What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with heart full of neutrality?
What if we ranked them by religion? It seems like a Catholic did way better than most of the Protestants.
Perhaps we could also look at height, I heard that the taller candidate tends to win more often.
Southern vs Northern?
Age at the start of Presidency?
Left handed vs right?
Number of dogs owned?
Number of sons vs number of daughters.
Why would political party be of any more or less relevance than the ridiculous list I just made? JFK, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter all have very similar GDP per capita growth, perhaps political party isn’t the determinant factor, maybe it’s more of a side effect of the real cause.
If we actually gave a shit about statistical analysis we wouldn’t be so quick to stop at “political party,” we’d have enough integrity to find what’s actually going on.
And as already mentioned (but ignored) we’re still talking about a very small sample size. If I pointed to the SAT scores in a small highschool classroom, would it make sense to conclude that blacks aren’t as smart as whites because 4 of the top five students were white?
At best what you have is an interesting factoid, at worst you have willful ignorance in support of a political bias. Feel free to bump this thread in 300 years when you have real data.
What makes a man turn Chaotic Evil? Lust for Succubi? Lolthing for humanity?
Is “lolthing” the divinely inspired typo of the week?
Are you liberal or conservative in your fiscal views? Why? In fact, there should be no fiscal conservatives, because what you believe should be done in regards to the economy has no more bearing on what actually happens than how many dogs you have.
Please do. What statistical analyses do you propose?
Can you explain what the problems with sample size are? In addition, what is the sample here, and what is the population that has been sampled?
In fact, this is a circumstance where the data comes from the entire population (US Presidents FDR to Obama). The data is what it is.
Until then, are you going to advocate that tax cuts stimulate the economy, or that Republicans are fiscally responsible, or that Reagan’s economic performance was good? Because the record is there in black and white, and a century’s worth of data is more than a factoid. If you don’t like 100 years of data, why would you like 300? What can you explain to me about the statistical strength of 300 years relative to 100?
I thought that huge deficits were a Republican thing, but according to that Wikipedia page they were a Reagan, Bush, and Bush thing. Ike, Nixon, and Ford were each much better in the debt change/GDP metric.
<claps>