Last week? Last month? No. In fact, that article is from September 1988 and was about the Bush-Dukakis debates of that year.
As in the 2016 US campaign, that election pitted two non-incumbents against each other as President Reagan completed his requisite two terms.
As 1988 began, the New York Times/CBS News poll talked of a political mood of "drift and uncertainty".
This isn't to imply that every campaign is the same, but it does serve as a reminder that markets regularly navigate political uncertainty.
As for supposed "patterns" in election years, research shows 12-month results are strikingly similar to overall averages.
Of course, many developed world countries have held national elections in recent times - Australia, Britain, Canada, and France. So is New Zealand, where, again, two party leaders led a campaign and were vying for a majority in a race that pollsters said was too close to call heading into the election.
Prime Minister Bill English, leading the National Party, and Jacinda Ardern, leading the opposition Labour Party, were standing on diametrically opposed platforms - the former promising a "steady as she goes" platform and tax cuts and the latter more spending on tax reform, health and education.
Saturday's election resulted in National winning the largest number of seats, but still not enough to form the government, giving National 58 seats (46 per cent of votes) and Labour 45 seats (35.8 per cent of votes). Once again NZ First leader Winston Peters lives up to his "Kingmaker" moniker with nine seats (7.5 per cent of votes) and is expected to make a decision in the weeks ahead.
However, there are still 384,000 special votes to be counted, which typically favour the Greens which could give them an equal opportunity for "negotiations".
The election results also spelled out the end for The Opportunities Party and the Maori Party, with Labour sweeping all Maori electorate votes.
What do all these events mean for equity markets, for government bonds, for commodities and for currencies? Those kinds of questions get a real workout at these times in the financial media, which inevitably finds a wide divergence of opinion from market observers.
While many people will have a keen interest in political outcomes, academic studies show little pattern in actual market returns.
In looking at the performance of the NZ stock market since 1991, only in nine of those years, the market fell. In the other 17 instances, it rose.
But the truth is this sample size is too small to make any definitive conclusions. And, in any case, it is extremely hard to extract the political from other influences on markets.
For example, the worst annual market outcome during an election year in this sample was 2008 when the John Key-led National Party beat incumbent Prime Minister Helen Clark and the Labour Party. But if you recall, that was also the year New Zealand entered recession, followed shortly thereafter by the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global financial crisis.
The point is that at any one time markets are being influenced by a myriad of signals and events - economic indicators, earnings news, technological change, trends in consumption and investment, regulatory and policy developments and geopolitical news, to name a few.
So even if you knew ahead of time the outcome of an election in one country, how would you know that events elsewhere would not take greater prominence for the markets?
Keep in mind, also, that elections have a limited range of possible outcomes - a clear win for party "A'' or "B'' and their coalition partners, or an inconclusive result.
Markets will adjust ahead of time to deal with risks around these outcomes. And the degree to which they move on the result will often depend on how much it varies from the consensus expectation.
So, while we have responsibilities as citizens to take an interest in elections, it is by no means clear that these events have long-term implications for our decisions as investors. That is much more a matter of our own goals and risk appetites, our investment horizons, the structure of our portfolios, our degree of diversification and the costs we pay.
* Nick Stewart is an authorised financial adviser and executive director of Stewart Financial Group. Stewart Group is a Hawke's Bay-owned and operated independent financial planning firm based in Hastings. The advice given here is general and does not constitute specific advice to any person. A disclosure statement can be obtained free of charge by calling 0800 878 961.