Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What is the correlation between party affiliation and violent crime rates in the United States?
Executive Summary
The available analyses present competing claims: some reporting finds higher violent crime concentrated in Democratic-run cities, while others identify rural, Republican-voting counties as having high crime or that right-wing political violence accounts for most politically motivated murders [1] [2]. These sources agree that simple partisan labels fail to explain crime patterns: context — urban vs rural, measurement choices, and political violence vs general violent crime — shapes conclusions [1] [2]. Recent publications from September 2025 frame the debate but omit consistent, comparable metrics and causal analysis.
1. Why the headlines disagree: competing snapshots and timelines
The sources offer snapshots from September 2025 that use different scopes and endpoints, producing divergent headlines about party affiliation and crime [1] [2]. One analysis frames the issue as Democratic cities having higher homicide rates using metropolitan comparisons through 2023, while another emphasizes that rural counties — which lean Republican — show high crime rates and that politically motivated murders are largely linked to right-wing actors [1] [2]. These differences stem from choices about geography (city, metro, county), time window, and the specific crimes measured, and the sources published within days of one another during September 2025.
2. Political violence versus everyday violent crime — apples and oranges
A CNN-cited analysis focuses on politically motivated murders and attitudes toward political violence, not broad violent-crime rates, concluding right-wing actors account for the majority of politically motivated killings and Republicans show more tolerance for political violence [2]. That contrasts with metropolitan homicide comparisons used elsewhere. Conflating political violence with general violent crime misleads: politically driven killings are a subset with different drivers, perpetrators, and policy implications, yet at least one source uses political-violence data to argue about partisanship and overall violence [2].
3. Urban-rural divide and the misleading “party in charge” metric
Analyses note that urban Democratic governance and rural Republican voting patterns overlap with different crime dynamics, creating paradoxical impressions: cities with high homicide rates often vote Democratic, but many high-crime rural counties vote Republican [1]. This reveals a key omission: attributing crime to the party "in charge" ignores structural factors like poverty, segregation, policing resources, population density, and economic decline, which vary by place and correlate with vote patterns. The sources point to this complexity without providing a unified causal model [1].
4. Partisan polarization as a contextual driver, not a direct cause
The academic work on polarization, Radical American Partisanship, situates rising partisan intensity and acceptance of extreme tactics as a risk to democratic norms, implying indirect links between partisanship and violence [3]. While not an empirical crime-rate study, the book highlights how social and psychological polarization can increase tolerance for political violence and erode norms that restrain violence. This perspective complements empirical findings about politically motivated killings and suggests a pathway where partisan attitudes shape the likelihood and acceptability of violence even if they don’t map cleanly onto local crime statistics [3] [2].
5. What the recent sources omit — key methodological gaps
All sources, dated primarily in September 2025, leave out consistent crosswalks that would be needed to settle the question: no single standardized dataset, no unified geographic unit, and limited controls for socioeconomic variables are provided [1] [2]. None of the analyses present longitudinal causal models that separate who governs a locality from where voters live, nor do they reconcile politically motivated homicides with routine violent crime metrics. These omissions mean the sources provide partial, compatible pieces rather than a definitive answer [1] [2].
6. How partisan narratives shape selective use of crime data
The September 2025 pieces illustrate how partisan narratives cherry-pick the geographic or categorical lens that best supports a political point: Democratic-run cities for one argument, rural Republican counties for another, and political-violence datasets for a third [1] [2]. Each framing serves different agendas — criticizing a party’s governance, defending a party against claims of greater propensity for violence, or emphasizing ideological threats. The sources thus reflect competing agendas and underscore the need to evaluate the metric and motive behind each claim [1] [2].
7. Bottom line and what rigorous analysis would require
The materials show no simple, uniform correlation between party affiliation and violent crime; outcomes depend entirely on definitions, geography, and whether one examines political violence or broader violent crime [1] [2] [3]. A rigorous resolution would require standardized datasets across consistent units (county/metro/city), controls for poverty, policing, demographics, and time trends, and separate treatment of politically motivated versus nonpolitical violent crime. Until such comparative, controlled studies are presented, the evidence supports complex, context-dependent conclusions rather than a single partisan verdict [1] [2] [3].