Skip to footer

Seven battleground states: Does economy help Obama or Romney?

Seven states have emerged as battlegrounds that may well determine the 2012 presidential election. Here's a look at seven battleground states and how their economic situation is shaping the presidential election:

4. New Hampshire

Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters/File
Republican vice presidential candidate and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan speaks to supporters during a campaign event in Derry, N.H., last month. Despite a low unemployment rate, New Hampshire has seen its job growth crawl to a near standstill and its unemployment rate rise.

For three decades, low-tax New Hampshire has been used to outperforming neighboring Vermont and Massachusetts in economic growth. Now, the tide seems to have shifted.

Even though it has the second-best employment rate among the battleground states (5.7 percent), New Hampshire has seen its job growth all but stall in the past year. It ranks second-worst in job growth among the battleground states and No. 42 overall. It's unemployment rate is the highest it has been in nearly two years. In February, Vermont began to post a lower unemployment rate and Massachusetts is closing the gap.

New Hampshire's gains in wholesale and retail trade have been offset by losses in education services and arts, entertainment, and recreation. Since the Great Recession, the state has regained less than 10 percent of the jobs it lost. Vermont is 59 percent of the way back to its peak; Massachusetts, 70 percent.

Productivity growth has been slowing for a decade, according to a September report by the New Hampshire Center of Public Policy Studies. The labor force has shrunk from its 2008 levels. Capital investment has slowed.

"We have to change the way we think about ourselves as a state," Steve Norton, the director of the center, told the Union Leader in Machester, N.H. "We can no longer assume that New Hampshire will continue along the economic trajectory it has for many years."

Advantage: Obama, but within the margin of error.

4 of 7
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.