Tara Reade is a person who exists

[ZiprHead]

Tara Reade’s lawyer drops her as a client

Tara Reade’s attorney announced Friday that he will no longer represent her as a client.

In a statement, Douglas Wigdor, who has represented victims of sexual assault in the past, said the decision did not have to do with the question of whether Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993, as Reade has alleged.

The announcement came a day after defense lawyers in California said they were reviewing whether she misrepresented her credentials in past cases where she testified as an expert witness.

POLITICO reported Thursday that California defense attorneys are considering challenging the convictions of their clients amid questions about whether Reade misrepresented her expert witness credentials under oath.

Reade testified in at least two court cases that she graduated from Antioch University in Seattle with a bachelor’s degree. The school, however, said she only attended for three quarters and did not graduate. When Reade offered a different explanation on Thursday evening, saying she had a special arrangement with a former chancellor using a different name, university officials told POLITICO that was not true. CNN first reported questions about the inconsistencies in her educational background.

 

[Elixir]

The entire premise of this thread and its promoters is "whataboutism". Mr. Trump has a well-documented history of claims of sexual harassment and of sexual abuse. Mr. Biden has a well-documented history of claims of sexual harassment and now a claim of sexual abuse.

False equivocation. Biden has several accusations of making women "uncomfortable" and one accusation of sexual abuse.
Trump has dozens of claims of sexual assault and one straight up claim of rape.
The lesser claims against Trump are instances where he did things like force a woman up against a wall and grope her crotch. Lesser claims against Biden are where he did things like leave his hand on someone's shoulder "a moment too long".

 

[southernhybrid]

Tara Reade’s lawyer drops her as a client

Tara Reade’s attorney announced Friday that he will no longer represent her as a client.

In a statement, Douglas Wigdor, who has represented victims of sexual assault in the past, said the decision did not have to do with the question of whether Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993, as Reade has alleged.

The announcement came a day after defense lawyers in California said they were reviewing whether she misrepresented her credentials in past cases where she testified as an expert witness.

POLITICO reported Thursday that California defense attorneys are considering challenging the convictions of their clients amid questions about whether Reade misrepresented her expert witness credentials under oath.

Reade testified in at least two court cases that she graduated from Antioch University in Seattle with a bachelor’s degree. The school, however, said she only attended for three quarters and did not graduate. When Reade offered a different explanation on Thursday evening, saying she had a special arrangement with a former chancellor using a different name, university officials told POLITICO that was not true. CNN first reported questions about the inconsistencies in her educational background.

The NYTimes had a similar article about Reade this morning. I didn't have a chance to post it as I've been busy. It does sound as if Tara Reade has a problem with being honest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/politics/tara-reade-credentials.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

His announced departure came a day after defense lawyers in California said they were reviewing criminal cases in which Ms. Reade served as an expert witness on domestic violence, concerned that she had misrepresented her educational credentials in court.
While not providing a reason for leaving, Mr. Wigdor said his decision was “by no means a reflection on whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted Ms. Reade,” adding that he was among the 55 percent of Americans who believe her, according to a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll.

Of course he believes her. He's a conservative Republican who supports Trump.

Mr. Wigdor, a conservative Republican whose support for President Trump in 2016 did not preclude him from suing prominent Trump allies, had a parting shot for the news media, which he accused of applying a “double standard” to its coverage of accusations against the presumed Democratic nominee.

Sure right. Biden has one accuser who seems a bit unbelievable and has what looks like a history of making false claims, but the news media is guilty of a double standard. That's not what I've been reading. If anything, the news media has gone overboard in reporting the Reade claim, despite the lack of evidence. She claims that Biden attacked her in a hallway, a public place no less. No. Her story isn't believable and of course Biden can't prove that it didn't happen because as we atheists know, it's impossible to prove a negative. Her story has been inconsistent. Her claims have been unsubstantiated and the other women who worked with Biden during that time don't remember him ever acting inappropriately. At worse, a few have said that he was sometimes overly affectionate. He's apologized for that and has promised to change that behavior. From what I've seen while he was campaigning, there were quite a few women who ran up to him to give him a hug, not the other way around. We've all listened to Reade's claims. She just doesn't have the credibility that most other women do when they accuse someone of sexual assault.

