The fact that Americans have rarely if ever been more content with their lot is not making it easier for presidential candidates to hit on a winning formula. If the message is today's prosperity and the longest economic boom in history, shouldn't that make Vice-President Al Gore the man to vote for because he is best placed to continue the fat years of the Clinton-Gore administration?
And if Ronald Reagan and George Bush snr reigned over the biggest national debt, budget deficits and a faltering economy, isn't that a good reason to keep the Republicans out of the White House in case they mess up again with their tax cuts?
Yes and no. There is no doubt that Americans in this election year are far happier after seven years of Clinton/Gore. Back in 1992 when they voted Bush out of office, only 12 per cent told pollsters that economic conditions were "excellent to good". This week 71 per cent agreed with that. A huge 83 per cent are "satisfied with the economy" compared with 25 per cent seven years ago.
So why isn't Al Gore reaping the fruits of this prosperity? Political observers see two problems for Gore.
One, he is an uninspiring if sincere man who bores voters. Two, he is too identified with a president whose moral character is a big negative for most people, presumably because of the Monica Lewinsky affair. Two out of three voters "disapprove of Clinton as a person" although the same proportion approves of the way he is doing his job as president according to a poll this week.
Gore is working hard at proving that he is now his own man. As vice-president he had a duty to stay loyal to Clinton but he may have pushed this requirement further than necessary when on the day of his impeachment, he hailed him as "one of the best presidents" America has had.
Now Gore rarely mentions Clinton by name and has made it clear that he does not want the president to campaign actively for him. In Iowa this week Gore, when questioned about the Lewinsky affair, replied: "I wouldn't have done that. I'm running for president on my own, as who I am, on my vision, on my agenda."
The President, however, is working for Gore by pushing new initiatives which can help him in the social and environmental areas.
Gore is also an experienced campaigner who has halted the momentum built up in recent months by his opponent for the Democratic nomination, former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley. On a national basis, 59 per cent of Democratic voters support Gore compared with only 30 per cent for Bradley.
But in New Hampshire, where both men have been campaigning intensively for the primary on February 1st, Bradley has drawn ahead - by as much as 10 points according to the latest poll. New Hampshire, where the Democrats pride themselves on their liberal leanings, is more Bradley's kind of state, so if he can't win there it would be a possibly fatal setback for his campaign.
On the Republican side, it is a similar situation. Governor George Bush is behind Senator John McCain in New Hampshire but way ahead in the latest national poll where 63 per cent of Republicans support Bush and only 18 per cent McCain.
This latest Gallup poll for USA Today/CNN shows Bradley doing better than Gore against Bush in the presidential election itself. If Bush is facing Gore next November he would have the support of 52 per cent to 43 per cent for Gore.
If Bush is up against Bradley, it would be 49 per cent for Bush and 47 per cent for Bradley, which is virtually level pegging, allowing for the margin of error in such polling.
What this really shows is that American voters outside of New Hampshire are not really focused on next November, but as the rate of primary elections escalates through March this will change.
Meanwhile, all the candidates are struggling to find the issue which has most impact for the voters. As we have seen, the booming economy is not giving Gore the strong push that one would expect.
It may even be having the opposite effect as voters take the present prosperity for granted and put more emphasis on other issues such as healthcare and education.
For Republicans, tax cuts have been the usual bait held out to voters but the "baby boomers" born in the 1950s are now more preoccupied with keeping the social security and health systems - and their pensions - safe from bankruptcy.
Both Bush and McCain have duly proposed tax cuts to keep the traditional Republican voter happy, but they have made little impact.
A row over whether flying the Confederate flag over the state capital building in South Carolina is offensive to blacks or a tribute to the fallen rebels of the Civil War got more attention as McCain stumbled and Bush played it safe.
Gore and Bradley are appealing to specific constituencies such as gays and minorities but there is virtually no difference in their message for both groups.
The result is that each side is watching for a gaffe by the other and immediately highlighting it.
This is gripping stuff for the media but often passes over the heads of the electorate.