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:

5. Ohio

Jay LaPrete/AP/File
First lady Michelle Obama campaigns in mid-October at Ohio Wesleyan University in Delaware, Ohio. Ohio's diverse economy makes it difficult for candidates to sound a consistent theme, since some areas have benefited from President Obama's initiatives (auto-parts companies) and some have suffered (coal companies).

Ohio has the most diversified private sector of any of the battleground states: advanced manufacturing and coal mining; car parts and healthcare; well-regarded research universities and Appalachian poverty; a diversified white-collar business sector and corn and soybean farms. Among the battleground states, it's seen the most job growth in the past year and ranks 12th in the nation. Employment has grown steadily but slowly for three years.

As a rust-belt state, Ohio stands out more for job losses that have occurred over a decade. Employment peaked in 2000. At current rates of job growth, it would take nine more years for Ohio to get back to that level.

The economic cross-currents in Ohio make it difficult for candidates to make statewide appeals. In southeastern Ohio's coal country, miners are up in arms about declining jobs and Governor Romney has taken up their cause. In northwest Ohio, where auto parts companies ship to assembly plants across the border in Michigan, President Obama has touted the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler as a good thing.

Three decades ago, Ohio pioneered public-private research partnerships to boost economic competitiveness – a model that the federal government used and extended under both Republican and Democratic administrations. But Obama's push beyond research into outright loans to clean-energy companies is something that may not go over well with the state's conservative business outlook.

Advantage: Obama, within the margin of error.

5 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.