Democrats outperform Republicans across the board

[turtledude]

Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance. That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.

For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:


Note that at present, we are on that green column and we're almost exactly on the average of 2.9%.

Or, consider the change in unemployment rate by the party of the president:


Or, the stock market performance by the party of the president:


Not convinced yet? How about:

Median income of red and blue states
Life expectancy of red and blue states
Gun death rates in red and blue states
Graduate degrees per capita in red and blue states
GDP growth relative to world GDP growth
Change in personal income by party of president
Patents filed per capita of red and blue states
Top 20 years for GDP growth since 1930 by party
Etc., etc., etc.

So, what I am wondering is why anybody votes Republican. Are Republicans just looking at different measures of success? If so, please post them. Or, is the issue that Republicans just aren't looking at which party's policies work out better at all?

then why do Democrats pander to the unperformers while the GOP caters to the successful?

Examples?

so Democrats and their tax the rich mantra are pandering to the successful?

which presidential candidate in 2012 was complaining that the successful weren't taxed enough?

 

[candycorn]

Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance. That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.

For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:


Note that at present, we are on that green column and we're almost exactly on the average of 2.9%.

Or, consider the change in unemployment rate by the party of the president:


Or, the stock market performance by the party of the president:


Not convinced yet? How about:

Median income of red and blue states
Life expectancy of red and blue states
Gun death rates in red and blue states
Graduate degrees per capita in red and blue states
GDP growth relative to world GDP growth
Change in personal income by party of president
Patents filed per capita of red and blue states
Top 20 years for GDP growth since 1930 by party
Etc., etc., etc.

So, what I am wondering is why anybody votes Republican. Are Republicans just looking at different measures of success? If so, please post them. Or, is the issue that Republicans just aren't looking at which party's policies work out better at all?

then why do Democrats pander to the unperformers while the GOP caters to the successful?

Examples?

so Democrats and their tax the rich mantra are pandering to the successful?

which presidential candidate in 2012 was complaining that the successful weren't taxed enough?

Basically it was the Buffet plan...Warren Buffet is pretty successful.

 

[turtledude]

Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance. That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.

For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:


Note that at present, we are on that green column and we're almost exactly on the average of 2.9%.

Or, consider the change in unemployment rate by the party of the president:


Or, the stock market performance by the party of the president:


Not convinced yet? How about:

Median income of red and blue states
Life expectancy of red and blue states
Gun death rates in red and blue states
Graduate degrees per capita in red and blue states
GDP growth relative to world GDP growth
Change in personal income by party of president
Patents filed per capita of red and blue states
Top 20 years for GDP growth since 1930 by party
Etc., etc., etc.

So, what I am wondering is why anybody votes Republican. Are Republicans just looking at different measures of success? If so, please post them. Or, is the issue that Republicans just aren't looking at which party's policies work out better at all?

then why do Democrats pander to the unperformers while the GOP caters to the successful?

Examples?

so Democrats and their tax the rich mantra are pandering to the successful?

which presidential candidate in 2012 was complaining that the successful weren't taxed enough?

Basically it was the Buffet plan...Warren Buffet is pretty successful.

He panders to class envious losers so he can make more money

the Dem party is a split personality

at the top machiavellian power craving elites who pretend to care about the masses

and the rest of the party tends to be losers who want parents to take care of them

 

[candycorn]

Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance. That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.

For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:


Note that at present, we are on that green column and we're almost exactly on the average of 2.9%.

Or, consider the change in unemployment rate by the party of the president:


Or, the stock market performance by the party of the president:


Not convinced yet? How about:

Median income of red and blue states
Life expectancy of red and blue states
Gun death rates in red and blue states
Graduate degrees per capita in red and blue states
GDP growth relative to world GDP growth
Change in personal income by party of president
Patents filed per capita of red and blue states
Top 20 years for GDP growth since 1930 by party
Etc., etc., etc.

So, what I am wondering is why anybody votes Republican. Are Republicans just looking at different measures of success? If so, please post them. Or, is the issue that Republicans just aren't looking at which party's policies work out better at all?

then why do Democrats pander to the unperformers while the GOP caters to the successful?

Examples?

so Democrats and their tax the rich mantra are pandering to the successful?

which presidential candidate in 2012 was complaining that the successful weren't taxed enough?

