Indeed. I wonder if the Comedy channel will rerun South Park's "Douche vs. Turd" episode again before the election.

NYT Alan Blinder8/31/2008

Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Alan Blinder

Your chart shows an impressive decline in unemployment during the Clinton years. Certainly something to be proud of. So, if that's the case, why don't any other Democrats support the economic policies of the Bill Clinton presidency? (hint: free trade, work for welfare, low cap gains taxes)

Obviously other factors are involved but the consistent difference in Republican and Democratic economic outcomes is the difference between Supply side and Demand side economics.

Republican policies tend to focus on inflation and concentration of wealth at the top while Democratic policies stress low unemployment with less concern for inflation. The low unemployment creates increased wages, more money flowing through the middle class and a better overall economy as expressed in real GDP.

The data is pretty impressive in spite of the many confounding factors.

I see no basis for accepting the numbers in your first link as valid. There needs to be a scientific reason for why we should expect a lag time of zero and why we don't believe other events or conditions would have an effect on economic parameters.

Posted by: DKH

Analysis by Larry Bartels in his book Unequal Democracy shows the following:

From 1948 to 2005 with a lag of one year to account for policiy implementation;

Dem President Repub President

unemployment 5.63% 6.26%

Inflation 3.97% 3.76%

Real GNP 2.78% 1.64%
growth

As opposed to the culture wars and pseudo-intellectualism of the Democrats.

That's an odd metric.

America needs a leader that can promote the idea that we all share some common interests. There will always be competing interests among us that are not easily resolved, but we need to get away from the constant culture wars and anti-intellectualism that have become the hallmarks of Republican rule.

I would hope any American president would be charismatic and capable of drawing large, adoring crowds. Those aspects aren't a necessity, but they are one way to be effective and, certainly, nothing to be ashamed or afraid of.

Maybe that's a Freudian slip, but I'm thoroughly disillusioned by the Obama message and won't be supporting him, not that it matters. None Of The Above is my candidate, and I'm an enthusiastic supporter.

Martin a difference of 1% in the employment rate may not seem like much but with some 150 million workers the difference is a big deal to as many as 1.5 million families.

So what? Your chart suggests nothing about the likelihood of unemployment under the next President, and McCain wants a higher unemployment rate more than Obama. I'm a lot more concerned about the expanding warfare state spreading to Pakistan, the Sudan, Georgia and God knows where else, not to mention the looming fiscal crisis as the payroll tax surplus collapses while the cost of the Medicare program explodes even more than it would have without the incredible prescription drug benefit. I couldn't care less which candidate cries most convincingly over the unemployment rate.

I have seen the term jingoism but was not sure what it meant so I looked it up. Perhaps you should do the same and then explain how it has any relevance to anything Don said. At least I had the good sense to look it up before using it in a sentence.

Is your last sentence about Lehman Brothers some kind of a curse? Would we be better off if we owned "nationalized" Lehman Brothers or "hyper regulated" Lehman Brothers? Should failure be impossible? What is your point? Is it that Obama will save us? It seems you have reinforced Don's point.

"President Obama would be chiefly a messianic cult leader, promising miracle cures and salvation-by-the-speech"

What a complete and utter idiot you are. Such simplistic, jingoistic bullshit is why America is one of its worst moments in history.

May you own lots of "free-market" Lehman Brothers shares.

I see no basis for accepting the numbers in your first link as valid. There needs to be a scientific reason for why we should expect a lag time of zero and why we don't believe other events or conditions would have an effect on economic parameters.

You need to clarify who you are talking about with regards to windfall profit taxes on oil companies. Obama has made such a proposal while Palin actually passed such a proposal in Alaska and divvied up the tax money collected from the oil companies for each citizen to receive ~$1200 dollars from the tax.

The worst comment in the campaign I've seen comes from Sen. Obama, where he implied that support for free trade is unpatriotic:

"Just ask the machinists in Pennsylvania who build Harley-Davidsons," Obama said of McCain's record. "Because John McCain didn’t just oppose the requirement that the government buy American-made motorcycles, he called Buy American provisions 'disgraceful.' Just ask the workers across this country who have seen their jobs outsourced. The very companies that shipped their jobs overseas have been rewarded with billions of dollars in tax breaks that John McCain supports and plans to continue.

"So, when American workers hear John McCain talking about putting 'Country First,'" Obama said, "it’s fair to ask –- which country?"

Democratic policies are consistently better at reducing unemployment.

And likewise for income data as shown in the Saez study when incomes rose 90% per capita for the post FDR era versus 64% per capita for the post Nixon/Reagan era and was arguably much better distributed. THAT's huge!

It's why in the 50's a single working dad could support his family, own a home, pay for his kids college and retire on a decent pension while currently those goals are much less attainable and requiring 2 working parents to even come close to such goals.