2012 Elections in the USA

Here is a regime by regime breakdown since WW II (starting with Truman in '46) :

Truman 4+ years (GDP growth) and 3. Years (GDP shrinkage or recession) ; Eisenhower 6+ years and 2- years; Kennedy-Johnson 8 straight plus years; Nixon-Ford same as Ike. 6+ and 2-; Carter 3+ and 1- which surprised me since he was such a ninny economically; Reagan-Bush I 10+ 2-; Clinton 8 straight plus years hint hint; Bush II 7+ 1-; BO 2+ 1-

Overall Dems 25+ and 5- for an. 833 batting average; Reps 29+ and 7- or. 806 batting average. These are good numbers and I think would compare favorably with most countries, but that is a guess.

Dems will point out no R ever got out of office without a recession year. Repubs can point to less volatility under Repubs. For example, if you look at the best and worst years, the Rs only had one year. 1982, with a GDP decline of greater than 1% (-1. 92%). The Dems' two worst GDP declines were. 10. 94% in 1946 (which could be explained away pretty easily) and. 3.07% in 2009 (which may have been partially inherited, but that could be true of a lot of these years and I didn't look at each individual year). But, the Dems had a bigger high side; the two best years were 8. 74% in 1950 and 7. 74% in 1951 versus the R's best years of 7. 20% in 1955 and 7. 17% in 1959.

A little less volatility or variability under the Rs but not enough to offset the superior absolute numbers under the Ds, is what I see from these numbers. Now I'm going to look at unemployment.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;428297]That's the one I'd go with. The difference doesn't look signficant

[/QUOTE]Well let's look at the difference over a 75 year lifetime. 1.032175 to the seventy-fifth power = 10.7016; 1.027375 to the seventy-fifth power = 7.5387; 10.7016 / 7.5387 = 1.4196.

Therefore you'd have more than 40% more economic growth in your lifetime if you would just switch parties. Now this ratio is slightly overstated. Why?

[QUOTE=Dickhead;428299]Now this ratio is slightly overstated. Why?[/QUOTE]Because you punched the wrong numbers into your calculator? (1. 0315675^75) / (1. 0277675^75) - 1 = 32%

I'd still argue there are so many other considerations that the difference isn't significant.

GDP growth in Argentina has been great under the Kirchners. Castro did very well when he was receiving massive aid from the Soviet Union, from about 1970 to the early 1990's. I don't think you'd want to make a correlation between their parties and GDP growth though. Time caught up with Castro and probably will with Cristina's party someday. That's not to make a comparison between either of them and Democrats or Obama. I'd (reluctantly) take Obama any day.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;428301]Because you punched the wrong numbers into your calculator? (1. 0315675^75) / (1. 0277675^75) - 1 = 32%[/QUOTE]No, those are the numbers when I lagged by a year. The numbers I used are the unlagged numbers. If you don't think they are significant in proving the Dems better, I'd still argue they are significant in refuting they are worse. I say it's overstated because if you use the compound average instead of the arithmetic mean, the gap will close some. I'll do that later if I have time. What I mean is, the variability of the D's return is greater so the difference between the simple average and the compound average will be greater for D than for R.

Also, from 1946-2011 unemployment averaged 5.92% in years that ended with a Republican president versus 5.47% in years that ended up with a Democratic president. So, during that 65 year period, Democratic administrations provided both faster economic growth and fuller employment. I guess I could look at inflation but since I looked at real GDP I don't see why inflation matters.

[QUOTE=Dickhead; 428302]No, those are the numbers when I lagged by a year. The numbers I used are the original ones I presented. If you don't think they are significant in proving the Dems better, I'd still argue they are significant in refuting they are worse.

Also, from 1946-2011 unemployment averaged 5. 92% in years that ended with a Republican president versus 5. 47% in years that ended up with a Democratic president. So, during that 65 year period, Democratic administrations provided both faster economic growth and fuller employment. I guess I could look at inflation but since I looked at real GDP I don't see why inflation matters.[/QUOTE]In fact, your analysis really suggests that it appears there is little relationship between political party and any of your indices. Maybe a factor analysis using your key economic measures is in order. Just my dos centavos. Toymann

P. especially true when you consider how both parties screw with the unemployment numbers, especially recently

[QUOTE=Toymann; 428303]In fact, your analysis really suggests that it appears there is little relationship between political party and any of your indices. Maybe a factor analysis using your key economic measures is in order. Just my dos centavos. Toymann.

