Republican advocates claim that their party is interested in growth, while the Democrats are only interested in redistribution. Well, the Republican Party may be interested in growth, but they are remarkably inept at delivering growth. From 1948 until 2008, there were 15 administrations. The four with the highest rates of growth were all Democrats. The seven with the lowest rates of growth were all Republicans. The two best-performing Republican administrations and the two worst-performing Democratic administrations were all grouped together quite closely.
The growth is measured by the change in Real Gross Domestic Product from the election year (the base from which the economy grew under teh administration) to the next election year. There are other ways of measuring economic growth, and each of them would show slightly different specific numbers. There is no reasonable measurement, however, which shows Republican administrations outperforming Democratic administrations. (Even if you hypothesize a 4-year lag time, so that each administration is credited with the growth during the next, the Democrats come out somewhat better.)
The average growth rate during Democratic administrations is 4.3% / year, and no Republican administration has come anywhere near that high for the entire term. The average growth rate during Republican administrations is 2.7% / year, and no Democratic administration has had growth anywhere near that low for an entire term. Obama's recovery from the Bush train wreck may be slow enough to change the second sentence, but it will not lower the Democratic average enough to get a Republican term near it.
Let's first see the administrations in order of growth.
| President | years | RGDP | 4-year growth | % | Annual growth | % | Rank |
| L. B. Johnson | 1964 1968 | 3,389.4 4,129.9 | 1.21848 | 21.85 | 1.05064 | 5.06 | 1 |
| H. S Truman | 1948 1952 | 1,852.7 2,2232.0 | 1.21013 | 21.01 | 1.04884 | 4.88 | 2 |
| Kennedy Johnson | 1960 1964 | 2,828.5 3,389.4 | 1.19830 | 19.83 | 1.04626 | 4.63 | 3 |
| Bill Clinton 2 | 1996 2000 | 9,425.8 11,216.4 | 1.18997 | 19.00 | 1.03975 | 3.98 | 4 |
| Ronald Reagan 2 | 1984 1988 | 6,571.5 7,607.4 | 1.15764 | 15.76 | 1.03727 | 3.73 | 5 |
| Bill Clinton 1 | 1992 1996 | 8,280.0 9,425.8 | 1.13838 | 13.84 | 1.03473 | 3.47 | 6 |
| D. D. Eisenhower 1 | 1952 1956 | 2,242.0 2,547.6 | 1.13631 | 13.63 | 1.03246 | 3.25 | 7 |
| Jimmy Carter | 1976 1980 | 5,136.9 5834.0 | 1.13570 | 13.57 | 1.03232 | 3.23 | 8 |
| Ronald Reagan 1 | 1980 1984 | 5,834.0 6,571.5 | 1.12641 | 12.64 | 1.03021 | 3.02 | 9 |
| R. M. Nixon | 1968 1972 | 4,129.9 4,643.8 | 1.124434 | 12.44 | 1.02975 | 2.98 | 10 |
| D. D. Eisenhower 2 | 1956 1960 | 2,547.6 2,828.5 | 1.11026 | 11.03 | 1.02649 | 2.65 | 11 |
| Nixon Ford | 1972 1976 | 4,643.8 5,136.9 | 1.10618 | 10.62 | 1.02555 | 2.56 | 12 |
| G. W Bush 1 | 2000 2004 | 11,216.4 12,246.9 | 1.09187 | 9.19 | 1.02222 | 2.22 | 13 |
| G. H. W. Bush | 1988 1992 | 7,607.4 8,280.0 | 1.08841 | 8.84 | 1.01947 | 1.95 | 14 |
| G. W Bush 2 | 2004 2008 | 12,246.9 13,161.9 | 1.07471 | 7.47 | 1.00295 | 0.29 | 15 |
The RGDP is first for the election year, and then for the last year in the term. Both 4-year growth and annual growth are ratios. The annual growth ratios are chosen so that the fourth power of each is the 4-year growth ratio. I've followed these with the percent increase, first for the 4-year term, and then the annualized rate. Your eye should tell you how that follows from the preceding figure.
So, why should you believe Frank Palmer? You shouldn't. You should check it out. First, the same data in the original, historical order. (At this point, the RGDP gets a little repetitive.)
| President | years | RGDP | 4-year growth | % | Annual growth | % | Rank |
| H. S Truman | 1948 1952 | 1,852.7 2,2232.0 | 1.21013 | 21.01 | 1.04884 | 4.88 | 2 |
| D. D. Eisenhower 1 | 1952 1956 | 2,242.0 2,547.6 | 1.13631 | 13.63 | 1.03246 | 3.25 | 7 |
| D. D. Eisenhower 2 | 1956 1960 | 2,547.6 2,828.5 | 1.11026 | 11.03 | 1.02649 | 2.65 | 11 |
| Kennedy Johnson | 1960 1964 | 2,828.5 3,389.4 | 1.19830 | 19.83 | 1.04626 | 4.63 | 3 |
| L. B. Johnson | 1964 1968 | 3,389.4 4,129.9 | 1.21848 | 21.85 | 1.05064 | 5.06 | 1 |
| R. M. Nixon | 1968 1972 | 4,129.9 4,643.8 | 1.124434 | 12.44 | 1.02975 | 2.98 | 10 |
| Nixon Ford | 1972 1976 | 4,643.8 5,136.9 | 1.10618 | 10.62 | 1.02555 | 2.56 | 12 |
| Jimmy Carter | 1976 1980 | 5,136.9 5834.0 | 1.13570 | 13.57 | 1.03232 | 3.23 | 8 |
| Ronald Reagan 1 | 1980 1984 | 5,834.0 6,571.5 | 1.12641 | 12.64 | 1.03021 | 3.02 | 9 |
| Ronald Reagan 2 | 1984 1988 | 6,571.5 7,607.4 | 1.15764 | 15.76 | 1.03727 | 3.73 | 5 |
| G. H. W. Bush | 1988 1992 | 7,607.4 8,280.0 | 1.08841 | 8.84 | 1.01947 | 1.95 | 14 |
| Bill Clinton 1 | 1992 1996 | 8,280.0 9,425.8 | 1.13838 | 13.84 | 1.03473 | 3.47 | 6 |
| Bill Clinton 2 | 1996 2000 | 9,425.8 11,216.4 | 1.18997 | 19.00 | 1.03975 | 3.98 | 4 |
| G. W Bush 1 | 2000 2004 | 11,216.4 12,246.9 | 1.09187 | 9.19 | 1.02222 | 2.22 | 13 |
| G. W Bush 2 | 2004 2008 | 12,246.9 13,161.9 | 1.07471 | 7.47 | 1.00295 | 0.29 | 15 |
I might note that only one of the Democratic administrations in this list had less growth than the previous administration. all but one of the Republican administrations in this list had less growth than the previous administration.
Anyway, you can check the St. Louis Federal Reserve reports on real GDP to see that my reports on RGDP are correct.
Then check my division. Admittedly, checking my work means a lot of arithmetic, especially if you check my fourth roots. Still, any small sample would detect a fraud if I were committing fraud. (For that matter, the order of the terms doesn't require the annual growth and percentage figures at all. Checking my fourth roots only verifies the arithmetic, not the ordering.)