That’s all well and good, but I would imagine that to be true of whoever succeeds Obama. It is as much a function of Congress and the economic circumstances of the moment as it is a matter of who occupies the Oval Office.
But Barron's couldn't quite commit and engaged in some furious backpedaling. One must be at least slightly bemused by Barron’s non-endorsement statement:
Make no mistake. We are not endorsing Hillary Clinton for president of the United States. Nor are we saying that she would be the best president for investors from among the current crop of candidates. We are simply weighing the impact of a President Clinton on the financial markets, based on her stated positions and past actions, against those of her most likely rival, Donald Trump.
Regardless, the question isn't whether Republicans will vote for Clinton, or even whether she will win; the question is, would it even matter that much?