P. Especially true when you consider how both parties screw with the unemployment numbers, especially recently[/QUOTE]"In fact" based on what? I could do a regression with dummy variables and sign changes but every way I have sliced and diced it so far points in one direction. You want to present some numbers in the other direction, go ahead. I don't have the software to do factor analysis. I also don't think the regression slopes matter, either. Better is better. More betterer would be gooderer but why would it change one's voting decision IF one bases their decision on economic factors?

BTW inflation is higher under the Dems, which is probably no surprise. Again looking at 1946-2011 and using year-end to year-end (to more properly affix responsibility than the average-to-average that is used for government inflation adjustments) , the average inflation in years ending with Republican presidents was 3.68% and in years ending with Democratic presidents it was 4.25%. But, again, that all washes out in the real GDP figures so who cares.

I've never really looked at these numbers before and probably should have done so long before I formed my political ideology, but the numbers certainly serve to reinforce it. You can interpret them otherwise if you like.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;428302]If you don't think they are significant in proving the Dems better, I'd still argue they are significant in refuting they are worse.[/QUOTE]Look, I wouldn't even be trying to make a correlation on the basis of parties. During my life since puberty, I thought Reagan did an excellent job, Clinton and Bush Sr did well, and Carter, Bush Jr and Obama sucked. Reagan was supply side, although government expenditures grew more more than they should have during his terms. Clinton did most things right. Trade policy, welfare reform, balancing the budget, lowering the tax on capital gains. The only thing he did wrong was increase taxes on ordinary income. So I attribute the superior performance of the economy during their terms largely to following policies I favor.

Bush Senior gets high marks because of execution of the war in Kuwait. And leaving when it was over. The economy didn't perform so well, in part because of the oil price shock from the war and in part because a Democratic Congress forced him to raise taxes. While tax rates were reasonable, spending got completely out of hand under Bush Jr and Obama. Carter, I don't remember a lot about.

I think Romney / Ryan are more likely to be able to implement tax reform along the lines of Reagan (eliminate deductions that distort the economy while keeping tax rates at reasonable levels) while reducing the budget deficit. They're more likely to combine the best of Reagan's and Clinton's terms in office, when economic growth was strongest, once you filter out the 1981/1982 recession / stagflation. I attribute that to high oil prices, and to high interest rates to bring down inflation that kicked up during Carter's time in office.

I realize I'm being a hypocrite here, based on what I just said about the Kirchner's and Castro.

You have a lot of subjective statements but not much that's objective. You can't really start a war and then say the resulting oil price spike shouldn't be attributed to you, I don't think. But anyway in the interest of being objective and unbiased, I re-ran the GDP numbers with the compound average and the Dems' advantage drops from over 40% to 12.3%, which I will still take. That is considering the mean and the standard deviation. If you looked at skew the Dems' advantage would rise just slightly, as I can see visually it has more positive skew, but I forget how to make that conversion and I can also tell visually it isn't that significant. But the variability is, and it mattered more than I would have guessed. You do have a bit of a data problem because there are 25 "D" years and 29 "R" and I also forget how to adjust for that, but it would also raise the Dems' advantage if I did.

I'm not saying vote solely on economic numbers. I am just saying all the trickle down stuff sounded like bullshit to me and now I am even more sure that it is. IF the Republicans' policies do, in fact, lead to higher economic growth, I would be hard pressed to explain the results I got. IF the Republicans' policies do, in fact, lead to job creation and lower unemployment, I would be hard pressed to explain the results that I got. I mean, I don't really care if the Republicans' numbers look worse because they always start wars or for some other reason. I just care about better GDP growth and that's clearly associated more with Democratic administrations going all the way back as far as reliable data exist and looking at periods of 50 years and since WWII.

Anyway, vote early and vote often, as they say in Cook County.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;428298]Overall Dems 25+ and 5- for an. 833 batting average; Reps 29+ and 7- or. 806 batting average. These are good numbers and I think would compare favorably with most countries, but that is a guess.[/QUOTE]This one has about an 80% success rate in predicting an outcome too,

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_indicator[/url]

I'm giving you a hard time. As you say it really comes down to what you think will work.

The polls and the betting odds are all over the board.

Today an ABC poll conducted by some Research Organization came out with a Romney 49 to 48 lead nationwide. Looking deeper, the breakdown of the poll participants was 35-28-34 democrat / republican / independent which mirrored the 2008 actual breakdown of 39-32-29. The real question is not whether the 49 to 48 romney lead is correct. The real question is whether the 35-28-34 breakdown of voters is realistic. If it is not this poll is simply garbage in. Garbage out.

A month ago the media was trying to convince everyone the election was over, go home, Obama will win. There were polls, CNN for example, that showed a huge Obama lead. When you looked at the breakdown of those polled it was laughable. 49% democrats. 31% republicans and the rest independents.

