If the number of new jobs created this year is any indication, the next president of the United States will be ... Hillary Clinton.
So far in 2016, the economy has generated an average of 181,000 new jobs a month. The last time the party controlling the White House lost the popular vote in a presidential election with that kind of employment growth was in 1976. Democratic challenger Jimmy Carter narrowly defeated President Gerald Ford 40 years ago despite an economy that was producing an average of 203,000 new jobs a month.
Hiring has increased for 73 straight months — that’s the longest streak since the U.S. began keeping records in the 1930s.
There’s a huge caveat, though: Ford was damaged by his controversial pardon of former President Richard Nixon after Nixon resigned in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
As a general rule, a hiring rate of 163,000 new jobs a month in an election year will favor the party that controls the White House. That’s been the case in every election since 1980.
Another factor in Clinton’s favor: Hiring has increased for 73 straight months, the longest streak since the U.S. began keeping records in the 1930s.
“This is the capstone on the Obama administration’s time in office,” said Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist of the jobs and recruiting website Glassdoor. “The next president is going to inherit an historically strong labor market.”
When a party loses the White House, a low hiring rate or downright decline in employment provide almost certain evidence about the outcome.
In 2008, for example, Democratic challenger Barack Obama easily beat Republican John McCain to replace outgoing George W. Bush. At the time the economy was hemorrhaging nearly 300,000 jobs a month.
Bill Clinton ousted incumbent George H.W. Bush in 1992 in an environment of weak economic growth in which the U.S. was adding a minuscule 98,000 jobs a month.
Similarly, Ronald Reagan surged past Jimmy Carter in 1980 when the pace of new-job creation averaged a measly 23,000 a month.
The current level of hiring, however, is not ironclad proof that Hillary Clinton will win.
In 2000, for example, employment grew a somewhat more modest 163,000 jobs a month. While that was enough to help Al Gore win the popular vote, he had little margin for error. George W. Bush won a narrow victory in the Electoral College to become the nation’s 43rd president.
Gore was dragged down in part by his association with Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.
As is often the case, many voters were also eager for change after eight years of one party controlling the White House. In fact, the same party rarely wins three presidential elections in a row. It’s only happened three times in the last 100 years — a point in favor of Republican Donald Trump’s pulling off an upset.