Is there any measurable way the country does better with Republican presidents?

[Doc Dutch]

Tks DU, what makes this country great is people who can disagree politically but remain friends.

Agreed. Accusing a person of not ever working for a living is a common left wing attack on the US military dating back to the Sixties. I can only go on appearances, not know the background relationships of people.

[Doc Dutch]

And people that post like that usually have reached their peak at their job as a burger flipper.

I think Mina is smarter than a hamburger flipper, but it remains to be seen how much she knows about the experiences of America's heroes in uniform. Although I'm not certain, I think their relationship goes back to Amazon.

Another forum which I belonged was melded into a larger forum. There was a group of us from the other forum, all kinda like family, suddenly jammed into a larger forum where people were divided into "us and them". It caused problems and misunderstandings.

[Flash]

I thought of another possibility for an area where Republicans might have done better: teen birth rates. Republicans at least frame themselves as a "family values" party, and opposed to things like premarital sex, so in theory they might have done better lowering the teen birth rates.

Turns out that didn't happen, though. In the average year with a Republican president, the teen birth rate fell about 0.5625 points, versus 1.71429 points during the average year with a Democratic president. So, the rate of improvement was a little over three times as fast when Democrats were in the Oval Office:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...960&view=chart

Any other ideas?

I don't know any specific measure which Republicans did better, but I think you are attributing some things to party or political reasons with no evidence.

For example, the teen birth rate, crime rate, and divorce rate all began declining about 1992 and continued. These seem like larger societal trends rather than attributable to any government policies. To break those down to individual years by party ignores the trend which continued during the presidencies of both parties.

Can you name any policies of either party that led to the declines of these three factors?

[Mina]

I don't know any specific measure which Republicans did better, but I think you are attributing some things to party or political reasons with no evidence.

What evidence would you like to see, specifically?

Keep in mind:

(1) This is not an experimental science, where we can run history a hundred times, tweaking variables, until we've isolated exactly what is causing what. Even with the most careful analysis, we're going to be stuck making guesses based on the best available evidence. Sometimes those guesses may be little better than blind guesswork -- but if they're AT ALL better than blind guesswork, that's still going to be better than going with our gut instincts, or trying to reason from a priori assumptions, which are the approaches most people take.

(2) Like it or not, we need to make high-stakes political decisions on an ongoing basis, without waiting for better evidence. Elections are happening every two years, at least, and they are potentially EXTREMELY high impact events. Taking no position and waiting for better evidence just isn't an option here. Even not voting is a position of sorts. So, the question comes down to whether we make a decision that is in line with the best available evidence, however shaky, or whether we make one contrary to such evidence.

For example, the teen birth rate, crime rate, and divorce rate all began declining about 1992 and continued.

True. Yet those things don't actually explain the Republican/Democrat difference. Let's look at the murder rate only the period after 1992 (through 2020, when the preliminary reading was 6.6). So, how do Republicans look versus Democrats in that time? Well, turns out the murder rate FELL 3.8 points, net, during the Democratic administrations and ROSE 1.1 points during the Republican administrations. That's a short period of time, so you can say the sample size is too small to be meaningful, but that ends up a little like the guy who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he's an orphan. We narrowed down to post-1992 in an attempt to erase the Democratic advantage that shows when we include all available data, so disqualifying the narrower test because it's narrow would be a Catch-22 situation.

Similarly, I have data for birth rates of 15 to 17 year olds from 1992-2000. Here is the per-year decline in that rate by president:

Clinton 1.375
Bush 0.75
Obama 1.50
Trump 0.75

Again, small sample size, but a big difference between Democratic and Republican eras, even after we specify post-1992.

https://datacenter.kidscount.org/dat...51/15589,15590

And there's another way to reality-check the idea that Democratic/liberal leadership is better on that front. If my hypothesis is right, and the reason the Democratic eras are so much better at lowering teen birth rates is related to more liberal policies, rather than random chance, then we'd expect that to show up at the state level, as well. In other words, if I'm right, we'd expect to see low teen birth rates in very liberal states and high ones in very conservatives states. Turns out that's exactly what we see -- teen birth rates are over four times as high in the most conservative states than the most liberal ones. In fact, of the bottom ten teen birth rates in the US, ALL TEN were states that went against Trump in both elections. There's only a single conservative state with first-world-level teen birth rates: Utah. Coincidence? It's certainly consistent with the hypothesis that liberal leadership helps to achieve low teen birth rates, just as the presidential-era data suggests.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...teenbirths.htm

Can you name any policies of either party that led to the declines of these three factors?

