# SD Economists...what's the 'dope on Dems vs Repubs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 18, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450 "2009-02-18T21:25:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/21 "2009-02-19T17:13:07Z")
There may be something to be said, however, with the strength of the economy and the opinions of _voters_ to explain the _correlation_. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/22 "2009-02-19T17:13:55Z")
You appear to be arguing that control of congress was essentially a constant. If so, then it has no variability and becomes _less_ of a potential explanatory factor/confound regarding the effect of the party of the president, not more. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/23 "2009-02-19T17:15:40Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > There may be something to be said, however, with the strength of the economy and the opinions of _voters_ to explain the _correlation_. In part, the links to Larry Bartels’ work get to that. He finds that in terms of personal income, all classes of wealth do better under Democrats than Republicans, except during election years. This is especially true for the well-off. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/24 "2009-02-19T17:26:22Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > You appear to be arguing that control of congress was essentially a constant. If so, then it has no variability and becomes _less_ of a potential explanatory factor/confound regarding the effect of the party of the president, not more. We have two competing explanations for changes in economic indicators. Your argument is the party that controls the white house is a significant factor. To make that convincing, you need to explicitly or implicitly argue that the President exercises significant power over the economy. But if that quantum of power was significantly limited for Republican presidents over the 20th century–the point I was just demonstrating–that rebuts your implicit argument that presidential perogatives have significant power over the economy. You cannot then point to the existence of variation as proof of presidential power, since we’re not arguing over the variation, but whether presidents or outside factors cause it. In short, why should be believe that a president’s policies–in the absence of congressional control–are the best explanatory variable for changes in unemployment, GDP, etc.? What are the reasons for believing that? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/25 "2009-02-19T17:45:27Z")
There are two issues. 1. The fact that there is this correlation. 2. The unknown reason for this correlation. Arguing over (2) does nothing about (1). ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/26 "2009-02-19T18:12:28Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > There are two issues. > > 1. The fact that there is this correlation. > > 2. The unknown reason for this correlation. > > Arguing over (2) does nothing about (1). Exactly this. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/27 "2009-02-19T18:19:49Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Exactly this. Well, I agree. But if you’re not arguing some causation, we might just as well point out that the economy is correlated to geese breeding in Norway. It is disingenuous to suggest you didn’t mean to imply some causation. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/28 "2009-02-19T18:50:57Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Well, I agree. But if you’re not arguing some causation, we might just as well point out that the economy is correlated to geese breeding in Norway. It is disingenuous to suggest you didn’t mean to imply some causation. I suppose you could do that, but wouldn’t you want to see the data first? I’ll stick to the data in hand, thanks. But, to adress part of **xtisme’s** issue, you agree that these descriptive data are accurate? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/29 "2009-02-19T18:54:51Z")
Your view of correlation is remarkably dismissive, **Richard**. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/30 "2009-02-19T19:21:06Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Your view of correlation is remarkably dismissive, **Richard**. What do you mean by this? My view of correlation is that it does not prove causation. And in the absence of a compelling theory of causation, mere correlation doesn’t suggest anything useful about Republican ideology. I wouldn’t characterize that as remarkably dismissive. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/31 "2009-02-19T19:29:53Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > What do you mean by this? My view of correlation is that it does not prove causation. And in the absence of a compelling theory of causation, mere correlation doesn’t suggest anything useful about Republican ideology. I wouldn’t characterize that as remarkably dismissive. Nor would I. Indeed, I find Hentor’s “I’ll stick to the data” to be the equivilent of putting fingers in one’s ears and saying “nah nah nah”. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/32 "2009-02-19T20:33:59Z")
