Does everything need to be politicised like this? There's a rural/urban divide in the US, and it's well known that this divide coincides with the political divide. It's an interesting data point that rural states have seen higher murder rates than urban ones, but it doesn't necessitate garbage rhetoric like<p>> A more accurate conclusion from the data is that Republicans do a far better job blaming others for high murder rates than actually reducing high murder rates.<p>no matter how much you prepare it by straw-manning that the other side blames Democratic leadership for the same thing.<p>If you want to link crime rates to political leadership in some kind of causal fashion, you need to at least try controlling for basic things like rural vs urban areas, or domestic violence vs street crime.
Slippery how even their takeaway section switches from cities to states, and who the states voted for.<p>In the top 20 highest murder per capita cities in the US, 18 are democratic mayor, 1 is a former democrat turned independent (Las Vegas), and 1 is republican (Tulsa). It is disingenuous to switch between cities and states like this when trying to assign political causes.
The framing of this issue by party, political candidate, or support for recent political movements—as media narratives are wont to do—obscures the fact that red states are poorer, less educated, and score lower on most quality of life measures than blue states. Given that murders occur where there are more people (cities), I don't find these findings that surprising.
Not sure I would use state borders for this. Murderer is up in most larger cities in the US. Alot of these states have 1 or 2 large cities and then it is going to be more rural.<p>This could easily skew the numbers per capita for a state that does not have population more broadly spread out in its borders.<p>Crime varies a lot based off location. For example burgarly per capita last I checked was more common in rural areas. This make sense since more unattended buildings and such.<p>State level is far to coarse, and also why the political spin.
How is this on the front page? There are just so many statistical methodology problems that you cannot draw any conclusions. First of all, they vast majority of the article is n=1 where they sampled one year. Then, they talk about increase over one year and come up with the mind blowing stat of "6 out of 10 Highest Murder Rate Increases are in Trump-Voting States". From a statistical view point, that is to be expected if there are no differences. Furthermore, the entire analysis is stupid because 2020 was the pandemic year. Finally, it doesn't take a genius to correlate these to wealth levels. Go to [1] and sort by median household income. What you will find is basically the same ranking as in this article. What do you believe - poverty or political preference leads to increases of crime?<p>[1] - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...</a>
Same message from 2020 regarding Mississippi. Noting also that despite the claims to the contrary, and coming from then POTUS, it's not red/blue.
<a href="https://mississippitoday.org/2020/10/04/trump-says-blue-states-have-the-most-crime-mississippi-has-the-nations-highest-murder-rate/" rel="nofollow">https://mississippitoday.org/2020/10/04/trump-says-blue-stat...</a>
correlation != causation, people do not choose to murder more because the majority of their community votes red. There are many variables to this problem.
Whenever I see such articles, I immediately switch to my favorite data collection ref Chicago, to see how crime looks like, lately, in that corner of the States: <a href="https://heyjackass.com/" rel="nofollow">https://heyjackass.com/</a>