one vote. And the stock market doesn’t even get a vote.

Don’t worry–if things are as bad as you anticipate, Republicans will make a big comeback in 2 years, and again in 4. McCain will be too old (or will he!?), but someone else will come along. Or maybe Obama will do a great job, and you’ll change your mind (or rather, somehow find a way to credit Bush or Regan for any success). We just have to wait and see

Seems to me our troops are more safe in Iraq than in Obama’s home town.