"It's the economy, stupid!" That mantra of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign is no longer valid. After a couple of rough years to start his term, George Bush has since presided over a booming economy. The U.S. gross domestic product grew at a rate of 4.3 percent in the third quarter of 2005. Its quarterly growth has not slipped below 3.3 percent since the first quarter of 2003. In fact, GDP growth under Bush has not differed significantly (particularly from 2003 onwards) from the GDP growth under Clinton--save for the fact that no one seems to have noticed. The New York Times noticed, sort of, earlier this week when it reported that the "ecomony appears to be doing just fine" and cited a "seemingly upbeat report." The jist of the news article? The economy may look healthy today, but just wait until next year when the illusion ends.

Despite continued good news on the economy, Bush's approval ratings have fluctuated between 35 and 45 percent during the last three months. Paradoxically, the highest approval ratings of Bush's presidency occured during a weak economy and the lowest approval ratings of his presidency occurred during a strong economy. What's going on? "It's the economy, stupid!" applied during the Clinton years because the Cold War had ended and the War on Terror and the Iraq War hadn't begun. When the issues aren't all that important, the economy is the default top concern. Life-and-death issues, national security issues once again dominate politics. The economy, necessarily, is secondary. That hurts George W. Bush politically. President Bush presides over an economy that is not only growing, it's booming. You just wouldn't know it from his sagging poll numbers.

Actually, it might still be the economy. I've heard that polls show 2/3rds of Americans believe the economy to be in recession, even though it obviously isn't.

During the years of the Bush administration, the left has done a very good job of taking their myths and revisionist history and turning them into the accepted facts of the national debate. Most likely because Bush and his advisors show a stunning lack of will to defend themselves or their policies in the face of criticism.

EDIT: The mainstream media has also been more overtly biased against the policies of the Bush administration than against any other adminstration I can think of. One example: The ratification of the Iraqi constitution warranted no more than a single sentence in any of the main media stations, with the possible exception of Fox News.

GDP isn't synonymous with the "economy." The studies I've seen suggest that inflation and unemployment matter more than the growth rate of GDP. Despite a growing economy, prices have been soaring -- housing, commodities, gas etc -- and this hits people were it hurts the most: their wallet. While the unemployment rate is relatively low job creation has been quite poor, so peoples' perception of a less than robust economy is largely valid.

Eric: Although inflation has been getting higher as of late--it's currently above 4 percent--it is still on the low side (relative to rates under other recent U.S. presidents) and has been even lower earlier in the Bush presidency. In fact, the inflation rate under Bush II is lower than the inflation rates under 5 of the last 6 presidents. The unemployment rate right now is 5 percent, which is also pretty low. You write: "The studies I've seen suggest that inflation and unemployment matter more than the growth rate of GDP." If you believe that, why do you write: "peoples' perception of a less than robust economy is largely valid"?

I haven't looked at the empirical breakdown of marcoeconomic data under Bush II, but back in 2001 (in college) I did run regression an-alyses on how macroeconomic data affects presidential popularity and I remember inflation and unemployment mattering more -- the data covered the years from 1960-2000. Note that it's not the rate of inflation or unemployment rate that matter, but the change in the rate. So if inflation declines by X% then presidential approval rises, while an increase in inflation by X% causes presidential approval to fall. So inflation falling from 10% to 5% would cause an increase in presidential approval while an increase -- ceterus paribus -- from 3% to 4% would cause a decline -- the actual rate isn't relevant.

Peoples' perception of less than robust growth is valid because job growth has been anemic and job creation tends to be in the low paying service sector.

Eric, I hate to say it, but if you think that average Joe American even KNOWS what inflation or unemployment rate has done under Bush, let alone feels the impact of a 1% rise in either, I've got some swamp land in Florida for you. The economy is BOOMING, no matter what method of assessment you use, and the ONLY reason anyone possibly views it pessimistically is they (a) are simply unschooled in economics and can only base their opinion on what they read or hear in the MSM, or (b) have an anti-Bush agenda which won't allow them to grant the man credit for anything.

I personally don't believe Presidents deserve that much credit or bear significant blame for a particular economy. But if the MSM is going to laud Clinton, Bush is certainly deserving of the same.

And if you're going to say something is great, but just wait, it will change, no matter what your position, you'll eventually be right. Thank you NYTs for your brilliant anelysis! (I had to insert the "e", as another "a" won't get through Dan's filter!)

Dan,

It's interesting that you bring up the unemployment rate...because that is a big indication of how our economy is doing. It is now a near record low of 5%...statistically, there is always 2% of people who just do not want to work, and that only leaves 3% of people left, and there is always a percentage of people in transition from one job to the next. So basically, our country is at full employment. This a huge indication that our economy is booming.

The economy is "booming" if your Dr Pangloss, but if you're an ordinary American then it's not so hot. The unemployment rate is low but the unemployment rate doesn't measure those who have given up looking for employment and most Americans feel the pinch of inflation everytime they fill up their cars with gas or pay for milk and butter at the grocery store. They also naturally feel hopeless because our economy isn't creating high-wage employment, but lower paying service sector jobs. Look at the largest growth industries between 2002-2012 as reported by the BLS and cries of a great economy will sound as delusional as Ann Coulter's "the Iraq war is going magnificiently."