There are only two charts in that article that matter. The ones on productivity and education. These explain everything else in the article. The article over g

There are only two charts in that article that matter. The ones on productivity and education. These explain everything else in the article. The article over generalizes on geography. My city is deeply red but it recently passed San Francisco in population and is growing faster in nearly all metrics including jobs, housing, wages, and so forth. I think the article is generally correct in that urban clusters tend to be more blue and rural areas tend to be more red, but that is a product of population density more than anything economically related. Despite my city now having more people than San Francisco it is also growing geographically and can maintain its average density. It is now geographically larger than Dallas. If this rate of growth is maintained this city may enter the top ten of US cities, both area and population, over coming decades and it will probably continue to be a red congressional district. Also, next door is a suburb that is possibly the wealthiest mid-sized city in the country and it’s also in this red district.