[BlackGriffen]

Origin of curiosity.

That URL has a graphic with information summarized below:

Code:
Party	President		Net % change in jobs
D	Roosevelt			+5.3
D	Johnson				+3.8
D	Carter				+3.1
D	Truman				+2.5
D	Clinton				+2.4
D	Kennedy				+2.3
R	Nixon				+2.2
R	Reagan				+2.1
R	Coolidge			+1.1
R	Ford				+1.1
R	Eisenhower			+0.9
R	Bush Sr.			+0.6
R	Bush Jr.			-0.7
R	Hoover				-9.0

The site has the caveat that Bush's numbers have improved some since the graphic this info came from was made, but other than that...

There's also a Reuters article with the following quotes:

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A victory by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in November would benefit industries that employ more people and stand to generate more jobs than a Bush re-election, according to an analysis by outplacement firm Challenger Gray and Christmas.
[...]
Health care, education, government, home building and insurance are the sectors likely to get the biggest boost from Kerry initiatives, the study found. Those fields already employ more people and have added double the number of new jobs in the past six months than industries that would benefit more from Bush policies.

The top five Bush-favored industries -- automotive, financial services, timber, pharmaceutical and tobacco -- employ significantly fewer workers but have seen faster job growth in percentage terms over the past six months.
[...]
The Challenger study examined information from the candidates' campaign Web sites, news articles on their positions and interviews with Wall Street analysts.

Challenger also identified five industries that will add jobs regardless of who wins the election: Energy, technology, manufacturing, defense/homeland security and consumer staples such as food and home-product manufacturers.

"The universal winners are probably the best industries for job seekers to target because they hold the best potential for gains going forward," said John Challenger, chief executive of the outplacement firm.

Are Democrats really better for the job market? Does the record only go back that far (I see no mention of Wilson or earlier)?

Can anyone come up with an explanation for these numbers? They look like a reason to vote fore Kerry to me, but who knows, maybe there's something behind these numbers I don't see.

BlackGriffen

[BRussell]

I posted this once before, and it appears to be true, but someone else (it may have been itai?) pointed out to me that the president right before those listed (I believe Harding) was a Republican and would actually be #1 on that list for jobs. It's still pretty devastating, but it was clearly cut off at just the right time to make it look even worse.

BTW, the stock market has performed better under Dems than Repubs too.

Looking at the 72-year period between 1927 and 1999, the study shows that a broad stock index, similar to the S&P 500, returned approximately 11 percent more a year on average under a Democratic president versus safer, three-month Treasurys. By comparison, the index only returned 2 percent more a year versus the T-bills when Republicans were in office.

Other measures show a similar pattern.

Another interesting thing is that states with Republican legislatures spend more, and Republican states take more in federal dollars than they are taxed compared to Democratic states.

And when the number of Democratic governors exceeds the number of Republican governors, women's bra cup sizes increase proportionally. It's really weird.

[Timo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
And when the number of Democratic governors exceeds the number of Republican governors, women's bra cup sizes increase proportionally. It's really weird.

AND hemlines go up. Think about that before you pull the elephant lever in November.