[WS:] It is far more complicated than that - it really depends on the circumstances. To make a long story short, presidents do not make the economy work as they see it fit, but they usually have enough discretion to make a difference in everyday economic conditions of a lot of people.
Wojtek
^^^^ CB: The "It's the economy" proposition implies that the American voters hold the President responsible for pretty much the "whole" economy, not just the economic conditions of a lot of people.
I think the implication of the fact that this is not a centralized economy, not a command -and- control- by- the- commisars economy, with Wall street controlling the Congress, not Congress controlling wallstreet, a truly private enterprise economy, I think the logical other side of this empirical reality is that the President influences the economy very little, despite the prevailing American common sense ideology. The President and Congress influence the economy very little relative to the influence of the Captains of Finance. It is not a myth that the economy is dominated by the Financial leaders of America, especially since the early 20th Century. Presidents - including Bush most recently - are scapegoated for the state of the economy, so that the actual controllers of economic conditions are not held responsible. The depolitization of the business decisions _by business_ is central to perpetuation of capitalist rule. Keep the working class protesting in Washington , not in NYC on Wallstreet, the actual seat of economic rule, the state-monopoly Capitol bulding Even Congress is not held as responsible. Calvin Coolidge's famous statement that "the business of America is business" is a sort of founding slogan of this mythical scapegoating of the President for the decisions of Big Business , folksy state-monopoly capitalism. Misleading Americans, distracting their class consciousness from the actual class enemy proper. It is a myth that the President is the Governor of "the" economy.