 

[Elixir]

Douglas Wigdor, who has represented victims of sexual assault in the past, said the decision did not have to do with the question of whether Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993, as Reade has alleged.

I suspect that if he had said otherwise, he'd be in violation of some bar rule(s).

 

[Elixir]

Interesting... those Colorado boys are pretty familiar to me, and I think they're both good guys. Especially Hoopenlicker. I hope to see him in the Senate. I don't think either of them is representative of the Democratic Party aspiration though.

I guess the contemporary Democratic Party has shifted way too hard to the left and has also been infected by the disease of identity politics.

Who do you think would be a good "representative of the Democratic Party aspiration"?

Liz Warren?

 

[blastula]

In this case it seems that senility is in the eye of the beholder. It was Creepy hair sniffing pedo Biden who who stated on public television that there were 600.000 COVID-19 deaths in the US.

Buddy, entirely my fault that I misunderstood you. But are you sure that you don't have it backwards? Trump is extremely sleazy and odd. Maybe you drank too many Fosters yesterday?

Last time I checked, fosters was a Canadian beer made by Molson-Coors.

No way, Paul Hogan would never lie to me.

 

[Derec]

Who do you think would be a good "representative of the Democratic Party aspiration"?

Liz Warren?

Ms. "1/1024 Cherokee Princess"?
Fits the unfortunate shift in the Democratic Party toward insufferable identity politics.

 

[blastula]

Biden was always way down on my preferred candidate list. And while Reade may be a flaky nutter, I still haven't seen enough to definitively say the assault did not happen. But this is how I feel about the election if Biden is the candidate.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Biden was always way down on my preferred candidate list. And while Reade may be a flaky nutter, I still haven't seen enough to definitively say the assault did not happen. But this is how I feel about the election if Biden is the candidate.


View attachment 27837

Wow. I hope that there's just a chance that you and Pyramid just haven't been watching the news or something. But Tara just isn't a flake, she appears to be a fraud or a trickster. She has been posing as a college professor and lying about her credentials in court (which is a crime). But she also has a history of stiffing her landlords, then lying about that. Scamming them. The story that she has been telling has been very similar to the story found in the book that her father wrote. She claims that she was fired for the "sexual harassment". But now it seems like she was fired due to her poor work performance. Her co-workers don't have a lot of good things to say about her. I could go on and on. I'm sorry but if someone is going after someone else with no evidence, they had been be believable - and she is not. Not even close.

 

[Toni]

Women of the US: if you get sexually assaulted by someone in power, please make sure you never bounce a check, piss off a landlord, put your ambitions above your desire to tell your story, or put on any weight. Should any of those things happen, you will be dragged through the media over a bed of nails until half the country knows and hates you.

The only people who can have been sexually assaulted are people who tell their story right away, except when they don't, have eyewitness testimony, except when they don't, or are overall perfectly sympathetic human beings who handle their trauma with the calmness and self-assurance of a talented surgeon doing a routine operation, except when they don't.

Why would any abused woman feel intimidated about coming forward in an environment like this, I wonder?

That is not at all what my take away from this is—if you’re talking about Reade’s allegations.

 

[Toni]

Biden was always way down on my preferred candidate list. And while Reade may be a flaky nutter, I still haven't seen enough to definitively say the assault did not happen. But this is how I feel about the election if Biden is the candidate.


View attachment 27837

Wow. I hope that there's just a chance that you and Pyramid just haven't been watching the news or something. But Tara just isn't a flake, she appears to be a fraud or a trickster. She has been posing as a college professor and lying about her credentials in court (which is a crime). But she also has a history of stiffing her landlords, then lying about that. Scamming them. The story that she has been telling has been very similar to the story found in the book that her father wrote. She claims that she was fired for the "sexual harassment". But now it seems like she was fired due to her poor work performance. Her co-workers don't have a lot of good things to say about her. I could go on and on. I'm sorry but if someone is going after someone else with no evidence, they had been be believable - and she is not. Not even close.

Her allegation of assault as she described it is very implausible. For me, that’s the real issue, not is she a good or admirable or even honest person.

