Do blue states appreciate more than red states?

[Austin Wolff]

I was curious, so I looked at 20 years of Zillow data.

Growing up in Los Angeles, I always believed a saying that investors here seem to repeat: blue states appreciate more than red thanks to things like zoning restrictions and certain democratic policies (which is an entirely different topic I won't be delving on here).

For anyone that didn't know, here is a map of each state's electoral voting history (for the previous 5 elections):

Here is a heat map of 10-year price growth by state:

At first glance, it appears the majority of states with the most growth were the "pandemic boom states" like Idaho, Nevada, Tennessee, Georgia, Utah, and Florida. All of these states voted red in the 2024 election. (Surprisingly, the blue states of Maine and New Hampshire did see solid growth, along with the not-so-surprising Washington.)

But what about their growth over a longer time horizon?

(Zillow didn't have 2005 data for Montana or North Dakota.)

I can maybe see a case being made for Washington and Oregon. But Idaho, Utah and Tennessee also saw big price growth over the same time period.

To settle this debate, I simply calculated the correlation between each state's growth and the categorical "red' or "blue" variable. The correlation coefficient came in at 0.03. Basically, there doesn't appear to be any relationship between a state's voting history and its price growth.

Just because a state is blue doesn't mean it will automatically benefit from price growth. Things like job growth and supply constraints affect price much more than its residents' voting patterns.