Bush or Gore? Who'd Be Better for the Market?

Jim Seymour chats on RealMoney.com Wednesday Nov. 8 at 5 p.m. EST. Join the chat via the top of RealMoney.com's homepage.

Click on the link at chat time and have your questions ready.

---

Assuming George W. Bush snatches victory from the jaws of confusion in Florida -- if not on Wednesday, then later this week, or maybe next week, or who knows when -- what does it mean for tech stocks? For the market as a whole?

Jim Cramer opined Wednesday morning that a Bush victory probably won't mean much for the market -- but that an Al Gore victory might have moved some numbers. I disagree, at least halfway: I think a Gore win would -- and might still, given the Florida confusion -- have moved the pharmaceuticals, worried Microsoft (MSFT:Nasdaq - news - boards) holders, rattled the bond market, and so on.

The part I disagree with has to do with a new Bush administration. I think a Bush victory would generally be better for American business, better for the market as a whole -- and particularly better for tech stocks.

Both sides sucked up shamelessly to the Silicon Valley pooh-bahs during the campaign.

After inventing the Internet, Gore clearly thought he had traction with the people who run the companies that effectively run and exploit the Net. Long before the visible presidential campaign began -- in other words, a long time ago -- Gore was shuttling to San Jose regularly, for dinners with small groups of tech leaders. Building a base, as it were.

He entranced many of them, who were attracted by his personal intensity and genuine interest in tech matters. Kleiner Perkins uber-VC John Doerr and even Microsoft's Bill Gates fell into Gore's camp, and became important contributors. Gore's campaign held dozens of very successful fundraisers up and down the Valley.

(Personal note: I find Gore genuinely appealing in small groups, and he really does have an interest in, and knowledge of, tech topics. From H1-B immigrant visas for software engineers to the next hot technologies to smarter uses of things like the research and development tax credit, Gore has learned to speak the language of the tech business. I don't believe he would -- maybe, will -- walk the walk very well in the president's office, but I do know that he can talk the talk with the best of them.)

But before long, Bush's handlers began playing the same game. Assembling a group of backers that included such tech-company luminaries as Dell's (DELL:Nasdaq - news - boards) Michael Dell, Sun's (SUNW:Nasdaq - news - boards) Scott McNealy, Intel's (INTC:Nasdaq - news - boards) Craig Barrett, Cisco's (CSCO:Nasdaq - news - boards) John Chamber, and ex-Netscape CEO and now venture capitalist Jim Barksdale, Bush started talking about no more Net taxes and more H-1Bs.

(Personal note: I know, Dubya, distantly; I like him; and believe he'd be a good president. I especially like his candor and openness on things tech, and his willingness to say: "I don't know enough about that -- educate me." Tech leaders find that flattering, and not a little surprising: a politician who can admit that he doesn't know everything, and even more, one who wants to know more about their business! Of course, that's good politics, too. Even more than Gore, I believe Bush is much more effective in small groups, and seems more genuine. He's not exactly irresistible in that setting, but he is persuasive and appealing.)

One of the ironies of this "Who'd be better for tech?" argument is that at least by their public statements, Bush and Gore differ relatively little in their views and positions. Both want more H-1B visas. Both say it's important to protect and boost technology industries in America. Bush is adamant on no Net taxes, period, while Gore says he wants to tie any exemption from state or federal taxes to a broad revamping of state sales taxes. Both are likely to support new tax credits for R&D investments.

In broader issues that affect tech stocks, Bush's insistence on allowing more retirement money to be managed (read: To a substantial degree, put into tech stocks) by individuals would goose the market generally, the fortunes of the brokerage firms and tech-stock prices.

Bush's more market-oriented approach to drug discovery and pricing would help the pharmaceuticals. (Though there is an argument that Gore's greater willingness to federally fund more drugs for seniors could help them even more.)

And Bush's obvious reluctance to lead a government devoted to tighter antitrust controls would be a big help to technology companies across the board.

Broadly, Bush's loud and instinctive push back from the Big Government model and more central controls would be a big win for tech businesses, while Gore's comments on reining in "corporate excesses" may say more about his instincts than his repetition of the "The Era of Big Government is Over" mantra.

One special case: Microsoft's appeal of U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's decision to split the company. The popular view is that a Bush administration would quickly throttle back the Justice Department's pursuit of its win at trial, while a Gore administration would put the pedal to the metal on the case.

I think that's naive and simplistic. A Gore administration would need to do little, beyond letting the present course of events play out in the courts. And a new-boys-in-town Bush administration would be very unlikely to aggressively shut down Justice's work on the case. That would bring a firestorm of criticism and damage Bush's reputation with voters and Congress after an election which can hardly be said to have given its winner -- any winner -- much of a mandate for change.

---

Who knows what will come out of the Florida recount, and out of possible legal challenges over the Palm Beach ballots and possibly other issues as well. But if Bush is the ultimate winner and takes office next January, I believe the financial markets, and their most powerful growth engines, tech companies, will be in good shape.

If Gore prevails, the sky will not fall and the economy will not collapse. But I think a Gore win would defer, delay or likely diminish the economy's growth and the nation's prosperity.

A last thought: As is obvious from my comments, I prefer Bush. So you should consider, as you read over my words, the extent to which I may be unconsciously talking my position, just as you would consider whether I was doing that when I praise or damn a stock's prospects.

One thing I suspect we can all agree on: It's important for the markets, and for the country, to resolve this election confusion as quickly as possible. Neither Wall Street nor Main Street likes ambiguity and uncertainty; we need to march forward to Jan. 20, 2001 knowing where we're going for the next four years.

---

Jim Seymour is president of Seymour Group, an information-strategies consulting firm working with corporate clients in the U.S., Europe and Asia, and a longtime columnist for PC Magazine. Under no circumstances does the information in this column represent a recommendation to buy or sell stocks. At time of publication, Seymour had no positions in the stocks mentioned in this column, although positions can change at any time. Seymour does not write about companies that are, or have been recently, consulting clients of Seymour Group. While Seymour cannot provide investment advice or recommendations, he invites you to send your feedback to Jim Seymour .