Skip to comments.Are Democratic Presidents Better for Babies?
Posted on 02/18/2014 2:03:47 PM PST by 12th_Monkey
Having a Democratic president in the United States is linked with a reduction in infant mortality rates, according to a controversial new study.
Researchers analyzed U.S. infant mortality rates from 1965 to 2010, a period that spans nine presidencies (four Democratic and five Republican).
They found that infant mortality declined significantly during that time, dropping 75 percent over the nearly 50-year period.
But when the researchers used statistical methods to focus on short-term changes during this time period, they found that infant mortality rates were about 3 percent higher during years in which a Republican was president, compared with the years in which a Democrat was president.
The findings held even after the researchers took into account factors that might affect infant mortality, such as unemployment rates, smoking rates, abortion rates and measures of national education and income level. And the researchers did not consider the first year of any president's term, they said, because a president's policies would not be expected to affect mortality in the first year of his presidency.
The researchers acknowledged that their findings could be accidental: infant mortality and the president's party may be completely unrelated, and instead, what seems to be a link between the president's political party and infant mortality could actually be due to other factors that shift back and forth over four to eight years.
However, the researchers said they were "struck by the consistency of the association we have uncovered," according to the study published online in the International Journal of Epidemiology on Dec. 30, 2013.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
Wag your head and enjoy this liberal inspired pile of dung.
And, if they do happen to make it (what is it, 25% chance in some leftist cities?), nothing like being immediately $300,000 in debt.
They probably first tried to tie it to “global warming”, but then that didn’t work, so tried some other concepts until they found one that would show some correlation.
That could be because a preemie that you don't try to save is not counted as an infant death.
If you try to save them and they die, then it is counted as "infant mortality."
Just another way bureaucrats play with numbers.
Numbers can be manipulated easily and the run of the mill consumer who reads that article will buy into it without a second thought.
thats about the size of it.
sun spots too
When a Berkley professor critcizes a study like that you know it is in trouble.
study brought to you by the DNC, george soros and public broadcasting.....
oops, must have missed that. I expected the study to have fallen out the butt of some Berkley moon bat.
Gee - I wonder if the highly negative partisan press creating an atmosphere of doom and gloom may cause extra complications...
Or if having a less baby-killing man in the white house would lead to more at-risk pregnancies being brought to term...
Crap science is crap.
It all depends on what the meaning of the word “babies” is, doesn’t it?
Another bunch of crap and lies.
Yep, garbage in garbage out.
Truman and JFK were the only ones since who were even arguably close. And they were both merely mediocre.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.