Jim McTague‘s latest Barron’s feature focuses on the momentum in the final days of the presidential race. McTague asserts that challenger Mitt Romney has the “Big Mo,” then offers his own assessment of the contrast between Romney and President Obama.

The economic takes are pretty clear: A second term for Barack Obama is unlikely to bring change in any of his policies, many which are anti-business. A first term for Mitt Romney would reverse course and improve conditions for business and investment and, consequently, stocks.

We already know what we’ll get from Obama: higher taxes for the so-called wealthy individuals, higher taxes on oil companies, tax breaks for “clean” energy, and new taxes on companies harboring profits overseas. Obama and his advisors don’t buy into the theory that lower tax rates result in increased spending and investment and higher revenues. The policy would shrink the deficit, but at a cost to growth—bad for stocks, but good for bonds.

Amazingly, during Obama’s first term, the stock market’s major indexes rose more than 60%. Then again, the market was fast approaching an 11-year low when he took office.

The Fed’s easy money had more to do with stocks’ mighty bounce than did Obama.

Conversely, a President Romney would close tax loopholes, which economists say distort economic decisions, and lower tax rates for individuals and corporations. He’d also deal honestly with the country’s massive entitlement mess, shrink the size of government, and spike business-killing regulations. That would boost corporate profits, a boost for stocks and bonds.