Jobs, jobs, jobs. Sometimes it seems like jobs are all President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney want to talk about. Reported monthly, the national unemployment rate is a piece of data most voters can comprehend and, as always, the question voters are being asked is whether they are better off now than the were four years ago. When Obama first took office in January 2009, the national unemployment rate was at 7.8%. The rate peaked during the Obama administration at 10% in October 2009. The September 2012 figures, as reported by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics last month, show the rate at 7.9%.
But will the national unemployment rate really sway the race for the White House?
Both campaigns have worked to frame the unemployment rate in the best light for their candidate. Obama inherited a fiscal mess. The president says his policies helped avoid a second Great Depression and spawned 25 consecutive months of job growth. Romney says he would be a better steward of the economy than Obama. The former governor says his plan will add 12 million jobs to the economy.
On Election Day, everyone knows the significance of the popular vote pales in comparison to the all-important Electoral College. The same could be said for unemployment data. The national rate takes the temperature of the country, but the election may be decided by the unemployment rate in the individual battleground states.
Using the map below, let’s look at state-by-state unemployment data from January 2009 to September 2012:
Here are a few key takeaways from the story that map tells:
- Since Obama took office, 20 states have enjoyed a decrease in unemployment (shown in green), two have stayed the same (yellow) and 28 have suffered an increase (orange).
- If states voted for president strictly based on the performance of their unemployment rate since Obama took office, Romney would be headed to the White House with a victory of near-landslide proportions. The Electoral College total would look like this:
| Candidate | Electoral Votes |
| Mitt Romney |
343 |
| Barack Obama |
161 |
| Undecided (Florida – 29, Nebraska – 5) |
34 |
All 50 states probably won’t vote according to the unemployment data, so let’s take a look at the states that conventional wisdom says are swing states in 2012.
Unemployment data for swing states
| State | Jan-09 | Sept-12 | Change |
Electoral Votes |
| Colorado |
6.6 |
8.0 |
1.4 |
9 |
| Florida |
8.7 |
8.7 |
0 |
29 |
| Iowa |
6.1 |
5.2 |
-0.9 |
6 |
| Nevada |
9.6 |
11.8 |
2.2 |
6 |
| New Hampshire |
5.2 |
5.7 |
0.5 |
4 |
| North Carolina |
9.0 |
9.6 |
0.6 |
15 |
| Ohio |
8.6 |
7.0 |
-1.6 |
18 |
| Virginia |
5.8 |
5.9 |
0.1 |
13 |
| Wisconsin |
7.2 |
7.3 |
0.1 |
10 |
If those states vote according to their respective unemployment rates, the electoral map tightens considerably. Neither candidate would lock up enough electoral votes to win the White House.
| Candidate | Electoral Votes |
| Barack Obama |
261 |
| Mitt Romney |
248 |
| Undecided |
29 |
The election would be decided by the 29 electoral votes originating in Florida, the lone swing state that saw its unemployment rate hold steady between January 2009 and September 2012.
The pundits say Ohio is the key to today’s election. But the swing-state jobs data suggests we might see the presidential election decided by uber-close voting in Florida. That sounds familiar.
Contributing writer: Pam Allison. Map courtesy of Esri.