Greeted with the usual histrionics by the press (exceeds expectations! second straight month of strong growth!), today's jobs report indicates that 288,000 jobs were added to the economy in April. Is the economy about to bail Bush out politically?

Not likely. First, let's put these numbers in perspective. Adding 288,000 jobs, while excellent by recent standards, actually remains below the administration's own job growth projections of 306,000/month, made by the CEA when the 2003 tax cuts were passed one year ago. So far they've only hit that figure in one month (last month) and they continue to be well on track for an extraordinary negative job growth record over the course of Bush's administration. In addition, recent job growth has, so far, failed to alter the stagnation in wage and salary growth that currently afflicts the labor market. (For more detail on all this, see the Economic Policy Institute's excellent Job Watch site.)

Second, let's look at the numbers from the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted May 1-3--that is, right after the month when the 288,000 jobs were added. Key findings from the poll are well-summarized by the Journal's John Harwood:

[Poll] results reflect a mood closer to the unsuccessful 1992 re-election campaign of the current president's father than to prevailing sentiment during Bill Clinton's successful bid for a second term in 1996. Only 42% say they are better off than four years ago, compared with 33% who say they are worse off and 23% reporting "about the same." Pluralities of political independents, swing voters and senior citizens say they have become worse off under Mr. Bush.

Voters remain skeptical [about the economy]. Disapproval of Mr. Bush's handling of the economy, 53% to 41%, represents the weakest showing of his presidency. After months of high-profile discussion of job losses, the proportion of Americans who expect better times in the next year has fallen to 42% from 50% in January. By 51% to 40% voters say Mr. Bush's tax cuts were too large, while a 63% majority shrugs off recent stock-market gains as benefiting "only businesses and investors," not "nearly all Americans."

The problem for the administration is that voters respond mostly to the economic situation on the ground, not "good" economic statistics. Economic growth in 1992, for example, was pretty good--close to what we are experiencing this year--but that didn't help Bush's father much.

Another example, less widely-known, is 1994 and its comparison to 1996. 1994 was actually quite a a good year not just for economic growth, but also for job growth--better, in fact, than 2004 is likely to be. In March of 1994, the economy added 468,000 jobs and in April, 357,000 jobs; about 3.9 million jobs were added over the year as a whole. But wage decline and income stagnation continued during that year, economic pessimism failed to lift and, as a result, the incumbent Democrats never got the lift from the economy's performance that they thought they would.

In contrast, in 1996, not only were overall economic and job growth good, but the labor market was also delivering strong wage and income growth. As a result, economic optimism soared, starting in the spring of that year, helping Clinton to an easy re-election victory.

All this suggests that Bush will continue to be in trouble on the economy until and unless it starts performing like the mid-90's Clinton economy. And don't hold your breath on that one.