 

[Jarhyn]

Biden was always way down on my preferred candidate list. And while Reade may be a flaky nutter, I still haven't seen enough to definitively say the assault did not happen. But this is how I feel about the election if Biden is the candidate.


View attachment 27837

Wow. I hope that there's just a chance that you and Pyramid just haven't been watching the news or something. But Tara just isn't a flake, she appears to be a fraud or a trickster. She has been posing as a college professor and lying about her credentials in court (which is a crime). But she also has a history of stiffing her landlords, then lying about that. Scamming them. The story that she has been telling has been very similar to the story found in the book that her father wrote. She claims that she was fired for the "sexual harassment". But now it seems like she was fired due to her poor work performance. Her co-workers don't have a lot of good things to say about her. I could go on and on. I'm sorry but if someone is going after someone else with no evidence, they had been be believable - and she is not. Not even close.

Her allegation of assault as she described it is very implausible. For me, that’s the real issue, not is she a good or admirable or even honest person.

And I reiterate that I don't even think it's the most important issue. You could absolutely believe her and it shouldn't change a thing, because even if you did believe her, we have an alternative orders of magnitude worse than even a one-time sexual assault in a hallway.

 

[Toni]

Her allegation of assault as she described it is very implausible. For me, that’s the real issue, not is she a good or admirable or even honest person.

And I reiterate that I don't even think it's the most important issue. You could absolutely believe her and it shouldn't change a thing, because even if you did believe her, we have an alternative orders of magnitude worse than even a one-time sexual assault in a hallway.

I think it's important. I really do. I mean a whole bunch of us have been bitching for 3.5 years about having an accused rapist in the White House so if Biden actually did this, it would be awfully hypocritical of us to think Joe was OK and Our National Shame was not. It's kind of like one house on fire vs the whole city on fire. Neither are good but of course it's better if it's only one house.

The Democrats like to think of ourselves as morally better than the Republicans who like to pretend the same because they sit in church pews. The thing is, if we call out the Republicans, they don't care. They don't have a sufficient sense of decency or any moral compass or sense of shame. A big problem putting Biden forward is that it gives a tiny bit of traction to the old canard that really, Dems are just as morally bankrupt as GOP so why not vote for the guy you think will make you money (yes, the record indicates the economy does better under Dems but...) and who won't make you feel bad for being a racist or a rapist?

 

[angelo]

To declare all these women are lying and creepy is just a senile old creep just doesn't cut it.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/joe-biden-allegations-women-2020-campaign-2019-6?r=US&IR=T

I've read all of those complaints. With the exception of Tara Reade's accusation, every one of those instances reads paternal to me rather than sexual. Overly familiar in a non-sexual way. Is it appropriate? Nope. Are the women entitled to feel as though Biden didn't fully respect their agency as independent adults? Sure, if that's how they feel. I wasn't there so maybe it was creepy or maybe it was creepy to them.

But let's compare the accusations:

https://time.com/5058646/donald-trump-accusers/

This is a little more comprehensive

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-ru...-sexual-misconduct_n_57ffae1fe4b0162c043a7212

And this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheney_Mason

Jessica Leeds.....................Please! I wouldn't let her anywhere near my penis no matter how hard up I was!!!!

 

[angelo]

Her allegation of assault as she described it is very implausible. For me, that’s the real issue, not is she a good or admirable or even honest person.

And I reiterate that I don't even think it's the most important issue. You could absolutely believe her and it shouldn't change a thing, because even if you did believe her, we have an alternative orders of magnitude worse than even a one-time sexual assault in a hallway.

I think it's important. I really do. I mean a whole bunch of us have been bitching for 3.5 years about having an accused rapist in the White House so if Biden actually did this, it would be awfully hypocritical of us to think Joe was OK and Our National Shame was not. It's kind of like one house on fire vs the whole city on fire. Neither are good but of course it's better if it's only one house.

The Democrats like to think of ourselves as morally better than the Republicans who like to pretend the same because they sit in church pews. The thing is, if we call out the Republicans, they don't care. They don't have a sufficient sense of decency or any moral compass or sense of shame. A big problem putting Biden forward is that it gives a tiny bit of traction to the old canard that really, Dems are just as morally bankrupt as GOP so why not vote for the guy you think will make you money (yes, the record indicates the economy does better under Dems but...) and who won't make you feel bad for being a racist or a rapist?

