Tweet
With the economy ranking as the one issue for voters I thought it would be interesting to look at the unemployment rate in the swing states, according to the newly released official state numbers for July from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Below are the twelves states most commonly categorized as swing states with their unemployment rate.
| STATES | Unemployment Rate | Obama’s Lead* |
| NEVADA | 12 | +5 |
| NORTH CAROLINA | 9.6 | -1 |
| MICHIGAN | 9 | +7.7 |
| FLORIDA | 8.8 | +1 |
| COLORADO | 8.3 | +1 |
| NATIONAL | 8.3 | +3.9 |
| PENNSYLVANIA | 7.9 | +6.6 |
| WISCONSIN | 7.3 | +3.5 |
| MISSOURI | 7.2 | -6.3 |
| OHIO | 7.2 | +1.8 |
| VIRGINIA | 5.9 | +1 |
| NEW HAMPSHIRE | 5.4 | +3.5 |
| IOWA | 5.3 | +1 |
*Obama’s relative lead is based on the Real Clear Politics average for the state.
Looking at the chart there doesn’t seem to be a clear relationship between the unemployment level in the states and how well the incumbent President is doing. President Obama has one of his largest leads in Nevada, the state with the worst unemployment numbers. He also leads by one point in both Florida, with a higher than average rate, and in Iowa, with a very low unemployment rate.
That said, one interesting thing I did is if Obama were only to win the swing states with below average unemployment where he is currently already ahead in the polls he would end up with 272 votes, just over the threshold to win. That is even assuming he loses high unemployment states like Michigan and Nevada despite the fact that Obama currently holds a decent lead in both states.
If Mitt Romney is going to beat Obama with an economic message, he needs it to not only work in high unemployment swing states but also work in at least a few swing states that are doing significantly better than the national average.
6 Comments
wow, so it appears I have to move to Iowa??
Fascinating stuff…Wonder what Rom. will do with this. Thanks.
I’m not convinced that Obama will win Virginia. His best hope is that Virgil Goode has the spoiler effect for him. Someone said ol’ Virgil is polling at 9%.
We may not be a swing state, but here in New Jersey our unemployment rate is a full percentage point higher than it was a year ago, edging close to 10%. Doesn’t stop the infuriating commercials running on teevee about how Gov. Christie and his “bipartisan coalition” have the state headed in the “right direction”.
I assume you used U3, the “official” unemployment rate. What would a chart of U6 or U13 against presidential preference look like? Or a chart of preznit’s lead against that larger statistic, civilian labor force participation rate?
The “underemployment” rate and rate of underemployed plus “discouraged” might show a more linear correlation.
OTOH, we could theorize that the labor force participation rate is so low everywhere, and is probably not improving substantially anywhere, so it is a chronic bad statistic (never “improving”) and thus cannot be proven to have a causal effect on anything. (Using regression analysis, anyway.)
Obama’s lead displays North South demographics more than anything else. The vast majority of voters are in some kind of long ago time warp.
Nothing known will sink Obama’s ship. By that, I mean there may be an iceberg, such as everyone posting here. While a poll taken where you live would show a win for Obama, think about the number of people who feel like you feel that didn’t get polled; small % can sometime mean a lot. People who can’t stand anything Republican would say yes for Obama, when they’re really going fishing on election day.