Do job losses matter?

Sorry, but the data shows the highest job loss peaks were 1975 (Nixon), 1983 (Reagan), 1993 (Bush 41), and 2004 (Bush 43), plus early 2009 just as Obama took office.

Since you can hardly blame Obama for economic conditions that were already in play when he took office, you must be misinterpreting the data.

As for C) and D), you can't get that data from that link, so I suspect it's something you made up.

How about this for a fact?

In 1954, the Democrats took control of both the House and Senate. They held the Senate until 1980 and the House until 1994. For most of that time real (inflation-adjusted) wages grew.

Around the time the Republicans took the Senate wages began to stagnate, and today they're about the same as the late 1970s. In that time of wage stagnation, the Republicans have held AT LEAST ONE house of Congress AND the presidency for all but two years up until Obama was elected.

In other words, the Democrats were not the party with the most control when wages stagnated, in contrast to the 1950s-1970s when they DID have control of Congress--and sometimes the presidency as well--and wages grew.

Does this make the best case for Democratic or Republican policy?

Why look at averages? Let's look at what has happened recently. During Bush43's 8-year administration, 1M jobs were lost, and conservatives thought that was a good job. During the fist 6 years of Obama's administration, 10M jobs were gained, and conservatives thought that was bad.

The only job lost that matters to most it theirs..

the one the most people want to see is Obamas