That's a load of bull-twang! When has the economy ever done better under a Dem regime who throw money around like guests throw confetti at the happy couple at their wedding.

 

[Patooka]

That's a load of bull-twang! When has the economy ever done better under a Dem regime who throw money around like guests throw confetti at the happy couple at their wedding.

The last time the US was in surplus, was in Clinton's second term.
The US GDP per capita went from 46.31k in 2008 to 59.84k in 2017 according to the OECD
Inflation was at historically low levels during the Obama Administration

Basically, the US economy only improves when a Democrat is in the Oval Office. And Democrats are rank amateurs compared to the amount of waste in a Republican budget. Look at some of the kickbacks former Trump staffers are earning on the taxpayers dime. There is no one more fiscally irresponsible than a Republican President. They just have a kick arse propaganda wing.

 

[angelo]

That's a load of bull-twang! When has the economy ever done better under a Dem regime who throw money around like guests throw confetti at the happy couple at their wedding.

The last time the US was in surplus, was in Clinton's second term.
The US GDP per capita went from 46.31k in 2008 to 59.84k in 2017 according to the OECD
Inflation was at historically low levels during the Obama Administration

Basically, the US economy only improves when a Democrat is in the Oval Office. And Democrats are rank amateurs compared to the amount of waste in a Republican budget. Look at some of the kickbacks former Trump staffers are earning on the taxpayers dime. There is no one more fiscally irresponsible than a Republican President. They just have a kick arse propaganda wing.

The reasons are explained here in this link...........................https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3d847c-2a0c-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html

Snippet............
Opinions
Do Dems run the economy better? Nope.
By Robert J. SamuelsonAugust 24, 2014
It’s a Democratic campaign consultant’s dream: a study from two respected academic economists concluding that, since the late 1940s, the economy has consistently performed better under Democratic presidents than under Republican ones. The gap is huge. From 1949 to 2013 — a period when the White House was roughly split between parties — the economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.33 percent, but growth under Democratic presidents averaged 4.35 percent and under Republicans, 2.54 percent. Jobs, stocks and living standards all advanced faster under Democrats.

Not surprisingly, one of the report’s authors is a well-known Democratic economist, Alan Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve now at Princeton University; the other author, Mark Watson, also at Princeton, is a highly regarded scholar of economic statistics who describes himself as nonpartisan. More interesting, Blinder and Watson don’t credit the Democratic advantage to superior policies.

“Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large [Democratic-Republican] growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim,” they write. Most economists, they note, doubt presidents can control the economy.


So if presidents didn’t do it, who or what did? Blinder and Watson march through economic studies. Their conclusion: About half of the Democrats’ advantage reflected “good luck” — favorable outside events or trends. Three dominate.

Global “oil shocks” — steep increases in prices, which depressed economic growth — were the largest, because they hurt Republicans more than Democrats. They occurred in 1973 (Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford), 1979 (Jimmy Carter but affecting Ronald Reagan’s first term) and 2008 (George W. Bush). Statistically, they explain slightly more than a quarter of the Democratic-Republican gap.

Productivity — efficiency — was the next largest contributor. But presidents can’t magically raise productivity; it reflects too many forces: research, improved schools, better management, entrepreneurs. Although Bill Clinton benefited from an Internet boom, he didn’t invent the Internet. Productivity gains occurred disproportionately under Democratic presidents and accounted for nearly a fifth of the gap, report Blinder and Watson.


War was the final factor. Military buildups for the Korean and Vietnam wars boosted growth in the Truman and Johnson presidencies, respectively. Since the late 1940s, inflation-adjusted defense spending rose 5.9 percent annually under Democrats and only 0.8 percent under Republicans. The buildups accounted for about an eighth of the Democratic advantage.

As for the rest of the gap, Blinder and Watson say it’s a “mystery.” Actually, the explanation is staring them in the face.

