UNEMPLOYMENT in battleground states. good news for bush?
Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:42 am
Battleground states and unemployment
Contrary to what has passed for conventional wisdom during much of the presidential campaign season, a large majority of the 2004 battleground states, many of which are in the manufacturing-oriented Midwest, have unemployment rates that are below the national average — some by a wide margin. Given the strong possibility that this year's presidential election could be decided by one or two battleground states, the political impact of the unemployment rate in one or two states could prove to be the determining factor next November.
Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent for The Washington Times, recently reviewed the latest unemployment data for 17 battleground states. Compared to a March national unemployment rate of 5.7 percent, Mr. Lambro's analysis revealed that 13 of the 17 key states enjoyed lower unemployment rates. They were: Iowa (4.1 percent); New Hampshire (4.2); Nevada (4.4); Florida (4.6); Minnesota (4.7); Maine (5.0); Missouri (5.1); Pennsylvania (5.1); Wisconsin (5.2); Arizona (5.3); West Virginia (5.4); Arkansas (5.5); and New Mexico (5.6). The states with unemployment rates higher than the national rate of 5.7 percent were Ohio (5.9); Washington (6.1); Michigan (6.6); and Oregon (7.1).
Not surprisingly, the relatively low statewide unemployment rates often translated into polling advantages for Mr. Bush. According to a recent Mason-Dixon poll, for example, the president leads Sen. John Kerry 51-43 in Florida, a state he won in 2000 by less than 0.01 percent. Significantly, recent polls reveal that Mr. Bush also leads Mr. Kerry in New Mexico (46-45), Wisconsin (47-41) and Pennsylvania (46-40). Al Gore won all three of those states, which will have a total of 36 electoral votes in 2004.
No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio, but Mr. Bush currently trails Mr. Kerry by two points there, partly, perhaps, because Ohio's unemployment rate hovers above the national average. However, Ohio's rate has recently begun to decline. Mr. Kerry also leads by two points in Missouri, which Mr. Bush also won in 2000. Here again, however, Missouri's unemployment rate is nearly half a point lower than a year ago. In Michigan, which Mr. Gore won and where the unemployment rate is a relatively hefty 6.6 percent, a recent EPIC/MRA poll shows Mr. Bush trailing by only two points.
The fact that 13 of 17 battleground states enjoy lower-than-average unemployment rates is not the only good news on the employment front for the White House, which is still glowing from the 308,000 jobs created during March, the largest monthly increase in four years. Labor Department data further reveal that the unemployment rates in 15 of the 17 states are lower than they were a year ago. (New Hampshire's is unchanged, and Maine's is 0.1 percent higher.)
So, while Democrats may seek to exploit the fact that unemployment rates in key states will nonetheless still be higher this November than they were in November 2000, when the national average was 3.9 percent, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry will almost certainly confront the same problem that bedeviled Walter Mondale in 1984. Specifically, while the average unemployment rate during President Reagan's first term (8.6 percent) was substantially higher than the average rate during President Carter's term (6.5 percent), Mr. Reagan benefited from the fact that the rate had been rapidly falling during 1983 and 1984. In contrast, in terms of the unemployment rate, May-October 1980 represented the worst six consecutive months during the Carter presidency.
Thus, given the evidence that the trend in the unemployment rate is more important at election time than its level and given the onset of robust job creation in March, the White House has to be pleased. And Mr. Kerry must be concerned.
washington times
Contrary to what has passed for conventional wisdom during much of the presidential campaign season, a large majority of the 2004 battleground states, many of which are in the manufacturing-oriented Midwest, have unemployment rates that are below the national average — some by a wide margin. Given the strong possibility that this year's presidential election could be decided by one or two battleground states, the political impact of the unemployment rate in one or two states could prove to be the determining factor next November.
Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent for The Washington Times, recently reviewed the latest unemployment data for 17 battleground states. Compared to a March national unemployment rate of 5.7 percent, Mr. Lambro's analysis revealed that 13 of the 17 key states enjoyed lower unemployment rates. They were: Iowa (4.1 percent); New Hampshire (4.2); Nevada (4.4); Florida (4.6); Minnesota (4.7); Maine (5.0); Missouri (5.1); Pennsylvania (5.1); Wisconsin (5.2); Arizona (5.3); West Virginia (5.4); Arkansas (5.5); and New Mexico (5.6). The states with unemployment rates higher than the national rate of 5.7 percent were Ohio (5.9); Washington (6.1); Michigan (6.6); and Oregon (7.1).
Not surprisingly, the relatively low statewide unemployment rates often translated into polling advantages for Mr. Bush. According to a recent Mason-Dixon poll, for example, the president leads Sen. John Kerry 51-43 in Florida, a state he won in 2000 by less than 0.01 percent. Significantly, recent polls reveal that Mr. Bush also leads Mr. Kerry in New Mexico (46-45), Wisconsin (47-41) and Pennsylvania (46-40). Al Gore won all three of those states, which will have a total of 36 electoral votes in 2004.
No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio, but Mr. Bush currently trails Mr. Kerry by two points there, partly, perhaps, because Ohio's unemployment rate hovers above the national average. However, Ohio's rate has recently begun to decline. Mr. Kerry also leads by two points in Missouri, which Mr. Bush also won in 2000. Here again, however, Missouri's unemployment rate is nearly half a point lower than a year ago. In Michigan, which Mr. Gore won and where the unemployment rate is a relatively hefty 6.6 percent, a recent EPIC/MRA poll shows Mr. Bush trailing by only two points.
The fact that 13 of 17 battleground states enjoy lower-than-average unemployment rates is not the only good news on the employment front for the White House, which is still glowing from the 308,000 jobs created during March, the largest monthly increase in four years. Labor Department data further reveal that the unemployment rates in 15 of the 17 states are lower than they were a year ago. (New Hampshire's is unchanged, and Maine's is 0.1 percent higher.)
So, while Democrats may seek to exploit the fact that unemployment rates in key states will nonetheless still be higher this November than they were in November 2000, when the national average was 3.9 percent, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry will almost certainly confront the same problem that bedeviled Walter Mondale in 1984. Specifically, while the average unemployment rate during President Reagan's first term (8.6 percent) was substantially higher than the average rate during President Carter's term (6.5 percent), Mr. Reagan benefited from the fact that the rate had been rapidly falling during 1983 and 1984. In contrast, in terms of the unemployment rate, May-October 1980 represented the worst six consecutive months during the Carter presidency.
Thus, given the evidence that the trend in the unemployment rate is more important at election time than its level and given the onset of robust job creation in March, the White House has to be pleased. And Mr. Kerry must be concerned.
washington times