Look, most Presidents have very little to do with the economy and how America is doing. For example, the PC boom in the early 90s and Internet boom throughout the 90s made President Bill Clinton look good. The economy was humming, so he got to spend his time "doing" other things.
The DotCom crash happened in 1999. The economy was hit but would have survived if not for the second crash that occurred after 9/11. Clinton was a terrible president who gets all the accolades of a great economy that are undeserved. If anything, he was too busy dealing with his extramarital sex life to have any clue what was happening with the DotCom world.
Bush Jr. was also a terrible President but he looks way worse than Clinton because both 9/11 and the housing bubble happened during his years in office. Neither were his fault. But hey, he was in office, so blame him.
In reality, Trump has to work with the balance of powers. Usually a president can't do too much damage.
Similarly, Obama came after the housing crash and there was nowhere to go but up and he was just in time to catch the mobile market and the Cloud markets that are booming and driving the booming economy. He passed Obamacare, which had a very low approval rating. Forcing a bill down the people throat when the majority vote against it is not a good thing. However, trying to help everyone have health care is a good thing. So who knows if we good or bad. Usually, it is hard to tell if a President was good or bad until about 20 years after they leave office.
Trump could be in for a shock if the mobile and cloud tech bubbles pop. The economy could tank and there is nothing he or anyone else can do about it.
When it comes to the economy, the President has less power, than Apple, Microsoft, Walmart, NetFlix, etc...