Since 2015 has there been more violence from liberals or Republicans

1. Summary of the results

The data overwhelmingly indicates that right-wing extremist violence has been significantly more frequent and deadly than left-wing violence since 2015. Multiple sources consistently report that right-wing attacks have accounted for approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 ^[1]. This pattern has been particularly pronounced in the decade leading up to 2025, with right-wing violence demonstrating both higher frequency and greater lethality compared to liberal or left-wing violence ^{[1] [2]}.

However, 2025 marked a notable shift in this trend. The Center for Strategic and International Studies documented that left-wing terrorist attacks actually outnumbered right-wing attacks in the first half of 2025, representing a significant departure from historical patterns ^[2]. Despite this recent uptick in left-wing incidents, the sources emphasize that the overall number of left-wing attacks remains relatively low and that right-wing violence continues to pose a substantial threat ^[2].

When examining the broader historical context, politically motivated terrorism accounts for only a small percentage of all murders in the United States, with right-wing terrorists responsible for the majority of deaths since 1975, followed by Islamist terrorists, and then left-wing terrorists ^[3]. This data suggests that while political violence exists across the spectrum, the scale and impact have been disproportionately associated with right-wing extremism.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements that significantly impact the analysis. First, the definition of "violence" itself is not specified - whether this includes property damage, physical assaults, terrorist attacks, or other forms of political violence. The sources primarily focus on terrorist attacks and extremist violence, which may not capture the full spectrum of political violence ^[1].

Historical context reveals that the United States has experienced political violence throughout its history, with the current era being marked by increased polarization, widespread gun availability, and underfunded mental health care systems ^[4]. This broader context suggests that contemporary political violence should be understood within America's "long, dark history" of such incidents rather than as an entirely new phenomenon ^[4].

The sources also indicate that politicians themselves have played a role in fueling political violence, with evidence suggesting that the right has been more willing to act on violent feelings, though both sides have engaged in inflammatory rhetoric ^[5]. This political dimension adds complexity to the question of which side bears greater responsibility for violence.

Recent trends in 2025 complicate the historical narrative, as the dramatic decrease in right-wing attacks coincided with an increase in left-wing incidents ^[2]. This shift suggests that political violence patterns can change rapidly and may be influenced by current events, political climate, and other temporal factors not captured in the original question.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The framing of the question itself contains potential bias by creating a false equivalency between "liberals" and "Republicans" - terms that don't necessarily represent comparable political categories. The question implies that political violence can be neatly divided along partisan lines, when the reality is more complex and involves various forms of extremism that may not align perfectly with mainstream political parties.

The question also omits the significant role of other forms of political violence, including Islamist terrorism, which the data shows has been responsible for more deaths than left-wing terrorism historically ^[3]. By focusing solely on a liberal-Republican dichotomy, the question ignores other important sources of political violence.

The timeframe selection of "since 2015" may introduce bias by potentially cherry-picking a period that could favor one narrative over another. The sources provide data going back to 1975 and 2001, offering a more comprehensive historical perspective that shows consistent patterns over decades ^{[1] [3]}.

Finally, the question's binary framing fails to acknowledge that political violence is relatively rare overall in the United States, representing only a small fraction of total violence ^[3]. This context is crucial for understanding that while the data shows clear patterns in extremist violence, the absolute numbers remain relatively low compared to other forms of violence in American society.