I say that the President's relation to the economy is actually way more tenuous than people realize. I said that about Obama too, before anyone accuses me of just being biased against Trump.
The economy is a large, complex system which consists of many different factors that affect it. A President and his policies can certainly affect it, don't get me wrong, but not in such a large magnitude.
So, to attribute the economy to Trump, or anyone else, somehow existing as President being related to it in a general sense as a reason to vote for them is pure poppycock Unless one can specifically link a policy of theirs, I guess. For instance, it's not that much of a stretch for a Michigan auto worker to have voted for Obama because of the GM bailout, or a CEO to want to re-elect Trump because of the tax bill. So, I suppose, that what it comes down to is that how one views the economy is more personal and subjective than one would think. I don't blame Presidents for trying to use macroeconomic data to their benefit though. Just as there are voters who will view a President negatively because of their economic situation, whether it is actually the President's fault or not; there will be others who are in a stable or improved position and also may attribute that to the President. And to further complicate things, people in between as bronz detailed.
For me personally, my family as a whole, was actually better off financially back during the recession than now, even as me and my sister have jobs now. But for most, the economy was a massive concern. At the same time though, for many that concern may still even exist. Economic data can't account for everyone and tell the same story.
Really when it comes down to it, American voters just simply don't understand what the President can and cannot do with their position, and a President or aspiring candidate for that office, would actually be foolish to undermine their own potential to be credited and praised for positive things that may not even be in their control. It's yet another vicious cycle that exists in our political system. That's a massive, and underrated problem for our national politics and in how we set expectations for our Presidents.
I guess how Gore should have benefited from Clinton's economy, but personality and superficial stuff dominated the 2000 presidential election.
