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: Are there any red cities that are as violent as blue cities
Executive Summary
The available analyses show there is no simple red-versus-blue dichotomy when it comes to city violent crime: some Democratic-governed cities have very high murder rates while many Republican-leaning or rural places also experience elevated violence, so political color alone does not predict city-level violence [1] [2] [3]. Recent reporting and data-based fact-checks emphasize that geography, local socioeconomics, and rural versus urban dynamics explain much of the variation in violent crime rates, and multiple analyses conclude mayoral party affiliation has little measurable effect [2] [3].
1. Why the Red/Blue Question Keeps Circling: political narratives meet messy data
Debates about whether “red” cities are as violent as “blue” cities reflect conflicting political narratives rather than a straightforward empirical pattern. Multiple summaries note that some high-profile high-crime cities—such as Memphis—are governed by Democrats, but that this is an exception rather than proof of a general rule; reports stress that crime rates vary widely within both red and blue jurisdictions [2] [1]. Fact-checking pieces published in September 2025 concluded that partisan labels of mayors or states explain little of the variance in violent crime, suggesting that political messaging often oversimplifies complex, localized trends [3].
2. The rural wrinkle: high violence outside big blue cities
Analysts emphasize that many areas with high violent-crime rates are rural counties or smaller cities that do not fit the “blue city” stereotype. Recent commentary from September 2025 highlights that rural violence can drive higher overall regional rates and that rurality correlates with some types of violent crime more strongly than partisan control [2]. This complicates comparisons that focus only on large metropolitan “blue” cores versus “red” suburbs, because county-level and rural data often reveal hotspots that are overlooked in city-level partisan narratives [1] [2].
3. Case studies: Memphis and Liberal, KS—apples and oranges
Specific examples cited in the analyses illustrate how selective examples can mislead. Memphis is repeatedly cited as having one of the highest metropolitan murder rates, but reporters caution that Memphis is not representative of all Democratic-led cities and that single-city examples distort national patterns [2] [1]. By contrast, Liberal, Kansas—often characterized as a smaller, more Republican-leaning place—has a violent-crime rate near the national average, demonstrating that small-city rates vary independently of party signals and that local socioeconomic conditions matter more than color-coded politics [4].
4. What the fact-checkers found: mayoral party affiliation matters little
A September 2025 fact-check concluded there is no reliable correlation between a city’s crime rate and the party affiliation of its mayor, based on comparative analyses across jurisdictions [3]. That finding undercuts claims that Democratic mayors inherently produce more crime or that Republican governance is a protective factor, and suggests researchers should focus on poverty, policing resources, housing, and drug markets as primary explanatory variables rather than partisan control [1] [3].
5. Sources and possible agendas: reading the coverage critically
The collected analyses come from outlets with differing editorial priorities; some pieces stress rural crime to challenge narratives of blue-city corruption, while others emphasize urban examples to critique national Democratic policy. Each source must be treated as potentially agenda-driven, and the analytic consensus emerges only after cross-checking: partisan framing often selects examples that fit political arguments, whereas multi-jurisdictional data produce a more nuanced picture [2] [3].
6. What’s omitted but important: socioeconomic drivers and data limits
Several analyses note gaps and omissions that matter for interpretation: many summaries do not fully control for poverty rates, unemployment, policing strategies, demographic shifts, and reporting practices, all of which materially influence violent-crime statistics. The sources advise caution: without consistently adjusted, longitudinal datasets, comparing “red” and “blue” cities can produce misleading conclusions, and apparent differences may reflect measurement artifacts or short-term spikes rather than structural partisan effects [1] [3].
7. Bottom line for readers: use local data, not color-coded shortcuts
Taken together, the analyses from September 2025 show that some red jurisdictions are as violent as certain blue cities, but there is no broad, reliable rule tying partisan control to violent-crime levels. Researchers and readers should prioritize granular, place-based data and social determinants—poverty, rurality, policing resources—over partisan shorthand when assessing why a particular city is violent, recognizing that selective examples are often leveraged for political messaging [2] [3].