Study: Democratic presidents linked to slightly higher income growth

Democratic presidents presided over a slightly higher average annual growth rate for national personal income since 1950, according to a new spreadsheet analysis. The data shows a 3.1 percent average annual increase during the 138 financial quarters when Democrats controlled the White House. That figure exceeds the 2.8 percent average recorded during the 164 quarters of Republican rule. The difference is 0.3 percentage points.

Jonathan Lansner, a business columnist for the Southern California News Group, compiled the data. His metric combines wages, specific investment income, and government distributions. This approach tracks the state of individual checkbooks while reflecting changes in employment and population. Lansner adjusted the quarterly results by six months for each presidency to account for the lag in policy effects from previous administrations. He also applied the national Consumer Price Index to remove the impact of inflation from the figures. Inflation averaged 3.6 percent under both parties.

The national average masks significant state-level variation. During Republican presidencies, Nevada recorded the highest annual income growth at 5.4 percent after inflation. Arizona followed at 5.2 percent, with Florida at 5.1 percent. Utah and New Mexico rounded out the top five with 4.3 percent and 4.1 percent respectively. At the bottom of the list, the District of Columbia saw the lowest growth at 1.4 percent. Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, and Rhode Island also recorded slow increases, ranging from 1.6 percent to 2.1 percent. California ranked 15th with an average annual growth of 3.4 percent.

Under Democratic administration, the top performing states remained largely similar. Nevada again led the nation with 6 percent average annual growth. Florida and Arizona tied for second place at 5 percent. Colorado and Texas followed with 4.5 percent and 4.3 percent respectively. West Virginia showed the slowest economic expansion at 1.5 percent. The District of Columbia, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Iowa all grew by 1.8 percent to 2.1 percent. California improved its standing to 10th place with 3.8 percent growth.

Lansner’s comparison reveals that 31 states experienced slower personal income growth under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. Twenty states showed the opposite trend, outperforming during Republican terms. The gap varies by region. California’s income growth favored Democratic presidencies by 0.4 percentage points. Energy-heavy states such as New Mexico, South Dakota, Alaska, and North Dakota received the largest boosts under Republican leadership, reflecting a tilt toward oil and gas industries. Other states like Michigan, South Carolina, Texas, Colorado, and Washington underperformed the most during red terms.

The analysis suggests that pocketbook issues may influence Tuesday’s mid-term elections, which will determine control of Congress. Lansner notes that while the math is simple, methodologies can produce different results. He observes that in the current political climate, agreement with the data often aligns with a voter’s preferred party. The study provides a concrete baseline for comparing economic performance across the last seven decades.

The next step in the election cycle is the voting process itself, scheduled for Tuesday. Voters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia will cast ballots for members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The results will determine which party holds the majority in both chambers. The economic data presented by Lansner offers one lens through which to view those choices, focusing on long-term trends rather than short-term fluctuations.