https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/...w5Aiqp3lZjt9OaXeVjDGEurdJLdR5WtNblyuLKFmwJkOc I'm not happy with the title of this opinion piece. That said, this is a very interesting read about why we do better economically under democrat presidents. The answer is they really don't know, but they outline some theories, citing previous administrations and policies. No definitive conclusions. This isn't a flame bait piece, though I do feel the title of the OpEd is flame bait.
I think the answer to your question is that Republicans don't actually need to be good for the economy to get themselves elected. All they have to do is convince enough gullible people with a long term memory deficit that they are good. When they're in power, they don't actually need to make good on their base's expectations because they know that, by the next election cycle, they will have forgotten how lousy they were the last time they controlled the government. Whereas Democrats are not as forgiving.
Basically, Republicans trash the economy, Democrats fix it, and Republicans get back into power claiming that Democrats should have done better.
Why Are Republican Presidents So Bad for the Economy? The last Republican president that was bad for the economy was Hoover, though the Bushes and Ford were just so so. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Trump were all great for the economy. The last Democrat president that was good for the economy was JFK, though Truman was OK. The Clinton administration watched over a pretty good economy because Gingrich jammed it down Bill's throat, though Clinton gets the brunt of the blame for the 2008 disaster. Your question is moot.
