Nevada Leads Income Growth in Both Red and Blue Eras, New Data Shows

National inflation-adjusted personal income grew at an average annual rate of 3.1% during the 138 quarters when Democrats controlled the White House, according to a new analysis by Southern California News Group business columnist Jonathan Lansner. During the 164 quarters under Republican presidents, including the current administration of Donald Trump, that same metric expanded at a 2.8% annual rate. The data, which spans from 1950 to the present, suggests a 0.3 percentage-point advantage for the Democratic party in the national aggregate.

Lansner constructed the dataset to answer a common question about which political party is more beneficial for household finances. The metric combines wages, specific investment income, and government distributions. To ensure a fair comparison, the analysis delayed quarterly results by six months for each presidency to account for the lag effect of previous administrations. The figures were also adjusted for inflation using the national Consumer Price Index. The data shows that the average inflation rate was 3.6% under both Republican and Democratic leadership.

While the national figures favor Democrats, the state-level data reveals a different picture. Nevada recorded the highest average annual income growth in both political eras. Under Republican leadership, Nevada’s income grew by 5.4% per year. During Democratic terms, the state’s growth rate accelerated to 6%. Arizona and Florida also ranked highly in both periods. In the Republican era, Arizona grew at 5.2% and Florida at 5.1%. Under Democrats, both states posted 5% growth.

Conversely, several states lagged behind in both scenarios. The District of Columbia recorded the lowest growth during Republican terms, with income rising just 1.4% annually. Michigan followed at 1.6%, while Ohio and Iowa grew at 1.9%. During Democratic terms, West Virginia was the slowest-growing state at 1.5%. The District of Columbia again appeared near the bottom with 1.8% growth, joined by South Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Iowa at 2.1%.

California’s performance varied slightly depending on the party in power. During Republican presidencies, the state’s personal income grew at a 3.4% annual rate, ranking 15th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Under Democratic leadership, California’s growth rate was 3.8%, placing it 10th in the nation. The difference between the two eras for California is a 0.4 percentage-point advantage for Democrats.

Across the entire country, 31 states experienced slower personal income growth under Republican presidencies compared to Democratic administrations. In 20 states, the trend reversed, with income growing faster when Republicans held the White House. Lansner notes that no clear partisan theme exists among the states that underperformed the most during Republican terms. Michigan, South Carolina, Texas, Colorado, and Washington all fell into this lower-growth category.

Energy-heavy states showed a distinct pattern favoring Republican leadership. New Mexico, South Dakota, Alaska, and North Dakota experienced their strongest economic performance when Republicans controlled the White House. These states benefited from policies that Lansner observes tend to favor the oil and gas industries. New Mexico, for instance, saw a 4.1% annual growth rate under Republicans, ranking fifth in the nation during that period.

The analysis serves as one method for evaluating economic performance, though Lansner acknowledges that other methodologies could yield different results. The data indicates that while the national gap is narrow, the local impact varies widely by state. As mid-term elections approach, voters will weigh these economic outcomes against other political priorities. The final vote is expected to be cast on Tuesday, determining control of Congress.

The spreadsheet used for this analysis is part of a larger collection of economic trends maintained by Lansner. The data points to a complex relationship between national policy and local economic health. For many states, the difference between red and blue leadership was marginal, with growth rates clustering around the 3% to 5% range. The most dramatic disparities were found in the energy sector and in states with specific industrial profiles.

Readers of the analysis can review the full dataset to see how their specific state ranks against the national average. The numbers suggest that while the national narrative often favors one party, the local experience can diverge sharply. This divergence may influence how voters in swing states perceive the economic record of the current administration. The data remains static, reflecting only the periods covered in the 1950 through present timeline.