On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:09:37 -0400, NOYB wrote:


So then if it were truly balanced, the dems should make up roughly 40% of
the top 10, and 40% of the bottom ten...but that's not the case. They
make up only 30% of the top 10, and a whopping 60% of the bottom 10!

Interesting what one can do if they cherry pick the data, isn't it? If
one were looking for balance, one would expect 11 dems and 14 reps in the
bottom half, and 11 dems and 14 reps in the top half. Damn, if it ain't
so, must be balanced. Or let's look at the Dems median, 4.8, then the
Reps. median, 4.8. Damn, it must be balanced. Now, if we look at
averages, well the Reps do a whopping .4 better, but if we check for
population . . . Well, I haven't the time. I still say other factors
besides the governors party will weigh heavier in unemployment rates.


The link was not relevant to the question I posed. I asked about
unemployment rates relative to which party controlled the governor's
house. When you compare Presidential administrations, you're not comparing
apples to apples since you're comparing two completely separate periods of
time. There are too many factors to consider when comparing the time
periods of two different Presidents. Technologies change. Oil Prices
change. World economic conditions change. Wars cause change. With the
governor comparison, you're comparing head to head while each is in power
at the same exact time period...under the same economic conditions at the
federal level.

True, but it's interesting to note that the good times roll more
frequently under a Democratic President, than a Republican one.