Just looked at something interesting while researching presidential economics — the relationship between who's in office and how the economy actually performs is way messier than most people think.

Everyone talks about how a president controls the economy, but honestly? The Fed probably has more influence than the person in the Oval Office. Still, voters definitely connect economic performance to whoever's sitting there, which is why recessions can be brutal for incumbents and good times help get people reelected.

I pulled together data from LBJ all the way through Biden, and the patterns are pretty revealing. You'd think there'd be some clear graph of recessions and presidents showing obvious cause and effect, but it's actually complicated.

Lyndon Johnson had it pretty good — modest GDP growth at 2.6%, unemployment at 3.4%, and real income per capita was the highest on the list at $17,181. The Civil Rights Act and Clean Air Act happened during his time too. Solid all-around, though inflation was running at 4.4%.

Then Nixon came in and things got rough. Inflation jumped to 10.9% — second worst of this entire group. GDP growth dropped to 2.0%, and unemployment started creeping up to 5.5%. We know how that ended.

Gerald Ford's short 895-day presidency landed during rough times. Unemployment hit 7.5%, the second highest on this whole list. But he managed decent GDP growth at 2.8%, so there's that.

Jimmy Carter's numbers are wild. His GDP growth was 4.6% — the highest of anyone here, over 1% better than Biden. But he also had the worst inflation at 11.8% and third-highest unemployment. It's like he got the growth without the stability. That's the kind of economic contradiction that probably cost him reelection.

Reagan's tenure was interesting because he mostly landed in the middle. Unemployment at 5.4%, inflation at 4.7% — both significantly better than Carter's numbers. His poverty rate was 13.1%, which is basically tied with Bush Sr. for worst on this list. Real income per capita climbed to $27,080 though.

George H.W. Bush had the weakest GDP growth at 0.7% and the highest poverty rate at 14.5%. That probably explains the one-term presidency.

Clinton's numbers were similar to his predecessor's on the surface — barely any GDP growth at 0.3% — but he completely flipped the poverty script. While Bush Sr. had the highest poverty rate, Clinton got it down to 11.3%, the lowest on this entire list. Unemployment was 4.2%, and inflation stayed low at 3.7%. Real income per capita jumped to $34,216.

George W. Bush inherited a situation and then the Great Recession hit. His GDP growth went negative at -1.2%, the only president here with that distinction. Unemployment spiked to 7.8%, the highest overall. But here's the weird part — inflation was 0.0%. Like, completely flat. That's actually a rare position to be in, even if everything else looked terrible.

Barack Obama took over right in the middle of that recession mess. GDP growth was still weak at 1.0%, fourth lowest. Poverty was second highest at 14%. But he steadily brought unemployment down to 4.7%, which is fourth lowest overall. The recovery was real, even if it looked slow on paper.

Donald Trump's numbers were mostly above average. GDP growth at 2.6%, inflation at just 1.4% (second lowest), poverty at 11.9% (tied for second lowest with Ford). Unemployment was higher at 6.4% though, which is interesting given the pre-pandemic job talk.

Joe Biden came in with the pandemic aftermath and inflation chaos. Real disposable income per capita is the highest at $51,822, and GDP growth is second highest at 3.2%. Unemployment is fourth lowest at 4.8%. But inflation hit 5.0%, which is the worst since Carter. That's the trade-off — strong growth and employment, but prices went up hard.

What's actually fascinating when you look at this graph of recessions and presidents across decades is that the economic cycles don't always line up neatly with who gets credit or blame. Some presidents inherit disaster, some inherit booms. Some get hit by external shocks. The Fed's decisions matter enormously. Trade policy matters. Global factors matter.

But voters don't think in terms of structural economic forces — they think about whether their paycheck stretches and whether they can find a job. That's why economic performance, whatever its real causes, keeps determining electoral outcomes. The data shows most presidents have been good for the economy in some ways and worse in others. It's rarely black and white.

The real takeaway? Economic policy is complex, presidential influence is limited, and the relationship between who's in office and economic results is way more nuanced than campaign speeches suggest.