Do any of these make a case for voting-out Democrats?

[breasal]

Today's random 5 party/labor correlations:
More Republicans / more Total Private Employment r=0.42
More Republicans / higher Civilian Employment-Population Ratio r=0.46
More Republicans / more Demand for Fruit and vegetable canning r=0.51
More Democrats / more Retail trade job eliminations r=0.57
More Republicans / higher Civilian Workers' total wages, benefits, other Compensation r=0.61

Bureau of Labor Statistics data correlated with Congressional/White House populations of Democrats/Republicans over time.

[lazaro94]

I don't know about republicans or democrats but it shows why it's a good idea to keep progressives out.

[winfrid12]

Certainly not! Because more republicans has ALWAYS equalled - less freedom, more personal restrictions, less upward mobility, more oppression and hatred, more poverty, higher INFANT MORTALITY for crying out loud! This country had NO middle class until the 1940s, when our federal govt. became the most liberal it EVER was. The middle class increased and America was stronger and stronger as long as a liberal majority held congress. Then, as expected, as soon as the conservatives began to take over congress in the late 70s until now, everything has gotten worse, which is exactly what they wanted. Unless you are rich, they hate you, and you are a complete fool to support them. That's why they use prejudice, hatred, and so much name-calling and immature nastiness. It appeals to stupid people who are too lazy to find out how bad the repubicans are at EVERYTHING except consolidating power and wealth in the hands of the few, which takes NO intelligence, strength, or caring.

[darrick34]

When Obama took office, this country was losing 750,000 jobs EVERY MONTH. The GDP for Q4-2008 was -6.8%. This country couldn't capture Osama Bin Laden, this country looked like it was in TWO unwinnable wars where thousands of Americans were dying. The stock market completely fell off a cliff. The country was in terrible shape.

Now, the country has added positive job growth for 23 straight months, positive GDP growth for 10 straight quarters. Osama Bin Laden is dead, we ended the war in Iraq, Qadaffi is dead without one American life lost, the NASDAQ hit an 11 year high recently..

[eochaidh94]

I see that you are unable to intelligently interpret the meaning of data.

[adamka]

I know your only joking, but that's ridiculous.

Democrats held the house from the 30's to New Gingrich - for the most part, then the Republicans held the house from then on. Presidents used to be more Democrat, but now they are more Republican.

There are some notable exceptions:

Republican presidents have presided over the top 3 recessions: the Great Depression, the Reagan recession (hold on - I"m talking about THE recession that started when Reagan was in office - look it up), and of course now Bush's Great Recession.

Two post war Democratic presidents had no recessions - Clinton and Johnson - and Kennedy is known for the economic boom his presidency was associated with.

Eisenhower - like Nixon-Ford - had 3 recessions each.

Even Carter - thought to have a lousy economy - actually presided over job growth that was near Reagan's average (Carter was one term, Reagan had a bad and good term).

But I have told you all this before and you gleefully ignore it.

Why don't you tell us why Communist China is doing so well? Yes yes, we all know it has low wages. But it also has no democracy, the government owns all the land, and has huge central planning infrastructure that does everything from import tariffs, to building high speed rail, to subsidizing solar panel production. According to your thinking, they should shrinking, not growing.