Most likelly Rasmussen is correct. Rasmussen says there has been very little movement in the polls since the first of the year. Rasmussen said that romney was ahead by 2 or 3 points in May/June and Romney will probably win by the same 2 or 3 points. My guess, with Benghasi, voter enthusiasm, money that will pour into the Romney campaign this final week, Romney becoming friendly and fuzzy while Obama becomes a visibly angry and out of control candidate, it was be a Romney win by about double 2 to 3 points.

"One day, I hope I'm rich enough to become a Democrat."

Right, because Fox News doesn't have a dog in the fight. Anyway I saw Libertarian VP candidate Jim Gray today. Nice guy, seems sincere. Grasp of economic concepts non-existent. I also read the Libertarian Party's entire platform for the first time. It is thoughtfully set out but not for me. I like about a third of it. Gray said he wanted to eliminate Medicare and I asked if I would be refunded the 1. 45% of my salary I have been paying for 41 years and he said 'absolutely. ' Then I asked him where the money would come from to refund everyone's past contributions and that is where it got all fuzzy and stuff. He said we could eliminate the corporate tax, the federal income tax, and state income taxes and replace it with a 10% flat tax. Come on. Anyway then the scheme is to give some half ass credit such that the first I think he said $10, 000 a year but maybe it was $1, 000 a month would not be taxed, and if you made less than that you got money back. So that is not a flat tax, although it could sure be simpler. He used the term 'revenue neutral' to describe their scheme but I am not sure if he meant a revenue neutral situation with all spending cuts going towards the deficit, or what. I mean, if it is revenue neutral then there is no tax cut, right? He got all bogged down explaining the credit they propose for health care. Something about three tiers of need. However he did give 'assurances' that 'the citizens would be taken care of. ' He made a big deal about going to public schools but last I checked USC Law is not a public school. He talked about how they are going to audit every government agency and that 'has never been done before. ' Umm yeah it has; it was called the Grace Commission Report and nothing ever came of it. Then there was the National Partnership for Reinventing Government. Nothing came of it. Anyway, not a new idea. I agree many federal agencies could be eliminated so fuck the audit and just DO it already. He said bring all the troops back immediately which is fine by me but then he said that if the Straits of Hormuz were closed, that should be considered an attack on the US. Last time I looked the Straits of Hormuz is pretty far removed from the US. So that was really kind of an inconsistent bit of ideology there.

Anyway, a moderately articulate guy but he showed his age a few times and did not know much about our community. He was talking about legalizing drugs because legalization (not decriminalization) of marijuana is on our state ballot this year, and he said, 'I guess in this state there are only dispensaries in [our state capital]. ' No, there are like ten in this little town alone, and if you want to get elected, don't guess; prepare. This was not in response to a question, either. He was talking about economics and he said, 'We could all grow our own tomatoes but who bothers to do that? ' Well, not rich assholes from Orange County but probably 1/4 of our community does. So really just another out of touch rich guy.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 428341]The polls and the betting odds are all over the board.

Today an ABC poll conducted by some Research Organization came out with a Romney 49 to 48 lead nationwide. Looking deeper, the breakdown of the poll participants was 35-28-34 democrat / republican / independent which mirrored the 2008 actual breakdown of 39-32-29. The real question is not whether the 49 to 48 romney lead is correct. The real question is whether the 35-28-34 breakdown of voters is realistic. If it is not this poll is simply garbage in. Garbage out.

A month ago the media was trying to convince everyone the election was over, go home, Obama will win. There were polls, CNN for example, that showed a huge Obama lead. When you looked at the breakdown of those polled it was laughable. 49% democrats. 31% republicans and the rest independents.

Most likelly Rasmussen is correct. Rasmussen says there has been very little movement in the polls since the first of the year. Rasmussen said that romney was ahead by 2 or 3 points in May / June and Romney will probably win by the same 2 or 3 points. My guess, with Benghasi, voter enthusiasm, money that will pour into the Romney campaign this final week, Romney becoming friendly and fuzzy while Obama becomes a visibly angry and out of control candidate, it was be a Romney win by about double 2 to 3 points.[/QUOTE]What effect if any do you think Sandy will have?

I am not sure. Most of the states affected by Sandy, New York, New Jersey, PA, are generally considered to be solid Obama states. However, I predicted months ago that New Jersey, PA, Michigan and Wisconsin would be toss up states.. In PA and New Jersey, at least, voters will probably be less focused on the election because of Sandy.. This might not be good news for Obama.

But who knows. That is why we have elections.