I would really enjoy seeing an article like this paired with analysis from somebody with the same education level but from the University of Chicago economics d

I would really enjoy seeing an article like this paired with analysis from somebody with the same education level but from the University of Chicago economics department or something like that. They'd probably tell two very different stories. A few things that jumped out at me: Two of the sectors where the author is touting gains for Democrats both have significant left-leaning bias: academia and tech. How does that play into this? Democrats are getting more college degrees now, but which degrees? Why start so many graphs of Democrats doing better than Republicans in 2008 when we had a big recession and a new president who didn't prioritize rural America? Why not go back to 2000 or 1990 so we can get a bigger picture? And pardon my ignorance, but "GDP per seat"? And why is this graph next to Median household income? Are they saying that the changes in median household income are causing "GDP per seat" to rise? Urban populations have changed a lot in the past 10 years, are we even talking about the same households? Household income statistics are prone to distortions[0], GDP per seat is probably prone to even more, why not use GDP per capita? It feels like they were just happy to find two graphs where the Democrat line went up and the Republican line went down and they know most people will just glance at the graph without wasting their morning thinking about what GDP per seat really means and how it's affected by the population flows of the past decade. [0] - https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/09/16/misleading-statistics https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/09/16/misleading...