Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder makes a pretty convincing argument, that no matter where you are on the income scale, you do better under a Democratic President.
The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national productof 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats. That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.
What’s even more remarkable is the differential at different income percentiles (chart above) in terms of wealth generation. Though the very rich (95th percentile) do slightly better under Democrats, the very poor (20th percentile) do remarkably better, thus shrinking the income inequality that builds up under Republican Presidents.
Needless to say, McCain vows to continue the Republican tax cuts for the wealthy that the last four Republican Presidents have favored.