Using data from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, which has collected the number of abortions, and abortion rates since the 1990s from the Guttmacher Institute and the CDC, it is evident that, while the abortion rate has been falling since the nineties, the sharpest drops in average rates occur during times when a Democrat is president. The average abortion rate for past US presidents is as follows:

Ronald Reagan (R): 24

because George H.W. Bush (R): 23.75

Bill Clinton (D): 17.35

George W. Bush (R): 16

Barack Obama (D): 13.25

HW Bush only decreased the abortion rate he inherited from Reagan by 1.41%, Clinton decreased the abortion rate he inherited from HW Bush by 27% , W Bush decreased the abortion rate he inherited from Clinton by just 7.8%, and Obama decreased the abortion rate he inherited from W Bush by 17.2%. This is visualized below in Figure 1. So, while there is always a decrease in abortion rate when a new president steps into office, those rates are vastly higher when it is a Democrat taking office. Obama alone decreased the abortion rate almost twice as much than the previous two Republican presidents put together! Clinton decreased the abortion rate pretty much three times as much as two Republican presidents he was preceded and succeeded by were able to!

The annual abortion rate under the last two Democrat presidents (Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) is much lower than the abortion rate under the last two Republican presidents (George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush) I can find data on (the most recent abortion data I can find ends in 2018, two years before Trump's term ended). The average abortion rate under Clinton and Obama was 16.3 while the average abortion rate under Bush and Bush was 18.6, a tremendous difference considering abortion rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 births and there are millions living in the United States.

Using a rough formula, we can actually calculate the average number of abortions which occurred under each president's tenure. The formula is (US population in year X/1,000) * chosen president's abortion rate. For example, if we wanted to determine the average number of abortions performed during George H.W. Bush's tenure as president we would divide the US population in 1990, 252,120,309 by 1,000 (because abortion rate is number of abortions per 1,000 births) and then multiply that number by 23.75, the average abortion rate under George H.W. Bush. Population counts come from World Meters. Here are the average number of abortion performed annually under each president:

Under George H.W. Bush ~5,987,857 abortions were performed annually.

Under Bill Clinton ~4,600,590 abortions were performed annually.

Under George W. Bush ~4,719, 896 abortions were performed annually.

Under Barack Obama ~4,283,725 abortions were performed annually.

This data is visualized below in Figure 2.

So why is it that the abortion rate and teen pregnancy rate declines rapidly under Democratic presidents? Likely because Democrats tend to favor sex education in general more than Republicans and tend to support the inclusion of birth control, healthy relationships, consent and sexual orientation in that education whereas Republicans tend to favor abstinence. This comes from a survey published in the Sex Education journal but it's also just quiet apparent in society that Democrats favor more comprehensive sex education and Republicans favor more religious, abstinence-only sex education. As you'll see in the "Abstinence Only Education is Bad" tab on Abortion page of the website abstinence focused sex education produces more negative outcomes and more risky sexual behavior in teens than a comprehensive sex education does. Additionally, it has been shown that abstinence only sex education contains many scientific errors and blurs over things so much to the point that it's almost unethical to give children/teens such faulty information. So is it just a coincidence that the president of a party which advocates for the most effective sex education in preventing teen pregnancy is also associated with lower abortion rates? Probably not. Democrats advocate for comprehensive sex education, which reduces the number of stupid decisions people make regarding sex more than sex education reliant on abstinence (which Republicans support more) which in turn reduces abortion rates.

It should be noted that these decreases in abortion rates and teen pregnancy rates are mostly thanks to women gaining more control over their own bodies, increased education about sexuality, and more consistent use of contraceptives, something fundamentalists and pro-lifers seem to hate. The 1950s saw the highest teen pregnancy/birth rate in US history but thanks to the introduction of birth control in 1965, the legalization of abortion in 1973, and increasing sexual education available to teens which began around the late sixties, early seventies has helped the teen pregnancy rate decline substantially. Teens have more access to contraceptives and are making smarter choices about sex thanks to education, which in turn lowers abortion rates, and teen pregnancy rates. Increased sex education and contraceptives help reduce teen pregnancy and abortion, yet you'll never see a pro-lifer support these things. As Chris Ladd - the author of the blog post which is the first citation in this paragraph - writes, "the 'pro-life' movement is just as enthusiastic about blocking sex education and contraception access as they are about picketing abortion clinics. There is nothing pro-life about their movement or their motives."

Using data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well as 2020 data on unemployment from a separate US Bureau of Labor Statistics report and data from Statista, and the following is evident:

Unemployment Rates

The last two Democratic presidents (Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) lowered the unemployment rate every year they were in office, on average. The last two Republican presidents (George W. Bush and Donald Trump) raised the unemployment rate every year they were in office, on average. When accounting for just the years in which the unemployment rate was lowered, Obama lowered it at the highest rate (10.2% annually), then Trump (9.2% annually), then Clinton (8.9% annually), and then Bush (7.5% annually). When accounting for just the years in which the unemployment rate was raised, Trump raised it at the highest rate (191.4%), then Obama (29.9%), then Bush (27.6%) annually, and then Clinton (1.8%). George W. Bush was the only president to raise the unemployment rate in multiple years. This is visualized below in Figure 3.

• The average yearly decrease in unemployment rate under Clinton was 6.5% and there was only one year under (1995) Clinton in which the unemployment rate increased. Only using data from the seven years in which there was a decrease in the unemployment rate it’s clear that Clinton lowered the unemployment rate by 8.9% every year. Only using data from the one year in which there was an increase in the unemployment rate, it’s clear that it rose by 1.8%.

