Nonpartisan Researchers Conclude that Democratic Presidents are Better for Growth of Employment and Domestic Product

The Lisco Report has some very interesting graphs ranking the economic impact of Democratic vs. Republican Presidents since FDR.  The researchers assert their independence, and they conclude that the advantage of having Democratic Presidents govern the country is unmistakable:

Democrats have a clear edge on GDP growth: 4.4% vs. 2.6%. Even if you start the clock with Truman in 1949 (eliminating the war boom and immediate postwar bust), the Dem advantage survives, with average growth of 4.5%. The partisan difference is widespread, too, not dependent on a few strong or weak readings: the blue bars stack towards the top of the graph, and the red bars towards the bottom. It might surprise some readers to learn that the Carter years weren’t quite as bad as some remember—though the inflation performance was miserable.

Indeed, Carter edges the overrated Reagan Administration in GDP growth.

The researchers draw similar conclusions on employment with rather sullen news for George W. Bush:

The comparative partisan performance on employment is similar to GDP growth. Under Democratic administration, employment has grown an average of 3.0% a year (2.9% if you start in 1949); under Republicans, 1.3%. And here the blue bars are all at the top of the graph, and the red at the bottom. And it seems that the Bush family, whatever their other accomplishments, won’t go down in history as great job creators.

It's clear to me from this research that if you want a stronger economy that includes job creation, you have to run with Democratic Presidents.  All of the conservative campaign rhetoric that moderate-leaning-left administrations will destroy American jobs is unsubstantiated in this research.

HT:  The Monkey Cage