[Qauunet]

Originally posted by Jaguar
I read the article, and I'm questioning the obviously poor sample size. With so many factors not under a president's control, you can't state anything meaningful without a huge sample size.

This is like claiming that one guy is obviously better at scrabble than another because he won six out of ten games. "Poor sample size"? So fifty years of economic growth data is a "poor sample"? So we have to wait 300 years to know, right?

It seems like a simple statement - in the past 50 years we have had 34 years of Republican Presidents and 26 of Democrats. To quote:
average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

So explain what the "sample size" problem is.

And of course the main point of the article is that the issue is more stark for those at the bottom, while those at the top are generally the same off.