Well if you look at the facts 11 out of the last 12 Recessions, one almost a depression, were started under Republican Presidents. If you want a recession elect a Republican President if you want a good running economy you elect a DEM President. We have a Republican President now so we may go into another recession soon.
The claim in post #7071516 is partially accurate on the raw historical count of recession starts but is overstated, selective, and does not support the causal conclusion drawn.
The post (replying to discussion of July 2026 retail sales weakness) states:
“Well if you look at the facts 11 out of the last 12 Recessions, one almost a depression, were started under Republican Presidents.If you want a recession elect a Republican President if you want a good running economy you elect a DEM President.We have a Republican President now so we may go into another recession soon.”
The numerical claim
Post-WWII NBER-dated recessions (the standard list) show a clear imbalance in
starts:
- July 1953 – Eisenhower (R)
- August 1957 – Eisenhower (R)
- April 1960 – Eisenhower (R)
- December 1969 – Nixon (R)
- November 1973 – Nixon (R)
- January 1980 – Carter (D)
- July 1981 – Reagan (R)
- July 1990 – G.H.W. Bush (R)
- March 2001 – G.W. Bush (R)
- December 2007 – G.W. Bush (R)
- February 2020 – Trump (R)
That is
10 of the last 11 (or 11 of 12 if counting the 1948–49 Truman recession as the starting point of a longer window). The “one almost a depression” is a reference to the Great Recession (2007–09). Sources including Wikipedia summaries of NBER data, academic papers (Blinder-Watson), and fact-checks consistently report this pattern: roughly 10 of 11 modern recessions began under Republican presidents.
The count is factually close enough; the slight variation in “11 of last 12” vs. “10 of last 11” depends on the exact starting cutoff (post-1945/1948/1953).
Why the causal leap fails
- Presidents do not control the business cycle tightly. Recessions are driven by monetary policy (Fed), oil shocks, financial crises, pandemics, inventory cycles, wars, and prior excesses. Many of the Republican-start recessions had external triggers (1973 oil embargo, 1990 Gulf War/S&L, 2001 tech bust + 9/11, 2007 housing/credit, 2020 COVID). The 1980 Carter recession was also energy/inflation-related.
- Timing and inheritance matter. Presidents often inherit conditions set years earlier. Expansions under one party frequently end under the next. Eisenhower faced post-Korean War adjustment; Reagan faced the aftermath of 1970s inflation/Volcker tightening.
- Broader performance metrics are mixed and do not prove party causation. Studies (e.g., Blinder-Watson) find average GDP growth, job creation, and stock returns higher under Democratic presidents in the post-WWII period, and more recession quarters under Republicans. However, these correlations do not isolate policy effects from luck, Fed actions, Congress, global events, or demographic trends. Average performance does not mean every Democratic term is strong or every Republican term weak.
- “Almost a depression” under a Republican is true for 2007–09, but the Great Depression itself began under Hoover (R) and continued under FDR (D). Longer historical windows dilute the modern pattern.
Current context (August 2026)
The thread started with July 2026 retail sales falling 0.6% month-over-month (steepest drop since May 2025, below expectations). That is a soft data point for consumer spending.
However, the broader picture does
not show the economy clearly “on the skids” or in imminent recession:
- Q2 2026 real GDP grew ~1.5% annualized (slowed from Q1’s 2.1%).
- Unemployment ~4.1–4.2%.
- ISM Manufacturing PMI recently in expansion (mid-50s).
- Sahm rule and most yield-curve/recession indicators are not triggering.
- Recession probability estimates from various models remain modest (often 20–35% over the next 12 months in recent surveys), not elevated to crisis levels.
Softening labor data, sticky inflation, and weak retail are real risks, but they do not yet constitute a recession, and attributing any future one primarily to “Republican President” would ignore the lagged effects of prior policy, Fed decisions, energy shocks, and global factors.
