Flagpole (and Agip), I'll make a slightly different point.
I know that Flagpole has claimed in the past that presidents don't make much difference for the eonomy, but the historical data doesn't back you up. Last month LizAnn Sonders showed a graphic (it's on schwab.com) showing annual economic performance (DJIA) of +8% for democratic presidents and +3% for republican presidents going back to 1901, and this is roughly the same as I have in my own spreadsheet going back to 1970. So which party controls the White House does matter. It seems that control of congress is what doesn't matter (at least for market performance).
BTW, in terms of annualized market performance, Obama is the #1 President all-time to date.
Now, if you go back to 2009 when Obama took office, Republicans refused to go along with any kind of fiscal stimulus because they didn't want to help recovering from the mess (that the Republicans were responsible for making) because they didn't want it to happen on Obama's watch. So you have ZERO fiscal stimulus.
That being the case, the entire weight avoiding the Second Great Depression fell on Ben Bernanke's shoulders, and what he did worked out great for people like Flagpole and me who have been long all this time, and for the top 1%, and the Business Roundtable CEO types.
What I think you have here is evidence of the limits of monetary policy. It doesn't help the average guy on main street that much...but it's crack cocaine if you have investment capital.
So what you really have in the last election is the guy on main street voting into power EXACTLY the people who are responsible for making him worse off: The same Republicans who are precisely responsible for the ZERO fiscal stimulus to help the little guy.
I don't know if the Republicans planned things this way, but that's how they turned out.