The parties have philosophical differences that affect the economy. To simplify slightly: Democrats focus more on jobs; Republicans more on inflation. What resulted was a cycle in which Democratic presidents tended to preside over expansions (usually worsening inflation) and Republicans suffered recessions (usually dampening inflation).


Students of the post-World War II economy know these cycles. The best examples include the 1960s Kennedy-Johnson boom, which lowered unemployment to 3.5 percent in 1969 and raised inflation (virtually nonexistent in 1960) to almost 6 percent. This was followed by two recessions in the Nixon-Ford years. Under Carter, the economy revived — but inflation spurted to 13 percent in 1980. Carter’s inflation bred the devastating 1981-1982 recession under Reagan. It pushed unemployment to 10.8 percent in late 1982 but ended double-digit inflation.

 

[J842P]

That's a load of bull-twang! When has the economy ever done better under a Dem regime who throw money around like guests throw confetti at the happy couple at their wedding.

The last time the US was in surplus, was in Clinton's second term.
The US GDP per capita went from 46.31k in 2008 to 59.84k in 2017 according to the OECD
Inflation was at historically low levels during the Obama Administration

Basically, the US economy only improves when a Democrat is in the Oval Office. And Democrats are rank amateurs compared to the amount of waste in a Republican budget. Look at some of the kickbacks former Trump staffers are earning on the taxpayers dime. There is no one more fiscally irresponsible than a Republican President. They just have a kick arse propaganda wing.

The reasons are explained here in this link...........................https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3d847c-2a0c-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html

Snippet............
Opinions
Do Dems run the economy better? Nope.
By Robert J. SamuelsonAugust 24, 2014
It’s a Democratic campaign consultant’s dream: a study from two respected academic economists concluding that, since the late 1940s, the economy has consistently performed better under Democratic presidents than under Republican ones. The gap is huge. From 1949 to 2013 — a period when the White House was roughly split between parties — the economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.33 percent, but growth under Democratic presidents averaged 4.35 percent and under Republicans, 2.54 percent. Jobs, stocks and living standards all advanced faster under Democrats.

Not surprisingly, one of the report’s authors is a well-known Democratic economist, Alan Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve now at Princeton University; the other author, Mark Watson, also at Princeton, is a highly regarded scholar of economic statistics who describes himself as nonpartisan. More interesting, Blinder and Watson don’t credit the Democratic advantage to superior policies.

“Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large [Democratic-Republican] growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim,” they write. Most economists, they note, doubt presidents can control the economy.


So if presidents didn’t do it, who or what did? Blinder and Watson march through economic studies. Their conclusion: About half of the Democrats’ advantage reflected “good luck” — favorable outside events or trends. Three dominate.

Global “oil shocks” — steep increases in prices, which depressed economic growth — were the largest, because they hurt Republicans more than Democrats. They occurred in 1973 (Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford), 1979 (Jimmy Carter but affecting Ronald Reagan’s first term) and 2008 (George W. Bush). Statistically, they explain slightly more than a quarter of the Democratic-Republican gap.

Productivity — efficiency — was the next largest contributor. But presidents can’t magically raise productivity; it reflects too many forces: research, improved schools, better management, entrepreneurs. Although Bill Clinton benefited from an Internet boom, he didn’t invent the Internet. Productivity gains occurred disproportionately under Democratic presidents and accounted for nearly a fifth of the gap, report Blinder and Watson.


War was the final factor. Military buildups for the Korean and Vietnam wars boosted growth in the Truman and Johnson presidencies, respectively. Since the late 1940s, inflation-adjusted defense spending rose 5.9 percent annually under Democrats and only 0.8 percent under Republicans. The buildups accounted for about an eighth of the Democratic advantage.

As for the rest of the gap, Blinder and Watson say it’s a “mystery.” Actually, the explanation is staring them in the face.

The parties have philosophical differences that affect the economy. To simplify slightly: Democrats focus more on jobs; Republicans more on inflation. What resulted was a cycle in which Democratic presidents tended to preside over expansions (usually worsening inflation) and Republicans suffered recessions (usually dampening inflation).


