# Are Democrat-led states handling COVID-19 better than Republican-led states?

If Democrats are more pro-science than Republicans, and if science helps control COVID-19, then it sounds logical that US states with a Democratic governor will handle COVID-19 better than those with a Republican governor.

Does this bear out in practice? If the answer is "no", what could explain the apparent contradiction?

If there's no clear relation between the affiliation of the governor & performance with respect to COVID-19, I'm also interested if there's a relation between the affiliation of the population (i.e. if the state has more Republican/Democratic voters) & performance.

Edit: by "better", I mean flattening the curve of cases. This is the one and only metric I care about.

• I think this is interesting and I upvoted, but feel the need to post the necessary qualifier: correlation does not imply causation. Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 10:48

## 3 Answers

The metric the question mentions is 'flattening the curve of cases'. There is some debate on how to measure this, but the specific metric I've decided to use is to fit a polynomial curve to the graph of cases over time, starting from when each state recorded their 100th case. I then take the second derivative of this curve, and evaluate it at the current date (June 29th), giving us the rate of change of the slope. This is our 'curve-flattening score'.

To give an example, let's look at the graph of cases over time for New York and Texas, shown below. Clearly, in raw numerical terms, New York has far more cases than Texas. One way to measure the handling of the pandemic would be to look at this number. On the other hand, if we look at the trajectory of the curve, New York's curve is flattening off, while Texas appears to be getting steeper. This latter metric is what I will be using in my analysis.

Using this metric, we get the following heatmap, with a higher number representing a worse outcome. We can compare this to the next map showing the party of the state governor. Note that Alaska & Hawaii are omitted in the first map, but are included in the full data below.

Looking at the governor of each state, we can see that the three states with the lowest score are are Texas, Florida & Arizona, all with Republican governors, although these are then followed by the Democrat-governed California and Illinois. Of the worst ten states, seven have Republican governors. Looking at the states judged to be handling the pandemic best by this metric, all of the top five, New York, Michigan, New Jersey, Louisiana, and Virginia are governed by Democrats, and eight of the top ten.

Removing outliers (values outside [-150, 150]), the average Democrat-governed state has a 'curve-flattening score' of -7.66, while the average Republican-governed state has a score of 20.05. This, again, suggests that Democratic governors are handling the pandemic better in their states than their Republican colleagues, based on this metric.

Based solely on this limited analysis, then, it seems that Democratic-governed states are flattening the curve of cases better than Republican-governed states.

Full data:

``````           State       Value       Party
New York -270.716627    democrat
Michigan -141.942838    democrat
New Jersey  -82.264133    democrat
Louisiana  -77.507513    democrat
Virginia  -39.734256    democrat
Maryland  -34.473446  republican
Connecticut  -29.163433    democrat
Pennsylvania  -21.205778    democrat
Wisconsin  -19.795953    democrat
South Dakota   -2.257446  republican
Vermont   -1.847893  republican
Washington   -1.718445    democrat
Maine   -1.501176  republican
Alaska   -0.931880  republican
Rhode Island   -0.076976    democrat
West Virginia    0.298186    democrat
New Hampshire    0.380728  republican
Hawaii    0.660018    democrat
North Carolina    0.816185    democrat
Montana    1.903081    democrat
North Dakota    2.529137  republican
Wyoming    3.486826  republican
Kentucky    5.186839  republican
New Mexico    6.325482    democrat
Delaware   11.543138    democrat
Colorado   12.881185    democrat
Alabama   13.993028  republican
Arkansas   14.869030  republican
Missouri   14.881671  republican
Oregon   16.153599    democrat
Indiana   16.677088  republican
Idaho   18.562333  republican
Utah   19.872332  republican
Minnesota   24.596237    democrat
Mississippi   25.444759  republican
Nebraska   26.300690  republican
Nevada   28.483117    democrat
Tennessee   37.187872  republican
Oklahoma   40.680940  republican
Ohio   41.395639  republican
Iowa   44.830352  republican
Kansas   48.995664    democrat
Massachusetts   49.924742  republican
Georgia   71.282481  republican
South Carolina   74.612648  republican
Illinois   99.889327    democrat
California  187.667507    democrat
Arizona  236.048719  republican
Florida  356.647006  republican
Texas  406.084270  republican
``````
• It could also suggest that Democratically-run states were particularly poor out of the gate, since the shape of the curve is also dependent on the initial performance. Lies and damned statistics, and all that, though especially damning is the fact that experts predicted the spike would happen in the states "opening up" more freely, and they were pretty much sneered at by the governors of those states. Note that when I say "it could," that doesn't mean I would necessarily stake out that position, myself. Commented Jun 29, 2020 at 13:23
• I am extremely dubious about fitting a polynomial to a curve that may be different shapes at different times due to policy changes. For example, the all-US curve appears to initially exponential, with the shape changing as lockdown orders were issued. Commented Jun 29, 2020 at 14:44
• "New York's curve is flattening off, while Texas appears to be getting steeper. This latter metric is what I will be using." This is a garbage metric. The shape of Texas' curve is looks a lot like the shape New York's early curve. Likely it will flatten just like New York. Commented Jun 29, 2020 at 23:20
• @divibisan if every single man, woman, and child got COVID-19 in April, you'd give them that perfect score now. That should tell you that there is something seriously wrong with your metric. Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 0:08
• What mathematical or statistical justification do you have for fitting a polynomial curve or taking a second derivative as a metric? Isn't the traditional model the logistic curve? nctm.org/Classroom-Resources/Illuminations/Interactives/…
– qwr
Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 22:56

