James' World 2

His name? Bart Starr, Jr. (Yes, the son of THAT Bart Starr.)

The answer may surprise you.

(Before Bart Starr, Jr. takes over this story, we have 18 days left until the election. This is go time. Your donations to @WisDems will help us get out the vote all across Wisconsin. Won’t you chip in now?)

Who is Bart Starr, Jr.? 

The son of legendary Packers QB Bart Starr, Bart Jr. grew up in Green Bay, WI.

He’s an Alabama attorney, financial consultant, and a supporter of charities including Rawhide Youth Services, an organization co-founded by his parents in the 1960s to help at-risk youth.

A lifelong Republican, he voted for both Bushes, Dole, McCain, & Romney.

From here on, this piece is written by Bart Starr, Jr. 

There exists in much of America a belief, one our Republican family accepted for decades, that GOP presidents are better for the U.S. in terms of stock market performance, economic and job growth, and fiscal discipline/deficits.

Recently we accepted a challenge from a centrist economist to determine whether our bias was correct.

It turns out we were wildly mistaken.

Someone known to most Americans said, many years ago, “The economy seems to do better under the Democrats than under the Republicans.”

Before we identify him, let’s see if he was correct by analyzing very long term data in order to avoid the distortion effects of one or two strange years.

Let’s look at the stock market performance from 1961-2024.

Assume we invested $10,000 in the stock market and allowed growth to compound only during Republican presidencies; our $10,000 would have done well, growing to approximately $105,000 during those 32 years.

If we did the exact same thing, but invested only during the 32 years of Democratic presidencies, we would have again done well…exceptionally well. Our $10,000 would have grown to approximately $570,000.

This equals a difference of close to 7% PER YEAR in favor of stock market performance during Democratic administrations. 

In fairness, we should point out that one horrific year—2008—landed at the end of the George W. Bush administration. 

Given the fact that a 37% drop in the S&P 500 Index resulted in a harsh impact on the Republican side of the ledger, let us run a hypothetical scenario, as follows: We will add 25% to the Republican data, AND deduct 25% from the Democratic data. 

After making this adjustment to “share” the impact of 2008, growth under Republican presidents would have increased to $131,000; growth under Democrats would have increased to $427,000, still a significant difference: about 4% more PER YEAR in favor of the Democratic presidents.

Let’s move on from the stock market to economic and job growth. 

In order to avoid upside bias from 1935-1944, as the economy recovered from the Great Depression and the buildup to WWll under FDR, we will begin our analysis in 1945. 

The most important measure of economic performance is the real growth rate (nominal growth minus inflation).

Under the 40 years with GOP presidents, real GDP growth has averaged 2.4% per year.

Under the 40 years with Dem presidents, real GDP growth has averaged 3.5% per year.

A difference of 1.1% per year might not sound significant, but if you compound it over the course of a 40-year working career, it compounds to 50% more total growth. 

Further, these data help explain something remarkable. EVERY transition from a Democratic to a Republican administration during the past 100 years has resulted in slower job growth, while EVERY transition from a GOP to a Democratic administration has led to faster job growth.