Students of the post-World War II economy know these cycles. The best examples include the 1960s Kennedy-Johnson boom, which lowered unemployment to 3.5 percent in 1969 and raised inflation (virtually nonexistent in 1960) to almost 6 percent. This was followed by two recessions in the Nixon-Ford years. Under Carter, the economy revived — but inflation spurted to 13 percent in 1980. Carter’s inflation bred the devastating 1981-1982 recession under Reagan. It pushed unemployment to 10.8 percent in late 1982 but ended double-digit inflation.

So thanks for posting a link which refutes your premise? Or else I'm not sure what you think this establishes, and how it helps your claim.

 

[fromderinside]

Now a few words from Zeitgeist.

 

[angelo]

The reasons are explained here in this link...........................https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3d847c-2a0c-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html

Snippet............
Opinions
Do Dems run the economy better? Nope.
By Robert J. SamuelsonAugust 24, 2014
It’s a Democratic campaign consultant’s dream: a study from two respected academic economists concluding that, since the late 1940s, the economy has consistently performed better under Democratic presidents than under Republican ones. The gap is huge. From 1949 to 2013 — a period when the White House was roughly split between parties — the economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.33 percent, but growth under Democratic presidents averaged 4.35 percent and under Republicans, 2.54 percent. Jobs, stocks and living standards all advanced faster under Democrats.

Not surprisingly, one of the report’s authors is a well-known Democratic economist, Alan Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve now at Princeton University; the other author, Mark Watson, also at Princeton, is a highly regarded scholar of economic statistics who describes himself as nonpartisan. More interesting, Blinder and Watson don’t credit the Democratic advantage to superior policies.

“Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large [Democratic-Republican] growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim,” they write. Most economists, they note, doubt presidents can control the economy.


So if presidents didn’t do it, who or what did? Blinder and Watson march through economic studies. Their conclusion: About half of the Democrats’ advantage reflected “good luck” — favorable outside events or trends. Three dominate.

Global “oil shocks” — steep increases in prices, which depressed economic growth — were the largest, because they hurt Republicans more than Democrats. They occurred in 1973 (Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford), 1979 (Jimmy Carter but affecting Ronald Reagan’s first term) and 2008 (George W. Bush). Statistically, they explain slightly more than a quarter of the Democratic-Republican gap.

Productivity — efficiency — was the next largest contributor. But presidents can’t magically raise productivity; it reflects too many forces: research, improved schools, better management, entrepreneurs. Although Bill Clinton benefited from an Internet boom, he didn’t invent the Internet. Productivity gains occurred disproportionately under Democratic presidents and accounted for nearly a fifth of the gap, report Blinder and Watson.


War was the final factor. Military buildups for the Korean and Vietnam wars boosted growth in the Truman and Johnson presidencies, respectively. Since the late 1940s, inflation-adjusted defense spending rose 5.9 percent annually under Democrats and only 0.8 percent under Republicans. The buildups accounted for about an eighth of the Democratic advantage.

As for the rest of the gap, Blinder and Watson say it’s a “mystery.” Actually, the explanation is staring them in the face.

The parties have philosophical differences that affect the economy. To simplify slightly: Democrats focus more on jobs; Republicans more on inflation. What resulted was a cycle in which Democratic presidents tended to preside over expansions (usually worsening inflation) and Republicans suffered recessions (usually dampening inflation).


Students of the post-World War II economy know these cycles. The best examples include the 1960s Kennedy-Johnson boom, which lowered unemployment to 3.5 percent in 1969 and raised inflation (virtually nonexistent in 1960) to almost 6 percent. This was followed by two recessions in the Nixon-Ford years. Under Carter, the economy revived — but inflation spurted to 13 percent in 1980. Carter’s inflation bred the devastating 1981-1982 recession under Reagan. It pushed unemployment to 10.8 percent in late 1982 but ended double-digit inflation.

So thanks for posting a link which refutes your premise? Or else I'm not sure what you think this establishes, and how it helps your claim.

You can't see that opinion of who are the best at running the economy is in the eye of beholder? A Dem would say they are, while a conservative holds that they are. Reagan did a great job, and many say he was the best president the US ever had, in the modern era. Trump's economy was going gangbusters before the Chinese virus wrecked not just America's, but all the worlds economies. One can't sheet home the blame to any one party for that. That link establishes that the Dems are far from being the better party for the economy.