Good stuff. I would suggest that the analysis by The Balance can be improved. The numbers are fine, but the criteria needs adjustment. They start each president's term in January. But to be realistic it is generally accepted by serious economists that a president's record on the economy - particularly GDP, employment, income - is skewed if you count the first several months of his first term. No policies he actually passes, no matter how strong, will have much effect for at least a couple of quarters.

Obama's first term was in crisis dealing with Bush's financial collapse. Jobs were being lost at a rate of, like, 800K per month when he took office. He did take swift action and passed the stimulus package. But that took a while to take effect, by November job losses had been completely reversed.

If instead you start each president's record a couple of quarters in the future, it changes the picture. Clinton should not be saddled with GHWs recession, GW was not responsible for Clinton's recession, Obama should not be held to account for Bush's financial collapse. And tRump should not get the credit for Obama's growth numbers.

So, being conservative, we should start each president's record at the earliest in the 3rd quarter of the first year. If you do that, you find that GWs average GDP growth from Q3/01 - Q2/09 was 1.8% (real, by chained 2012 dollars) per year. Obama, from Q3/09 - Q2/17 was 2.3%; tRump's record, Q3/17 - Q4/19 is 2.7%. Of course if you count the last couple of quarters it is negative right now, but even if you ignore the covid period, tRump's GDP growth was about the same as Obama's, despite his enormous tax cut for billionaires. Employment/unemployment numbers follow the same pattern.