The Difference Between Blue States & Red States
Let's move past the rhetoric and look at the facts — with the election coming up, which states are safer, more economically prosperous, and better for your health?
Despite claims by many Republican leaders that their policies lead to better results for working Americans, the facts reveal a starkly different reality. And it is necessary to examine these real differences in the outcomes of governance. Here I quickly break them down, with receipts, and share the impact of each party’s policies on critical issues, from the economy to public safety. With the election around the corner, I hope this serves as a useful resource to send to yet uncommitted or unsure voters. You can either read below, or watch my short video that candidly breaks it down in less than 75 seconds. Let’s Address This.
BEFORE READING BELOW—A QUICK CALL TO ACTION REMINDER:
Trump’s Project 2025 will destroy 330,000 high paying green energy jobs. Help me send 1775 letters to Congress ASAP demanding Congress block Project 2025. Click to sign your letter —> PROTECT THE CLIMATE & GREEN ENERGY JOBS
Crime Rates and Public Safety
While “law and order” is a frequent rallying cry among Republican leaders, the data shows a surprising contrast. The murder rate in Republican-led states is approximately 40% higher than in Democrat-led states. If blue states had this disparity, Republican leaders would likely be the first to call it out. Instead, this statistic is largely ignored in public discussions, raising questions about the actual impact of Republican-led policies on public safety.
Economic Contributions
Republicans often promote themselves as the party of economic growth, but Democrat-led states consistently make up a larger share of America’s economic output. Blue Counties contribute a massive 71% to the nation’s economy, while red Counties account for only 29%. Despite the rhetoric that Republican states drive American prosperity, the economic data tells a different story.
Dependency on Federal Aid
One of the most striking differences between red and blue states lies in their reliance on federal welfare benefits. Republicans frequently criticize government “handouts,” yet nine of the top ten states most dependent on federal aid are Republican-led. This reliance on federal funds raises questions about the self-sufficiency of red states and challenges the Republican stance against government assistance.
Gun Violence and Safety
Gun rights are a central tenet of the Republican platform, with many GOP leaders asserting that increased access to guns enhances public safety. However, gun violence data paints a contrasting picture. Sixteen of the top seventeen states with the highest rates of gun violence are Republican-led, a troubling trend that casts doubt on the efficacy of pro-gun policies in promoting public safety.
Maternal and Infant Health
The issue of maternal and infant mortality starkly highlights the real-world consequences of policies that deprioritize healthcare access and resources for vulnerable populations. While Republicans position themselves as the “pro-life” party, nine of the top ten states with the highest maternal and infant mortality rates are Republican-led. These outcomes directly contradict claims that conservative policies are best for protecting life and health.
So, What is the GOP Really Fighting For?
The above examples could go on, and on, and on—covering education, voting access, entrepreneurship, and more. In short, the data demonstrates that Democratic-led states consistently outperform Republican-led states on key issues Republicans often claim as their own. Whether it’s public safety, economic strength, reliance on federal aid, gun safety, or healthcare, the reality is clear: Democratic policies ensure better outcomes for citizens.
As voters, we have a responsibility to demand accountability. It’s time to ask: what do Republican policies truly achieve outside of tax cuts for the super wealthy? And if Democratic states are already achieving the outcomes that Republicans claim to prioritize, what exactly are GOP leaders fighting for? With the election coming up, it is critical each person votes and votes to prevent Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Otherwise we ensure the failure of Republican led states to further expand nationwide. While Trump and his Republican acolytes continue to fight for the billionaire class, we must reject that strategy, and instead vote to fight for the working class. The data shows that blue states are safer, more economically prosperous, and ensure better healthcare and longer lives. That is worth voting for.
Why Your Support Matters: Every dollar we spend is a vote for the kind of future we want. Help me create a future more committed to justice and universal human rights. Subscribe, and I welcome your thoughts, feedback, and insights. Thank you.
💯🇺🇸on all of this. I live in SW Mississippi, a supposed red state. Everything you mentioned occurs here IMO. I have never lived anywhere in my entire life where people are unable to learn how to heal their generational trauma without religion. I have never lived anywhere in my life where white privilege seems to be “the norm” & continues that said trauma of “other”. I have never lived anywhere in my life where people refusing to acknowledge their generational trauma, FORCE THEIR TRAUMA UPON OTHERS via drugs, guns, workplace violence, or religion. My race has nothing to do with my experiences here. WE have been ignored. I challenge any Democrat other than beloved Benny T to visit my city/county. Benny gets it.
Their is a problem with dependency on federal assistance because it is not defined as to what federal assistance. Montana, for instance gets a great deal of farm assistance, as does Indiana, two states that still have a great deal of smaller (in the sense that they are privately owned and farm lands are not swallowed up by corporations. Do you mean social security and Medicare which are not federal assistances, but frequently costly proportions of the government budget, but that is government mismanagement and they should be independently run pension plans, not available or included into the government budget whatsoever.e But by govt. assistance, what about govt officials and offices necessary in large states, such as federal courthouses; SEC, Small Business Admin.etc. If those types of assistance were included the chart would be differently configurated.
I've seen this chart before and I've never seen it defined. The truth a greater preponderance of govt. expenditures are not towards"welfare-type" programs, but programs aimed at economic output, and the economic truth, therefore is considered to be these welfarish programs are somehow not part of economic output but drains upon it.
But, ah! they are a great deal a part of the growth engine, because without those citizens being supported financially either they spend nothing and that stymies the economy because the poorer one is the more one has to spend, especially as credit declines with poverty so there is little they can withdraw from the GDP or invest into the increase of the GDP But the tier above, the so-called middle class would be forced to pick up the slack and spend more and be unable to invest little if anything. The welfare class therefore spurs growth by letting others a greater opportunity to invest.
But ultimately the capatalistic fallacy is that investing equates with wealth, because overall increasing investment has to increase poverty. Poverty, essentially being those who are insufficiently compensated, therefore having an inability to invest; concentrating wealth in fewer hands, increasing poverty, are those who have an insufficienciency to be able to invest. So without these government investments there is no growth economy and the monopolization ends with the capitalist standing I suppose. Then the economy is over and having earned all of the wealth he has nothing because he can only buy from himself and everything he has is invesments which are valueless because it is all debt and even he starves.
Of course that would be the ultimate extreme, but probably an impossible imperialist concentration; but ultimate if the nation continually deinvests in its majority, so as long as a government measures itself of its GDP, then it must invest in its people.
And that is not Keynesian, not Marxist, but trickle down theorist Milton Friedmann whom I borrowed from. It's not complete Friedmann , but the essential political misunderstanding of his overall perspective is that the more the government invests in capital growth by investing not just in the poor, but removing all limits from capital, the investments of the government maintain the capitalist structure and prevent its collapse. The Reaganites and future republicans didn't quite understand the "rest of the story" nor the consequences of Friedmann's idea when converted into trickle down. The concept is, as that the government invests in permitting greater consumerism by investing in people who as they consume will need less being invested in them will create unlimited growth and a market that never collapses.
At any rate, this little stat is somewhat troublesome, it is as lawyer's are supposedly trained to observe, simply ambiguous and I am unaware of its actual meaning. Nevertheless, the overall tone, or what I believe you are trying to project, is overall probably statistically true; and that is what the Trump movement is all about--the statistically more crime and less wealth argument would work much better in red states, or where the arguments you present would be able to have a better chance of appealing to their own circumstances.