And for equally obvious reasons, Mitt Romney’s take on the report was significantly dimmer.
Romney said he’d like to see growth in the neighborhood of 500,000 jobs per month.
But as The Washington Post’s Peter Whoriskey points out, that kind of growth might be a hard target to reach.
Whoriskey writes: “Yet an economy that is consistently adding 500,000 jobs a month has rarely been achieved in U.S. history, according to Labor Department figures. Over the last 20 years, there have been only two months - once in 1997 and 2010 - when the economy added nonfarm payroll jobs at that rate. The average annual monthly growth in those payroll jobs over the last two decades has been about 200,000.”
Joe Watkins, a GOP political analyst, said on CNBC Friday morning that as much as both parties try to use the jobs data to make the other’s vision for the recovery look flawed, the national jobless rate may not have that much bearing on the election results in the end.
“What I say it means for the presidential election is that all politics are local. Even if the White House tries later on today to spin the numbers as some kind of a positive sign, you’ve got to remember that this race is going to come down to maybe five or six states,” he said. Therefore, an assessment of the jobs picture in those states might be a better predictor of how the election will shake out, Watkins said.
Wondering how the state of the economy might weigh on Romney’s chance of winning in November? Check out Ezra Klein’s election predictions tool, which uses a model that factors in economic growth and presidential approval ratings to forecast who will win in November.
More from The Washington Post: