Add another land mine — the presidential race — to Wall Street’s growing list of worries.

With many of the primaries completed and the race narrowing to just a few names, the Wall Street veteran Fred Dickson views the presidential election campaign with trepidation, characterizing it as another worry for an ultra-nervous, sluggish market that’s already being bombarded with growing fears about the length and depth of a recession. Mr. Dickson, the chief investment strategist of the regional brokerage D.A. Davidson & Co. of Great Falls, Mont., is expecting stepped-up, heated political rhetoric from the top candidates, which will frighten investors and could push stock prices lower. “It’s not something to ignore because you’re breeding additional market uncertainty when there’s already more than enough of it to go around,” he says.

You hear the same talk all over Wall Street: Who’s going to win the presidency? What will it mean? And what impact will it have on the market?

Looking at the top three candidates with the greatest delegate strength, a leading Wall Street historian and Standard & Poor’s chief investment strategist, Sam Stovall, tells me a McCain presidency would be greeted most enthusiastically by Wall Street, His reasoning: the Arizona senator’s strong defense leanings, as well as his intent to preserve President Bush’s tax cuts and promote a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 25% from its current 35%.

The Street would view another Clinton White House negatively, Mr. Stovall says. It would worry about health care stocks and wonder whether investors would face a replay of 1993, when the Clinton administration tried to rein in health care costs and drove down the industry’s share prices.

Senator Obama is thought by Mr. Stovall to be a “modest negative” to the Street, as he’s basically an unknown, notably when it comes to his business and financial policies.

A London money manager, Marcus Raab of Raab Associates, expects a distinctly negative Wall Street reaction to a Democratic White House, which he sees as inevitable in this year’s election. Among his reasons: elimination of the president’s tax cuts, tougher regulation, potential trade problems, and “hellish times” for health care and energy stocks, and possibly defense, too.

Meanwhile, some readers involved in the market, based on recent e-mails, seem increasingly concerned about the election. Mortgage lender Marcus Gold touched on it in a recent e-mail. “I’m sure the Democrats will take the White House,” he writes. “My broker tells me that would really be bad for the stock market. Is that true? How about a column on the investment implications of the election, which would be very timely?”

You got it, Mr. Gold. General opinion has it that the elephant brigade, traditionally pro-business and pro-Wall Street, will produce a better stock market showing than if the party of the donkeys takes power.

Actually, Mr. Stovall observes, that’s more myth than reality, judging from how the market has fared under Democratic and Republican presidential regimes since 1945. The strategist, who has done his due diligence, notes that the market does somewhat better under a Democratic presidency than a Republican one.

He points out, for example, that since 1945, the Democrats have ruled in 28 of the 62 years. In those 28 years, the S&P 500 has advanced an average 10.7% a year, or 71% of the time.

In contrast, Republicans have occupied the White House 34 years since 1945. The market’s frequency of advance in that period runs somewhat higher, at 75%, but the annual rate of increase with the elephants at the helm is a lower 7.9%. It’s worth noting, too, that during Republican regimes, investors were bombed with two of the worst bear markets ever — a 1973–74 plunge of 48% and a 2000–02 battering of 49%.

A happy note about presidential election years: They’re the second best in a four-year presidential cycle. Since the end of World War II, stocks have risen an average 8.6% in such years, with the frequency of advance a hefty 80%.

In an election year, the first and third quarters are generally the weakest because of the uncertainties surrounding the primaries and the actual election. In turn, the second and fourth quarters are the strongest; likely, Mr. Stovall says, because of the removal of the uncertainties, given the selection of the candidates and the election of the president.

dandordan@aol.com