Absolutely. Take crime as an example. A lot of crime is stimulated by dysfunctional cities, and Democrats do more to invest in cities, making them less dysfunctional. That includes efforts to lower poverty, like child tax credits and higher minimum wages. It includes efforts to keep at-risk kids off the street, from subsidized childcare to enhanced after-school activities, and even things like midnight basketball. It also includes efforts to promote mixed-income settlement patterns, which fights against slum formation. Democrats are also better about addressing pollution, and one factor in the decline of violent crime rates has been reducing lead poisoning. Then there's gun control. I know it's an emotionally difficult thing for conservatives to accept that gun control lowers crime rates, but it does. When Clinton pushed through the Brady Bill, the conservatives predicted crime would spike because it would be harder for people to arm themselves, while the liberals predicted it would fall. Turns out the liberals were right.

These arguments can be frustrating because they feel like they go in circles. Like Democrats say, let's do X, Y, and Z, because doing so will bring about good results A, B, and C. Then, when they do it, and A, B, and C actually happen the conservatives insist it's a coincidence and demand to know what policies the Democrats enacted that brought about A, B, and C. And, of course, the conservatives dismiss those, notwithstanding the real-world events. And that brings me back to my opening question: what evidence do you want to see? Since it's not an experimental science, we're never going to have 100% conclusive evidence.

The best we can do is make our choices based on the evidence we have at the moment, however shaky it might be. And the fact it's so difficult to find a stat that favors Republican-led eras (or conservative-dominated states, for that matter) should be telling us something. If you're stuck on a desert island and have two fresh water sources to drink from, and you drink from one a few times and are fine, but you drink from the other a few times and get violently ill, which one are you going to choose to drink from next? Even without lab equipment to prove there's something wrong with the water in that second source, you're forced to choose, so it's just a matter of whether you go with the best available evidence, however shaky, or stubbornly insist on continuing to try your luck, and hoping you don't actually die from dysentery.

[Mina]

All the usual JPP bullshit aside, EE is one of the few vets who served over 20 years in the service of our nation. That doesn't mean he's right or that you have to agree with him. It only means that, yes, he did have a real job.

I suppose that depends what you call a real job. I've seen a number of conservatives scoff at the notion that jobs paid for by taxes, rather than competing in the private sector, aren't real jobs.... though they always seem to make an exception for military.

[Mina]

Isn't telling when you start with the insults. A sure sign you realize you've gotten your young ass handed to you. Thanks you loose.

First, why is it that dumb people always write "loose" when they mean "lose"? It's so remarkably consistent.

Second, you'll note I never am the first to insult. What generally happens is that some elderly man with severe erectile dysfunction will start feeling bad that he's getting his ass kicked by a young woman. Since that further complicates the emotional crisis he's experiencing from the disappearance of his virility, he feels the need to lash out. Even with me keeping things impersonal, and arguing strictly based on facts, the limp poster will experience enough of a meltdown that he will choose to make things personal, attacking my age and suggesting I have no experience with the world. Then, when I turn around and do the exact same thing, it will provoke a hilarious crying jag from the impotent old man, who will complain about me starting with the insults, even though I was literally only echoing his own line of rhetoric -- making the exact same claims about him that he did about me. Basically, he imagines the fair rule is he gets to call me naïve, but if I reply by calling him naïve, that's starting with the insults and a sure sign I'm losing.

The lack of self awareness among these pathetic old men is worth the price of admission.

[Earl]

First, why is it that dumb people always write "loose" when they mean "lose"? It's so remarkably consistent.