Basically it was the Buffet plan...Warren Buffet is pretty successful.

He panders to class envious losers so he can make more money

the Dem party is a split personality

at the top machiavellian power craving elites who pretend to care about the masses

and the rest of the party tends to be losers who want parents to take care of them

332-206 Any way you split it, Romney is a loser.

 

[turtledude]

then why do Democrats pander to the unperformers while the GOP caters to the successful?

Examples?

so Democrats and their tax the rich mantra are pandering to the successful?

which presidential candidate in 2012 was complaining that the successful weren't taxed enough?

Basically it was the Buffet plan...Warren Buffet is pretty successful.

He panders to class envious losers so he can make more money

the Dem party is a split personality

at the top machiavellian power craving elites who pretend to care about the masses

and the rest of the party tends to be losers who want parents to take care of them

332-206 Any way you split it, Romney is a loser.

yeah if your measure is winning elections but that forces you to admit W is a winner too and unlike Obola, he didn't have friendly judges knock off his opposition in his home state


He also legitimately got into Stanford and Harvard Law without the affirmative action Obama benefited from (a white guy with Obama's "credentials" would not have been accepted at Harvard Law or columbia)

and Romney makes more money in a month than you will make in several years

if you are an obama Fluffer-that pretty much means you are a loser

 

[candycorn]

Examples?

so Democrats and their tax the rich mantra are pandering to the successful?

which presidential candidate in 2012 was complaining that the successful weren't taxed enough?

Basically it was the Buffet plan...Warren Buffet is pretty successful.

He panders to class envious losers so he can make more money

the Dem party is a split personality

at the top machiavellian power craving elites who pretend to care about the masses

and the rest of the party tends to be losers who want parents to take care of them

332-206 Any way you split it, Romney is a loser.

yeah if your measure is winning elections but that forces you to admit W is a winner too and unlike Obola, he didn't have friendly judges knock off his opposition in his home state


He also legitimately got into Stanford and Harvard Law without the affirmative action Obama benefited from (a white guy with Obama's "credentials" would not have been accepted at Harvard Law or columbia)

and Romney makes more money in a month than you will make in several years

if you are an obama Fluffer-that pretty much means you are a loser

332-206
Obama=winner
Mitt=Loser

Sorry, those are the facts.

 

[turtledude]

so Democrats and their tax the rich mantra are pandering to the successful?

which presidential candidate in 2012 was complaining that the successful weren't taxed enough?

Basically it was the Buffet plan...Warren Buffet is pretty successful.

He panders to class envious losers so he can make more money

the Dem party is a split personality

at the top machiavellian power craving elites who pretend to care about the masses

and the rest of the party tends to be losers who want parents to take care of them

332-206 Any way you split it, Romney is a loser.

yeah if your measure is winning elections but that forces you to admit W is a winner too and unlike Obola, he didn't have friendly judges knock off his opposition in his home state


He also legitimately got into Stanford and Harvard Law without the affirmative action Obama benefited from (a white guy with Obama's "credentials" would not have been accepted at Harvard Law or columbia)

and Romney makes more money in a month than you will make in several years

if you are an obama Fluffer-that pretty much means you are a loser

332-206
Obama=winner
Mitt=Loser

Sorry, those are the facts.

only someone who worships the government thinks that makes someone a loser

winner-not sucking on the public tit

 

[tuhaybey]

then why do Democrats pander to the unperformers while the GOP caters to the successful?

The rational thing except for the uberrich at least, is to vote Democratic:

Both parties pander to anybody whose support they think they can get. That's what they're supposed to do- try to appeal to the voters. That's the whole point of democracy- the keep the government trying to please the people.

The real question is why are you pandering to the uberrich? Why would you support policies that are clearly bad for 99.9% of the population just to fawn all over a 0.1% that you very rarely even meet? What is with the submissive thing on the right? Why not stand up for yourselves?

 

[Moonglow]

I

The deficit has been reduced by more than a trillion dollars in the past few years, so not sure where you're going with that one. At present, it is pretty clearly a non-issue.

The deficit is shrinking due to GOP austerity and Obama playing Russian Roulette by converting all bonds that come due and payable into short term lower interest payment bonds at the expense of driving up longer term interest on the bonds when we allegedly go back to 30 year treasuries on them. The growing debt will become an increasing problem. Only a hack would think otherwise.