The statement, linked by the OP, from **Hentor** : > [@](#): > > Come on, man. There has to be a reason why, empirically, the economy does better under Democrats than Republicans. Eventually, even people like yourself will have to stop throwing their hands up in the air and protesting that random chance influences our economy or our society. It’s thinking like this that allows Bush to get away with passive statements about having to face two wars and a bad economy. **Hentor** may believe there is some causal relationship, but the statement is very clear that he feels the data only shows the correlation. Indeed, in post #58 of that thread, > [@](#): > > Now, if you want to argue for some mechanism as to why all of these scores suggest a better economy under Democrats, then partisanship comes in to play, and I’m all ears. It could not be more clear. **xtisme** ’s response, however, aims at the causation angle: > [@](#): > > I don’t believe that, empirically, there is any such indication, especially when you factor in how policies from one presidential regime impact follow on regimes, especially against the back drop of a cyclical economy. But this is not the claim. The claim was that the economy has empirically done better under Democratic presidents. The claim was not that Democratic presidents drive the economy. > [@](#): > > But if you’re not arguing some causation, we might just as well point out that the economy is correlated to geese breeding in Norway. Please do so, if you think the data is there. Otherwise, you might as well stick to the topic. When someone says they know correlation does not imply causation, one suspects that they are being genuine, and thinking of the example that correlates, say, ice cream sales to a decrease in crime. It would shock us to find out there was not some underlying phenomenon at work here. What does ice cream have to do with crime? So let’s turn such a skeptical eye to this thread. “What does the president have to do with the economy?” 1. In practice, nothing. The president is helpless. The correlation is a series of extremely lucky coin flips. It will vanish in another 20 years. 2. In practice, nothing, but there is an underlying phenomena that causes voters during such times to vote Democrat. This causes both an improved economy and Democrats in office. 3. Something, like the president appointing economic advisors, or listening to them, or ramming bills down Congress’s throat to the best of his ability, or tea leaf reading in the Oval Office… 4. Something, like the previous president’s alignment, etc 5. Maybe combinations of (2) and (3), or (3) and (4), or whatever I don’t know what causes this correlation. However, it is fairly striking, especially given the various measures in post #10. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/33 "2009-02-19T20:50:45Z")
I read the first quote you posted from \*\*Hentor \*\*quite differently. But I’m happy to defer to the explanation that no one intends to be demonstrating causation. If that’s the case, then this thread really has no purpose. The only thing to question is whether, in fact, the GDP was X during Y year. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/34 "2009-02-19T21:05:06Z")
[QUOTE=erislover] Hentor may believe there is some causal relationship, but the statement is very clear that he feels the data only shows the correlation. Indeed, in post #58 of that thread, [/QUOTE] Hentor is pretty clearly attempting to show just such a causal relationship, since the entire thrust of his argument is that a Democratic President is not only a past indicator of economic prosperity (as opposed to Republican Presidents), but that this information can be used to predict future economic fluctuation as well, based solely on whether a given President is a Democrat or a Republican. My questions here in THIS OP were pretty clear. I was asking whether there actually is such a correlation between the economy and Democrat vs Republican Presidents. This seems to have been answered in the affirmative thus far that such a correlation exists. If this is just an interesting factoid, then fine and dandy…that would mean that no future predictions could be made using this correlation unless a causal relationship ALSO exists…which I also asked about in the OP. The crux of this question is both does it exist (apparent answer: yes) and what is the cause (Hentor’s answer: Because Democrats are better for the Economy, especially Democrat Presidents…and further that this knowledge can be used to predict future trends). -XT ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/35 "2009-02-19T21:52:40Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Hentor is pretty clearly attempting to show just such a causal relationship, since the entire thrust of his argument is that a Democratic President is not only a past indicator of economic prosperity (as opposed to Republican Presidents), but that this information can be used to predict future economic fluctuation as well, based solely on whether a given President is a Democrat or a Republican. Then **Hentor** would be saying that _whatever_ is causing this correlation will continue to do so. He is not saying Democratic presidents single-handedly cause this. However, as I read the paper myself, I am quite startled by the correlations as well. > [@](#): > > If this is just an interesting factoid, then fine and dandy…that would mean that no future predictions could be made using this correlation unless a causal relationship ALSO exists…which I also asked about in the OP. The causal relationship has not been conclusively determined. This doesn’t mean there’s isn’t an underlying causal relationship. I don’t see why you are so dismissive of the correlation. It’s striking. I, for one, want to know what’s going on. It’s not just just some random fact. It ain’t just geese pooping on the lawn. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450/36 "2009-02-20T03:33:03Z")
May I just point out here that this thread is still in General Questions? How various statistical measures of the goodness of the economy correlate with the political party holding the White House is a factual, GQ question. Why exactly such a correlation exists, if it is first demonstrated that in fact it does, is a GD question. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sd-economists-whats-the-dope-on-dems-vs-repubs/486450.md?page=1)