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:

7. Wisconsin

Darren Hauck/Reuters
Residents wait in line during lunch hour to cast their early votes in the upcoming US presidential elections at the Milwaukee Municipal Building in Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 29, 2012. In the middle of a weak recovery, Wisconsin has cut state spending dramatically – the kind of blueprint that appeals to conservative voters.

Of all the battleground states, Wisconsin has gone furthest along the path that the Romney-Ryan ticket would like to take the US: smaller government through tough spending cuts. The cuts championed by Gov. Scott Walker have proved controversial, cutting $1 billion from education and aid to local government over two years, but they've balanced the budget and generated larger-than-expected tax revenues – up 4.7 percent in fiscal year 2012.  

Now in surplus and with more than $120 million in a rainy day fund, Wisconsin's budget has "marked a notable departure from past practice, with deep structural cuts, including to employee benefits and local aid, to achieve forecast balance," rating agency Fitch noted earlier this month.

GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, a native of Janesville, Wis., would be proud.

Wisconsin has achieved this remarkable fiscal turnaround despite the worst economic recovery among the battleground states. Through September, it is one of only five states in the nation to have lost jobs over the past year. (The governor argues the estimates are inaccurate and points to actual quarterly counts showing a 1.7 percent increase in private-sector employment and 1.2 percent annual increase overall through March, which is just ahead of New Hampshire and on par with Virginia.) Either way, Wisconsin's economic performance is nothing to brag about. It is less than halfway back to its peak employment before the recession and heavily dependent on manufacturing, which has slowed nationally in recent months.   

In June, Governor Walker survived a recall election.

Advantage: Obama, within the margin of error.

7 of 7

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.

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