Second, you'll note I never am the first to insult. What generally happens is that some elderly man with severe erectile dysfunction will start feeling bad that he's getting his ass kicked by a young woman. Since that further complicates the emotional crisis he's experiencing from the disappearance of his virility, he feels the need to lash out. Even with me keeping things impersonal, and arguing strictly based on facts, the limp poster will experience enough of a meltdown that he will choose to make things personal, attacking my age and suggesting I have no experience with the world. Then, when I turn around and do the exact same thing, it will provoke a hilarious crying jag from the impotent old man, who will complain about me starting with the insults, even though I was literally only echoing his own line of rhetoric -- making the exact same claims about him that he did about me. Basically, he imagines the fair rule is he gets to call me naïve, but if I reply by calling him naïve, that's starting with the insults and a sure sign I'm losing.

The lack of self awareness among these pathetic old men is worth the price of admission.

You need to get laid, Missy.

[Mina]

You need to get laid, Missy.

Don't we all? The difference is I can any time I feel like it.

[Earl]

I doubt it...you spend too much time on forums, Missy.

[Doc Dutch]

I suppose that depends what you call a real job. I've seen a number of conservatives scoff at the notion that jobs paid for by taxes, rather than competing in the private sector, aren't real jobs.... though they always seem to make an exception for military.

The same fucking morons are against "socialism" yet accept money from the government. The key factor to remember is that they are fucking morons. While civility requires us to treat people with respect, it's akin to working with children. I'll yell to get a grandchild's attention but I always know that they are still a child...especially the 3 year old. Once I have his attention we can talk civilly.

Most of those with whom you are arguing are elderly, single Euro-American males whose manhood is a decade or two in the past...if not longer, and who are fearful of dying.

Notice that TDAK hasn't posted since the 6th:

Don't call white people crackers, you dumb darky. White people built america. What did africans ever build ? If you think blacks are equal to whites explain these facts

1. Black-americans come in last in all standardized tests. Asian-americans do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests.

2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.

3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.

4. Out of 1725 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.

5. 50 years of affirmative action special treatment and blacks have fallen even further behind. What does that tell you?

Another example is Darth Omar who has been MIA for months...and is probably dead.

[Mina]

The same fucking morons are against "socialism" yet accept money from the government. The key factor to remember is that they are fucking morons. While civility requires us to treat people with respect, it's akin to working with children. I'll yell to get a grandchild's attention but I always know that they are still a child...especially the 3 year old. Once I have his attention we can talk civilly.

Most of those with whom you are arguing are elderly, single Euro-American males whose manhood is a decade or two in the past...if not longer, and who are fearful of dying.

I suppose I should take more pity and not fire back when they insult me, since I've got a pretty easy life compared to them -- I'm young, healthy, and increasingly wealthy. But when they go personal, it's hard to resist the urge to fire back in kind.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Mina,

In another thread, we were discussing the way that, on average, the country has had a much better private-sector job creation rate during Democratic presidencies than Republican ones. It got me thinking: is there ANY indicator you can think of where performance hasn't been better, on average, during Democratic presidencies?

Famously, the country has MUCH higher real GDP growth rates when Democrats are president, stronger median real income growth, and better stock market performance. Also, it's well established that while there has been a small net increase in poverty rates during Republican presidencies, there's been a gigantic net decrease in those rates during Democratic presidencies. Dem eras also look better when it comes to the change in the share of Americans covered by health insurance.

But surely there must be SOME indicator that looks better for the Republicans, right?

My first thought was maybe crime, since Republicans talk a good game when it comes to "law and order," and have been eager to incarcerate a large share of Americans to try to achieve that. There are two ways we could score that: average rates or change in rates.

Using the murder rate as a proxy, the average murder rate during Republican presidencies is 7.5 (going back to 1960 and up to 2020). The average during Democratic presidencies is 6.3.

Calculating it, instead, by the change in rates, on average murder rates fell 0.05 points during Democratic presidencies, and rose 0.6 points during Republican presidencies.

