For Voters, It's the Job-Growth Trend That Counts When Al Gore went before voters in November 2000, as a sitting vice president promising to continue President Bill Clinton's economic policies, the economy was in excellent shape. The unemployment rate had fallen to only 3.9 percent, and middle-class incomes were growing at their fastest clip in a generation. Yet over the course of the 2000 campaign, the economy also slowed markedly. Monthly job growth at the start of the year was almost 300,000; by November, it was only about 100,000. If Mr. Gore had the benefit of an economy functioning at a very high level, he did not have the benefit of one growing at a rapid rate. The outcome of the 2000 election was exceedingly close - roughly as close as the modest pace of job creation suggested it should have been, based on historical patterns, and far closer than the high level of economic activity might have suggested. Four years later, when President George W. Bush was running for re-election, the economy was in far worse shape than it had been in 2000. The unemployment rate was roughly 5.5 percent in late 2004 and would have been higher if so many people hadn't dropped out of the labor force, neither working nor looking for work. But the economy was also beginning to improve and to escape the jobless recovery of 2002 and 2003. Even if the level of economic activity in 2004 was vastly different from the level in 2000, the rate of growth in the two years was quite similar. In the 12 months ending in November 2000, according to the Labor Department's survey of employers, nationwide employment grew by 1.6 percent. In the 12 months ending in November 2004, it grew by an identical 1.6 percent. In the months immediately before the two elections, job growth was actually stronger in 2004 than 2000, helping Mr. Bush to win re-election narrowly. If you looked only at how strong the economy was in 2000 and 2004, the elections would surprise you. If you looked at growth rate, however, the outcomes look unsurprising. Voters, it seems, have short memories. Nothing appears to have a bigger influence on presidential elections than the pace of economic growth in the year leading up to the election. Keep that in mind when you hear simple comparisons about no president having won re-election when the unemployment rate was above a certain level. Ronald Reagan easily won re-election with the rate above 7 percent. Mr. Gore lost with the rate below 4 percent. As we have written before, the rate of growth this year seems to be pointing to a close election. The Times's weekly tracker of job growth, based on forecasts from Moody's Analytics, is largely unchanged this week. The last seven days of economic data have contained few big surprises. Average job growth in the six months before Election Day is projected to be 184,000 - up from 183,000 a week ago - which suggests the economy should be a modest help to President Obama. History indicates that monthly job growth of 100,000 to 175,000 would lead to a very tight race this year, with anything much slower making Mitt Romney the favorite and anything much faster making Mr. Obama the favorite. Moody's Analytics has posted the details of its forecast on its Web site. Nate Silver described the historical patterns in more detail in a recent post for the FiveThirtyEight blog.