• The average yearly decrease in unemployment rate under Bush was -10%, meaning the unemployment rate increased an average of 10% every year under Bush. There were four years (2001, 2002, 2007, 2008). under Bush in which the unemployment rate decreased and only using data from the four years in which there was a decrease in the unemployment rate, it’s clear that Bush lowered the unemployment rate by 7.5% every year. Only using data from the four years in which there was an increase in the unemployment rate, it’s clear that it rose by an average of 27.6% every year.

• The average yearly decrease in unemployment rate under Obama was 4.5% and there was only one year (2010) under Obama in which the unemployment rate decreased. Only using data from the seven years in which there was a decrease in the unemployment rate, it’s clear that Obama lowered the unemployment rate by 10.2% every year. Only using data from the one year in which there was an increase in the unemployment rate, it’s clear that it rose by 29.9%.

• The average yearly decrease in unemployment rate under Trump was -40.9%, meaning the unemployment rate increased an average of 140.9% every year under Trump. There was only one year in which the unemployment rate increased (2020) and only using data from the three years in which there was a decrease in the unemployment rate it’s clear that Trump lowered the unemployment rate by 9.2% every year. Only using data from the one year in which there was an increase in the unemployment rate, it’s clear that it rose by 191.4%.

GDP

The average annual increase in GDP under the last two Democratic presidents (Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) is higher than the average annual increase in GDP under the last two Republican presidents (George W. Bush and Donald Trump). The annual average increase under Clinton and Obama was 2.6% and the annual average under Bush and Trump was 1.8%. Even when you exclude the GDP decrease of 4.3% in 2020 from Trump’s total the Republican annual average, now at an annual increase of 2.4%, is still below the Democrat annual average which is still including the decrease of 2.5% in Obama’s first year as president. When removing both Trump’s negative year and Obama’s negative year the gap becomes more clear, with the Democratic annual average being an increase of 3.1% and the Republican annual average being that 2.4%. This is visualized below in Figure 4.

As a research paper from the American Economic Review titled "Presidents and the US Economy: An Economic Exploration" identifies, "The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance." The paper mainly focuses on real GDP growth but acknowledges that "the performance gap is large and significant" between how an economy preforms under a Democratic president and how it preforms under a Republican president. I'll provide some excerpts below:

• Going back to the Truman administration, it's clear that the average GDP growth under a Democratic president is almost double that of the GDP growth under a Republican president. This is visualized below in Figure 5.

• Figure 6 below shows that although Democratic presidents inherit worse GDP growth rates than Republican presidents they grow the GDP massively within their first two years in office: "growth slows sharply and quickly when a Republican is elected, but accelerates on a dime following the election of a Democrat." The paper then investigates whether or not these turnarounds could have been anticipated and expected due to historical circumstance (like if a recession was imminent when a Republican took office) but find that "Simple time series calculations suggest not." When investigating factors unique to transition years the paper still finds little to no evidence that the accelerated GDP growth under Democratic presidents has anything to do with external factors or things unique or a specific transition year. The paper makes it clear that the accelerated growth the GDP experiences under Democrats is not due to Democrats inheriting more favorable positions: "In sum, data on forecasts resoundingly reject the hypothesis that Democrats inherited more favorable initial conditions (in terms of likely future growth) from Republicans than Republicans did from Democrats." The paper's conclusion also addresses this: "The superior growth record under Democrats cannot be attributed to superior initial conditions, however. It cannot be forecast by standard techniques, nor was it actually predicted by professional forecasters. Nor does the D-R gap stem from different trend rates of growth at different times, nor to any (measurable) boost to confidence when a Democrat is elected president." It's a fact: the GDP just performs better under Democratic presidents.

• The paper ultimately concludes that "there is a systematic and large gap between the US economy’s performance when a Democrat is president of the United States versus when a Republican is. Democrats do better on almost every criterion. Using real GDP growth over the full sample, the gap is 1.79 percentage points, which is stunningly large relative to the sample mean. The partisan growth advantage is correlated with Democratic control of the White House, not with Democratic control of Congress."

Multiple analyses show that red states receive more federal funding than blue states. This includes things like welfare. Obviously, this runs contrary to the conservative belief that democrats live off the government or whatever.

As seen below in Figure 8, analysis from WalletHub shows that blue states are less dependent on the federal government than red states. Specifically:

• 3 of the 5 states with the highest GDP per capita are blue states, whereas all 5 of the states with the lowest GDP per capita are red states.

• All 5 of the states that receive the lowest amount of financial assistance received are blue states, whereas 4 of the 5 states that receive the highest amount of financial assistance received are red states.

• 4 of the 5 states that receive the lowest amount of grants received are blue states, whereas 4 of the 5 states that receive the highest amount of grants received are red states.

• 4 of the 5 states that receive the lowest amount of contracts are blue states. 2 of the 5 states that receive the most amount of contracts are blue states, but this is the only category where there are more blue states in the top 5 that receive more federal money than red states.

Money Geek reports that 8 of the 10 states that are most dependent on the federal government are red states - West Virginia, Mississippi, Alaska, Montana, Kentucky, Alabama, Arizona, and Louisiana. However, Arizona turned blue in the 2020 election so it's actually 7 out of the 10 states.

• Additionally, their analysis shows that nine states sent more money to the federal government than they received, 7 of which were blue.

• The analysis also shows that the top 8 states receiving the highest return on child tax credit (a program that reduces the federal tax a person owes) were red states.

Money Geek also found a correlation between GDP and dependence on federal money - higher GDP = less federal dependence. This makes sense considering WalletHub shows that blue states had some of the highest GDP (per capita) and red states had some of the lowest and blue states are less dependent on federal dollars than red states.

All red/blue state designations are based on the results of the 2020 presidential election. I used this resource as a reference.