This is the stuff I alluded to in a previous thread, while talking with Rum_pirate.
This comes from a book entitled 'They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010... an encapsulation of numerous studies which come to a conclusion that some people here are not going to like.... in each case, the data is footnoted and referenced to the authors, so please don't adk for links; you can Google this stuff to your heart's content if you don't believe it.
First, how about the issue of stock market performance? How well does the market do, in either Democratic or Republican administrations?
This isn't the only study, though:Sean D. Campbell (of the Federal Reserve Board), and Canlin Li (of U. Cal. Riverside), issued their FEDS Working Paper No. 2004-69 in November 2004, “Alternative Estimates of the Presidential Premium,” and reported that, “During periods in which annual market volatility has been in excess of 25%, approximately 11% of the time between 1927-1998, Democratic administrations have experienced vastly better stock market performance than Republican ones,” and that this difference largely accounted for the superior Democratic stock-market performance over that long period. Factoring out this superior performance during volatile markets, “In the case of large stocks we find that the estimated Democratic return premium falls from 8.93% per year … to between 2.95% and 5.41% per year, depending on the specific estimator employed. In the case of small stocks the estimated premium falls from 15.67% in the case of OLS [ordinary least squares] to between 4.85% and 12.10% per year.” Those differences too are enormous. This study’s “Abstract” opened with the following summary of the prior literature on the subject: “Since the early 1980’s much research, including the most recent contribution of Santa-Clara and Valkanov (2003), has concluded that there is a stable, robust and significant relationship between Democratic presidential administrations and robust stock returns. Moreover, the difference in returns does not appear to be accompanied by any significant differences in risk across the presidential cycle.” Thus, beyond any reasonable doubt, from the economic standpoint, Democrats in the White House are far better than Republicans, notwithstanding the common myth to the contrary, that “Republicans are good for business.”*
The stock market isn't the only indicator of economic health, though... what about GDP?Also, Carol Vinzant of slate.com, using a different data-set, carried the analysis back a full century, to 1900, and came up with essentially the same finding, that Democrats are far better for investors than are Republicans, and that this is true not only for presidents, but for congresses; i.e., a Republican congress is bad for investors. Headlining, on 4 October 2002, “The Democratic Dividend: The Stock Market Prefers Democratic Presidents to Republicans,” she found that “Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500, but Republicans only an 8 percent return. In 2000, the Stock Trader’s Almanac, which slices and dices Wall Street performance figures like baseball stats, came up with nearly the same numbers (13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent) by measuring Dow price appreciation. (Most of the 20th century’s bear markets, incidentally, have been Republican bear markets: the Crash of ‘29, the early ‘70s oil shock, the ‘87 correction, and the current stall occurred under GOP presidents.)”
She continued: “According to almanac editor Jeffrey Hirsch, the presidential party figures are among the most significant he’s found. If the stock market were random, we’d expect such a result only one-quarter of the time. ‘I don’t know why people are convinced Republicans are good for the stock market,’ Hirsch says.”
From the study above:
These aren't the only ones to report on this phenomenon:Then, she added: “Nor does having a Republican Congress help the market. A Democratic Senate showed returns of 10.5 percent (versus 9.4 percent for a GOP upper chamber), and a Democratic House returned 10.9 percent versus 8.1 percent for the Republicans.”
More on the GDP, this time considering who controls the House of Representatives as well as the Presidency:A month later, Mark Hulbert at cbs.marketwatch.com headlined on 12 November 2002 “Pop Quiz on Politics and the Markets: Which is better, Republicans or Democrats?” and he used inflation-adjusted data from Ned Davis Research, which showed that, “On average during the 28 years since 1901in which a Republican has been President and Democrats have controlled Congress, the DJIA has produced a 2.2 percent real return (before dividends). On average during the 25.8 years in which the Republican party has controlled both branches of government, in contrast, the Dow … has produced an inflation-adjusted return of just 1.2 percent.” No results were shown for periods when Democrats occupied the White House. Ned Davis Research concluded overall that the average annual market return under a Democratic president has been 7.2%, while under a Republican president the average annual return has been only 3.7%.
On 22 February 2012, Bloomberg News bannered “Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House,” and Bob Drummond reported that, from 1960-2012 (till February 21st), $1,000 invested in the S&P throughout all of the 28 years of Republican Presidencies would now be $2,087, but in all 23 years of Democratic Presidencies would now be $10,920 – a 992% gain, vs. the mere 109% gain under Republican Presidents – and this despite the fact that there were actually five more years for the money to grow during Republican Presidencies. “The Democratic edge is so large that the party comes out ahead even without counting Bill Clinton (the Democrat with the biggest S&P gain) and George W. Bush (the Republican with the worst market record).” The Democratic advantage was enormous: “It’s not even close.”
But what about the size of government? This is a big deal to the right wing. Sorry to say, but the numbers here don't look too god for their side, either:Adding depth to Vinzant’s findings about the economic impact of Party control in the U.S. House of Representatives is the following: On 6 June 2004, under the heading, “If You Want to Live Like A Republican, Vote Democratic (part II),” at http://rtorgerson.blogspot.com/2004_...n_archive.html, the professional investment manager Richard Torgerson calculated the annual inflation-adjusted GDP growth in the U.S. for each year from 1950 to 2003, separately under four categories of U.S. political leadership; and these were the historical growth-percentages in each of the four categories:
Democratic President, Democratic House: 4.5%.
Democratic President, Republican House: 3.9%.
Republican President, Democratic House: 3.0%.
Republican President, Republican House: 2.1%.
On 22 December 2010, Doug Short at businessinsider.com headlined “Politics And GDP: Which Party Is Really Better For The Economy?” He found that, during the period he examined, 1947-2009, GDP rose:
Democratic President: 4.19%.
Democratic Congress: 3.41%.
Republican President: 2.63%.
Republican Congress: 2.98%.
By now, there's someone reading who says that these analyses are flawed, because they don't account for the 'spillover' of Republican policies that bear fruit during Democratic administrations. Sorry, but that won't wash either:For example, to document Democrats producing smaller government as measured by the number of federal employees, that site points to “Just for the Record Part II,” which provides the federal workforce numbers, and the changes in those numbers, during each of the Presidents from Kennedy through Clinton, and it concludes: “Under the 20 years of Republican administrations the number of non-defense government employees rose by 310,000. Under the 20 years of Democratic administrations, the number of non-defense government employees rose by 59,000. Of the 369,000 employees added between 1962 and 2001, 84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under Democratic administrations.” The only Administration that reduced the number of federal employees (by 310,000) was Clinton (largely because of the recommendations of V.P. Gore’s study commission on improving government-efficiency). By contrast, the Republican President who increased the federal workforce the least was Reagan, who added 3,000 federal employees.
(cont'd)On 5 October 2002, a more sophisticated statistical analysis, covering “the postwar period 1948-2001,” appeared from Kevin Drum (later with Mother Jones magazine), at http://calpundit.blogspot.com/2002_0....html#82576526, in which three different lag-times of “3 Yrs,” “4 Yrs,” and “5 Yrs” were applied in order to give a more accurate picture of the cause and effect of each President’s policies. Results were calculated for three measures: “GDP Growth,” “Unemployment,” and “Inflation.” The conclusion was: “No matter what time lag you choose, Democrats post higher GDP growth, lower unemployment, and lower inflation.”