So I'm hearing all about small towns and anger and economics over the weekend, and reading a book due out in May by Larry M. Bartels called Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age (lots of great stats to wonk out on). Now whenever I find myself feeling like both parties are exactly the same and there isn't any daylight between them, there's always this to ponder:
Despite these long-term forces, distinguishing between Democratic and Republican administrations ... reveals the regularity with which Democratic presidents reduced and the Republican presidents increased the prevailing level of economic inequality, regardless of the long-term trend. Indeed, the effect of presidential partisanship on income inequality turns out to have been remarkably consistent since the end of World War II. The 80/20 income ratio increased under each of the six Republican presidents in this period--Eisenhower, Nixon, Frod, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. In contrast, four of five Democratic presidents--all except Jimmy Carter--presided over declines in income inequality. If this is a coincidence, it is a very powerful one.
This thread is now declared bitterly, bitterly open.