How does job growth vary across metros by political leaning?
Core argument: Metro areas where Trump’s and Harris’s 2024 vote shares fell within 3 percentage points of each other — classified as “purple” — show the healthiest job growth, while job growth is weaker on average in metros least likely to back Trump or the Republican party.
We classify metropolitan areas by their political leanings based on a tally of votes cast for each candidate in the 2024 presidential election. Purple metros are defined as those in which the Trump and Harris vote shares came within 3 percentage points of each other (a +/- 3 percentage point margin). We also distinguish between metro areas that lean toward a particular party (+/- 3 to 10 percentage points) and those that strongly favor one (greater than 10% in either direction). In other words, a metro area is labeled as Very Red if Trump’s vote share exceeded Harris’ by at least 10 percentage points, and Very Blue in the other direction. This analysis of job growth suggests that the economy is doing worse on average in areas least likely to support the president or Republican party anyway, and the job market looks healthiest in the areas where Democrats need to rack up the most defections to change the balance of power, all else equal. All else is not equal, of course. Metropolitan areas do not send representatives to Washington — states and congressional districts do. Economic logic does not feed into the latter’s boundaries. Voters do not cast their ballots with only economic considerations in mind, and gerrymandering will ensure that the relationship between local economic conditions and election results will be weaker than we geographers might otherwise anticipate.