More people on food stamps is a good thing. Making sure everybody has enough to eat and helping the poor get their heads above water is both a moral imperative and part of the reason that the economy performs better under Democrats- because we make it easier to get out of poverty.

democrats do not make it easier for people to get out of poverty. I have no problem with people who need food stamps getting them, but things like the earned Income Tax Credit reinforces poverty by discouraging people to break through the low-wage blue collar ceiling EITC creates.

The labor participation rate is mostly just a misunderstanding on the right. That is just the percentage of people between 16 and 65 years old who are working. So, everybody who is in school and everybody who retires before 65 are "non-participating." Those are the two main reasons that the rate has been steadily falling since the 1990s- baby boomers are retiring and younger people are staying in school longer. The assumption that it means people just giving up or something is false. Only a couple/few percent of the non-participating people are actually in that camp.

From what I have read, seniors are staying in the workplace longer. It is the failure of people to initially enter the workforce at younger age brackets which is the culprit.

I doubt 13 year olds want to work as in my day.I didn't want a job. I had to get a job...

 

[Moonglow]

It's true, when you look at food stamps, number of people leaving the labor force, record debt and deficits, the Dems own it

The deficit has been reduced by more than a trillion dollars in the past few years, so not sure where you're going with that one. At present, it is pretty clearly a non-issue.

More people on food stamps is a good thing. Making sure everybody has enough to eat and helping the poor get their heads above water is both a moral imperative and part of the reason that the economy performs better under Democrats- because we make it easier to get out of poverty.

The labor participation rate is mostly just a misunderstanding on the right. That is just the percentage of people between 16 and 65 years old who are working. So, everybody who is in school and everybody who retires before 65 are "non-participating." Those are the two main reasons that the rate has been steadily falling since the 1990s- baby boomers are retiring and younger people are staying in school longer. The assumption that it means people just giving up or something is false. Only a couple/few percent of the non-participating people are actually in that camp.

The deficit has been reduced....wow. that's an amazing. The deficit has been reduced because it was actually greater than an entire Reagan budget..

More people on food stamps is a good thing....uh huh, sure it is. We have an unbridgeable gap. You're a Communist and I'm not.

Reagan's budget was bigger than Calvin Coolidge...so?

 

[sameech]

I doubt 13 year olds want to work as in my day.I didn't want a job. I had to get a job...

In your day I doubt a lot of people could stay in their mom's basement not working until they were well into their 20's. It is not that people are not willing to work at age 13, it is when they are 18 or 23 and still haven't ever worked that it becomes an issue.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This thread is quite ironic now. In Iowa tonight, Republican turnout is the highest it's been in 30 years. In North Carolina on the other hand, Democratic turnout is the lowest it has been in 30 years. Iowa is gone, North Carolina is gone. You can count on it.

 

[turtledude]

then why do Democrats pander to the unperformers while the GOP caters to the successful?

The rational thing except for the uberrich at least, is to vote Democratic:

Both parties pander to anybody whose support they think they can get. That's what they're supposed to do- try to appeal to the voters. That's the whole point of democracy- the keep the government trying to please the people.

The real question is why are you pandering to the uberrich? Why would you support policies that are clearly bad for 99.9% of the population just to fawn all over a 0.1% that you very rarely even meet? What is with the submissive thing on the right? Why not stand up for yourselves?

being addicted to government keeps the slow witted down

 

[tuhaybey]

Article summarizing the economists' views on the parties and their policies, and whether those views have matched the actual economic performance here- which party is better for the economy?

 

[RKMBrown]

Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance. That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.

For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:


Note that at present, we are on that green column and we're almost exactly on the average of 2.9%.

Or, consider the change in unemployment rate by the party of the president:


Or, the stock market performance by the party of the president:


Not convinced yet? How about:

Median income of red and blue states
Life expectancy of red and blue states
Gun death rates in red and blue states
Graduate degrees per capita in red and blue states
GDP growth relative to world GDP growth
Change in personal income by party of president
Patents filed per capita of red and blue states
Top 20 years for GDP growth since 1930 by party
Etc., etc., etc.

So, what I am wondering is why anybody votes Republican. Are Republicans just looking at different measures of success? If so, please post them. Or, is the issue that Republicans just aren't looking at which party's policies work out better at all?

Moron.