> Why is it that the deepest blue areas of the country have some of the most abject inequity and poverty?
Because urban areas tend to be blue, and urban areas attract more poverty (costs are higher, easier to get into poverty; but also there are plenty of public services around that make it "easier" to be poor). Poverty is also just much more visible in areas with denser populations.
I assure you that there's plenty of poverty in right-leaning areas in the US. They're just usually not as visible.
Safer for who? I’m sure enough of the disproportionate minority men in prison and jail or who get harassed by police would disagree with safer. Same with transgender people or people not fitting into traditional social norms.
Red areas are poorer and have more crime (and especially more violent crime) than blue areas, almost unconditionally. It's very easy to find stats on this.
Crime has been dropping for decades, and cities are safer than ever. Hell, San Francisco is one of the least violent cities in the country.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Crime levels are still at historic lows. There's been a large percentage increase in crime, but when actual numbers are at all-time lows, the percentage increase are always going to be high. There's a media onslaught about crime, which is a nation-wide push from Sinclair broadcasting. Sentiment isn't a usable statistic when sentiment is being purposely biased. It also ignores the fact that SF is still considerably safer than most US cities, especially republican controlled ones.
The sad thing is that Sinclair is not pushing this narrative in some of the most crime ridden cities, so the sentiment in those places is actually higher.
Maybe crime is at historic lows because it's not being reported because people there think it's hopeless to report it. Maybe they've lost faith in their system. Maybe crime rates are higher in right leaning areas because it's reported and criminals are prosecuted for their crimes.
All speculation, but worth considering nonetheless?
Speculation isn't generally worth considering. It's hard to hide murders in statistics, and those numbers follow the same general trend.
Crime is actually down, but crime reporting is considerably up. It drives local news viewership, which drives their advertising revenue. People don't watch news for good news. Because of this trend, people also think that crime is at all time highs.
Crime is higher in republican controlled areas because poverty, as a whole, is higher, and assistance programs are slashed. Crime (excluding white collar) is primarily driven by poverty. Republican controlled areas do also police more aggressively, and tend to heavily over police particular groups, but that hasn't lowered their crime rate, and has likely made it worse, by further pushing those groups into poverty.
Sources? Otherwise it’s just speculation, which I’ve heard isn't generally worth considering.
FWIW, I work on a national news media app and advertising CPMs are down considerably year over year thanks to Apple's ATT update, so advertising is not the driver for these business as much as it once was. Many are looking to subscription revenue to fill the void, but even that's not enough to cover the loss.
I know less about the linear (TV) and print distribution side of the business, but my guess is they're also struggling given that their target demo is getting older and older while younger cohorts aren't adopting these legacy distribution channels. https://mobiledevmemo.com/att-is-killing-advertising-perform...
You're correct in that "if it bleeds it leads"; people are fixated by bad news.
I can say anecdotally after living in both NYC and right-leaning rural NY and PA areas where the crime and poverty rates are statistically higher that it's cleaner and these issues aren't as apparent, so something isn't adding up.
Because urban areas tend to be blue, and urban areas attract more poverty (costs are higher, easier to get into poverty; but also there are plenty of public services around that make it "easier" to be poor). Poverty is also just much more visible in areas with denser populations.
I assure you that there's plenty of poverty in right-leaning areas in the US. They're just usually not as visible.