So, whichever way you calculate that, Democratic presidential eras look better.

https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

The next thought that occurred to me is inflation, since Republicans are hawkish on that. Again, there are two main ways you could score that: the average inflation rate per year, or the change in the rate of inflation from the start of a presidency to the end. The former looks better for the Democrats (3.17%, average, versus 4.16% for Republicans). The latter, though, looks better for Republicans (largely on the strength of Reagan inheriting high rates and leaving fairly low ones).

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FPCPITOTLZGUSA#0

So, out of all the indicators I've thought of, Dems look better on all of them except inflation.... and that one depends on how you score it. Are there any others you can think of that look better for the Republicans?

Make America Democratic Again.

[Earl]

Hello Mina,



Make America Democratic Again.

America is a Constitutional Republic, dummy, not a Democracy.

[Doc Dutch]

I suppose I should take more pity and not fire back when they insult me, since I've got a pretty easy life compared to them -- I'm young, healthy, and increasingly wealthy. But when they go personal, it's hard to resist the urge to fire back in kind.

Agreed on more pity.

Text communications are great for passing data, but lousy at conveying emotion, sarcasm, etc. This is one reason why I like to understand a person's background; to get a sense of "where they are coming from"; age, education and gender being three major cultural areas where people differ on perspectives. Gender only for Americans since cross-cultural differences can cause men to appear as feminine or women as masculine.

Despite the whines of the fucking morons, this is not "doxxing". It's a means of understanding. It's one thing to know a person is History major with a degree as opposed to a HS dropout. It's another to want to know their name, address and social security number.

FWIW, IMHO, the reason they go personal is because they have nothing else to offer. They cut'n'paste some nonsense but get pissed off when asked to explain it. Why? Because they can't. They lack the education and are afraid of looking stupid. Again, the fear factor in them. LOL

[Eagle_Eye]

First, why is it that dumb people always write "loose" when they mean "lose"? It's so remarkably consistent.

Second, you'll note I never am the first to insult. What generally happens is that some elderly man with severe erectile dysfunction will start feeling bad that he's getting his ass kicked by a young woman. Since that further complicates the emotional crisis he's experiencing from the disappearance of his virility, he feels the need to lash out. Even with me keeping things impersonal, and arguing strictly based on facts, the limp poster will experience enough of a meltdown that he will choose to make things personal, attacking my age and suggesting I have no experience with the world. Then, when I turn around and do the exact same thing, it will provoke a hilarious crying jag from the impotent old man, who will complain about me starting with the insults, even though I was literally only echoing his own line of rhetoric -- making the exact same claims about him that he did about me. Basically, he imagines the fair rule is he gets to call me naïve, but if I reply by calling him naïve, that's starting with the insults and a sure sign I'm losing.

The lack of self awareness among these pathetic old men is worth the price of admission.

You say

First, why is it that dumb people always write "loose" when they mean "lose"? It's so remarkably consistent.

And I say why do intellectual snobs, not understand that most of us aren't clerk typists and make typos?

you'll note I never am the first to insult.

Your reaction to my response that you don't really know anything about the inner workings of the government, says the opposite, as noted below.

I take it you've never held a real job in your life. Well, get out and see the world, and you won't get schooled this way as often online. Your severe naiveté leaves you exposed in a way someone with actual life experience wouldn't be. Plus a little hard work would be good for your soul, even if it comes with paying some of those taxes you dread so much from lack of familiarity. All this sitting around griping isn't good for you.

That sure looks like an insulting statement to me.

choose to make things personal, attacking my age and suggesting I have no experience with the world.

You seem to be overly sensitive about your age. There is nothing wrong with being young but you must understand that your elders have experienced and learned from life experiences you have yet to encounter.

Lastly

suggesting I have no experience with the world. Then, when I turn around and do the exact same thing, it will provoke a hilarious crying jag from the impotent old man,

The above shows that you are disrespectful of your elders. I am sure your parents tried to teach you the golden rule but apparently failed. If I hurt your feelings I apologize. You have book smarts but you lack the life experiences you will learn as you age. I wish you all the best.