Perceptions (such as turning to public polling to 'decide' 'which is better') is mere politics.
An argument of lesser consequence.
However, the issue of 'which two term Presidency experienced the better economic performance' (deficits, GNP numbers, trade numbers, job production numbers, etc.) is a question that can, and should, only be argued with reference to the hard, dry, economic statistics... and over identical eight year terms.
One should not expect to be able to compare apples and oranges effectively....
(Obviously there will be confounding factors in such a comparison... there are *always* confounding factors in matters such as this, and, I believe that rational people would likely agree that any President's effective control over macro economic developments is likely far less then the business cycle and larger societal influences themselves.)
Still... when times are relatively good every politician will try to take all the credit, and when times are troubled they will shirk the credit.
However --- as I posted just a little while back here --- the hard numbers for the Bush II two terms will be entered into the history books shortly enough (the clock is ticking), just as the Clinton economic numbers for his two terms are already recorded... (and Bush I's four year numbers, and Reagan/Bush's eight year numbers, etc., etc.) are all down in history now.
So --- for those who would like to engage in debate over the relative merits of each eight year period, for example, they will have the opportunity to do so in short order.
No real need to jump-start the process with fragmentary and selective snippets of info that is still being frequently revised by the bureaucrats. :-) |
