This midterm season was by far the most interesting collection of races I’ve seen in my life. From former football star Herschel Walker, who pulled out a fake sheriff’s badge at a debate, to TV personality Dr. Oz, who has lived in New Jersey for decades, running for Senate in Pennsylvania,  the post-Donald Trump political landscape is shaping up to be as wild as we could’ve guessed.

When looking at the campaigns of any of these candidates, one thing stands out: instead of developing an actual agenda, it seems as if they’re all following in Trump’s anti-Barack Obama footsteps and campaigning almost entirely on an anti-Joe Biden approach.

This isn’t the wrong thing to do, and I’m not here to talk too much about why that’s become such a large problem in the United States (hint: it’s because of the two-party system). I want to talk about one thing in particular: what exactly our economy would look like under majority Republican control.

Well, judging based on the long and storied history of modern Republican presidents, not so great.

One of Dr. Oz’s biggest campaign promises was “reversing Biden’s failed agenda” on spending, which Oz says led to inflation. 

In our very own Massachusetts Congressional District 8, Robert Burke, the Republican candidate for the House, campaigned on much the same idea, stating that “reckless spending fueled the inflation crisis.”

The Joint Economic Committee’s data on GDP growth since Quarter 1 1947 shows that GDP growth is 1.6 times faster under Democratic presidents. Even if you take out presidents who had to deal with volatile economic situations, like Ronald Reagan, Obama and Harry Truman, the difference in growth is real.

When looking at private-sector job growth, you see another deficiency. While Republicans like to talk about creating jobs and encouraging private sector growth, the numbers speak differently. 

Private-sector job growth has been nearly 2.5 times faster under Democrats, on average. The most recent Republican president before Trump, George Bush, actually had negative growth. 

What about taxes? Republican leaders spent months saying that red low-tax states are subsidizing blue high-tax states. Is the GOP right when it comes to taxes?

Well, for every tax dollar that Mississippi, a red state, sent to Washington in 2015, they got back $2.13. The story is much the same for other red states like West Virginia, Kentucky and South Carolina. Meanwhile, states like New Jersey received 74 cents to the dollar. New York received 82, Massachusetts received 83. 

GOP controlled states have long been claiming that the government should have less influence over the economy of the entire country, not more.

Republicans need to stop propagating the lie that they are better for the economy than Democrats. 

The information presented here is purely facts and numbers, and the facts and numbers say that Democrats have been better contributors to the economy. And, they are much better equipped to take care of the health of the national economy rather than padding their own pockets by selling out the U.S. government. 

The GOP needs a new angle on why people should vote for them. At the very least, they need to stop saying they can fix something they have proven time and time again, in smaller, state-level arenas and in the federal arena, they absolutely cannot.

Please, stop the lie. Democrats are better for the economy, and that’s a fact.