Job CreationRepublican presidents are
always, always, always bad for job creation. Since the 1920's, the annual rate of job creation under republican presidents has always been lower than under democratic presidents.
Since the depression, no republican president has had a better rate of job creation than
any democratic president. The highest rate of job growth under a republican was 2.2% per year during Nixon's time in office. The lowest rate of job growth under a democrat was 2.3% per year during Kennedy's time in office. Bush has had a -0.7% annual rate which is the first negative number since the depression.
Since WWII ended, a total of 57.51 million jobs were created during the terms of democratic presidents which is an average of 2.054 million jobs per year. During the terms of republican presidents a total of 31.11 million jobs were created which is an average of 1.003 million jobs per year.
DeficitsSince Kennedy was president, republican presidents have always run higher federal deficits in current dollars, in constant dollars and as a percentage of GDP, than democratic presidents.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/hist01z3.xlsThe estimates for 2003 and subsequent years are no longer applicable. The current estimates are much higher. Also, the numbers for the first year of a presidential term are from the budget of the preceeding term.
Stock MarketThe stock market also performs better under democratic presidents.
The excess return in the stock market is higher under Democratic than
Republican presidencies:nine percent for the value-weighted and 16 percent
for the equal-weighted portfolio.The difference comes from higher real stock
returns and lower real interest rates,is statistically significant,and is robust
in subsamples.The difference in returns is not explained by business-cycle
variables related to expected returns,and is not concentrated around election
dates.There is no difference in the riskiness of the stock market across
presidencies that could justify a risk premium.The difference in returns
through the political cycle is therefore a puzzle.
http://www.personal.anderson.ucla.edu/rossen.valkanov/Politics.pdf This analysis covers the years 1927-1998 and separately examines the years from 1927-1962 and 1963-1998. Results which included the years from 1999-2003 would show an even greater difference.
I think that both the higher rate of job growth and the lower federal deficit may explain the better stock market performance under democratic presidents