Which party is better for the economy?

Facts should be important. Reality and results should dictate public policy. Unfortunately, in America, they don't.

Before I get to those questions, let’s talk about the facts.

The arithmetic on partisan differences is actually stunning. Last year the economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson circulated a paper comparing economic performance under Democratic and Republican presidents since 1947. Under Democrats, the economy grew, on average, 4.35 percent per year; under Republicans, only 2.54 percent. Over the whole period, the economy was in recession for 49 quarters; Democrats held the White House during only eight of those quarters.

But isn’t the story different for the Obama years? Not as much as you think. Yes, the recovery from the Great Recession of 2007-2009 has been sluggish. Even so, the Obama record compares favorably on a number of indicators with that of George W. Bush. In particular, despite all the talk about job-killing policies, private-sector employment is eight million higher than it was when Barack Obama took office, twice the job gains achieved under his predecessor before the recession struck.  Paul Krugman

When Democrats run the country, the economy flourishes. When Republicans are in charge, it flounders. These are facts. This is reality.

And yet Americans are still under the Republican stranglehold. Decades of propaganda, demonizing and fear-mongering by conservatives have reduced much of the American electorate to idiots voting against their own self-interests. Every time Republicans cause a clusterfudge of pain and sorrow, I hope that Americans will wise up.

And yet they never do.