While scanning the movie channels Saturday evening, I came across an oldie, “The Wrong Man,” in which Henry Fonda played the role of an innocent man wrongfully accused of a crime. (Actually, a look-alike did it).

As it turns out, Wall Street may also be centering on the wrong man – President Bush.

Why so? Because history, you may be surprised to learn, clearly shows that the market performs better when the Democrats, rather than the Republicans, occupy the Oval Office.

Wall Street, as we all know, is overwhelmingly rooting for a Bush win. It’s no secret why. Republicans are more pro-business than the Democrats and Mr. Bush’s regime is viewed as one of the most pro-business administrations of the past 50 years.

No wonder, then, the Street is feeling more relieved these days, given a number of recent polls that now show the president winning re-election.

Still, if you’re one of the country’s roughly 78 million stock players and you crave higher stock prices, John Kerry, not Mr. Bush, should be your man, judging from a study by Gregory Dorsey, a Connecticut-based financial adviser.

Covering the last 85 years, the study shows that under Democratic Presidents, the average annual calendar year stock return has been 13.5%. That’s 43% greater than the average 9.4% annual return when Republicans are in the White House.

When you adjust the results for inflation, Mr. Dorsey notes, the “tax and spend” Democrats still come out ahead, with an average annual return of 9%, versus a 7.4% rise for stocks under the GOP.

Interestingly, when you look at the market’s returns for the immediate 12 months following presidential elections, the contrast is even more striking. For example, the study finds that since 1918, in inflation-adjusted terms, stocks have gained on average just 1.5% in the 12 months following a Republican election win. In contrast, when a Democrat got the nod, stocks climbed at a real rate of 12.4% during that same 12-month span.

Taking a look at the entire four-year period, share prices historically have gained an average 38.5% following a Republican win, but they surged even more – an average 45.3% in real terms following a Democratic victory.

Presidential elections aside, Mr. Dorsey also points to another intriguing phenomenon, which, he notes, no one can really explain. That is, every year since at least the 1870s, years ending with the number five have always produced positive returns.

The average annual gain over the past 130-plus years: 23.6% after inflation.

Speaking of the election, one prominent Jewish New York corporate booster of Mr. Kerry, I’m told, is telling friends he’s no longer supporting the Massachusetts Senator.

He is said to have ditched Kerry after having been informed by a key member of Kerry’s staff that one of the early actions of a Kerry administration would surely be an effort to establish a new and more balanced Mideastern policy – one, it’s said, that is not one-sided in favor of Israel and which would factor in more fairly the needs and concerns of the Palestinian people.

***

Sizzle turns to fizzle: So what now for Coca-Cola ($40.30), whose new CEO Neville Isdelle warned Wall Street last week that second-half earnings would be below expectations due to tough conditions in America and Europe? Morgan Stanley analyst William Pecoriello takes the stance of many Coke trackers. He sees no quick fix in sight, has cut his estimates for 2004 and beyond and has chopped his yearend 2004 target from $55 to $42.

He warns, though, that his stock valuation is subject to risk. His earnings outlook: only 7%-8% annual per share earnings growth over the next five years.

Still, the shares sport a growth stock multiple of more than 20 times earnings, which makes no sense to money manager Joan Lappin of Gramercy Capital Management, who accurately predicted problems for the company about 18 months ago.

Ms. Lappin contends risks still abound for the shares, which are down about 20% from 2003’s close of $50.75. “The truth is,” she added, “this is a sick company that’s no longer a growth company and whose long-term trends are not favorable. Its stock,” she went on, “looks like it’s on death march and could easily fall to $25.”

Incidentally, if you’ve been beaten up on Coke, which once sold as high as $88.93, you might want to ring up Omaha’s Warren Buffett and commiserate. It’s one of his largest holdings.