I calculated average case increases for the last 60 days, and took the ratio of that to all cases. Thus, the smaller the ratio, the more it indicates that the current case increases are far less than the peak, hence indicating a flattening of the slope.

The data is below.

I then ran a two-sample t-test for means. There is overwhelming evidence that the mean for Democrat-led states is smaller than the corresponding mean for Republican-led states. The means are (D: 0.009, R: 0.011) and the p-value under the null hypothesis of equal means is 0.005995, which is evidence against the null hypothesis.

One could argue that NYC, New Jersey, Hawaii, Guam, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico are obvious outliers for different reasons (NYC/NJ being hit the hardest first, and the other being islands). I removed them both, re-did the analysis, and found that the p-value increases (obviously) but under the null-hypothesis of equal means, the p-value is 0.12. This is still small, and combined with the case where we did not remove outliers, speaks to some evidence that Democrat-led states have done better at flattening the slope.

Conclusion: Yes, the data does suggest that on average, Democrat-led states are doing better at handling the pandemic than Republican-led states, in terms of current performance versus peak performance.

• Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, and Puerto Rico are Republican-controlled??!?! That's, ummm, simplistic. At best. Vermont, for example, voted 57-30 for Hillary Clinton in 2016, Maryland 60-33 for Clinton. Kansas, which you claim is Democrat-controlled, voted 56-35 for Trump. And by limiting your data to 60 days, you've removed the March COVID disaster in Democrat-controlled New York and New Jersey. That's a conspicuously interesting choice of dates... Commented Jul 1, 2020 at 11:48
• Massachusetts, Maryland, and Vermont are amongst the better performers of "Republican-led" states. Kansas is amongst the worse Democrat-led performers. I'd be happy to switch them as per your desires, but you do realize that will only strengthen the conclusion? Secondly, yes the limit of 60 days has indeed been chosen to remove the March cases of NYC and NJ.... that's .... kinda the whole point buddy. We want to measure ability to solve a problem, not the size of the problem. Read OP's question. Do you need help determining what "flattening the curve" means? I'd be happy to help, just ask. Commented Jul 1, 2020 at 12:01
• The point was you can't use statistics to "prove" a point when your selection criteria for inputs is downright sloppy. Discounting NY and NJ failures is deliberately cooking the books. Might as well ask how Brazil did in the last few minutes against Germany in the 2014 World Cup. Yeah, Brazil did outscore Germany 1-0 in the last few minutes of that match. Too bad the rest of the match also counts. Commented Jul 1, 2020 at 15:03
• @JustMe The word "prove" does not appear in my post, so why are you using quotation marks? What a pathetic and transparent attempt at a strawman-fallacy. Secondly, of course my selection criteria is sloppy, but it is a criteria, and using it, I did reach a conclusion. Probablistically, that is still evidence, since my criteria wasn't fueled by bias (as evidenced by the fact that your corrections to my criteria made my conclusion stronger!). Thirdly, I modified the analysis to include more of the data from March. Guess what? Same conclusion. NY/NJ perform worse but overall Dem-states do better. Commented Jul 1, 2020 at 15:30
• @JustMe Regarding the selection criteria, I am using party affiliation of the governor. This is not perfect, but the correlation is strong enough for it to not matter too much. But you are very welcome to provide me an alternative selection criteria, and I will gladly use it. I doubt you will though, because you know very well the conclusion will not change. Commented Jul 1, 2020 at 15:34

## No, Democratic states are much worse

First, let's define our criteria. COVID-19 didn't cause such panic because it was simply spreading. It is a deadly disease. Therefore, best criteria is number of deaths, and number of deaths per capita. Number of infected and percentage of deaths per infections are not very reliable metrics, because they depend on testing - less testing, less infected. Number of deaths is also not completely reliable metric (has person died from COVID-19 or from some accompanying co-morbidity ?) but is far less susceptible to errors.

Having said that, there is a list of states with Democratic and Republican governors and for COVID-19 we could use Worldmeters as this site is reasonably accurate and up to date. As we could see, Blue states lead in both categories, total number of deaths and deaths per 1M , with New York being worst in total number of deaths, and New Jersey in deaths per capita . Even larger Red states like Texas are much further down the list. Several reasons could be given :

• Ostensibly, Democratic states have larger density of population (big cities) which could explain easier spread of infection. This is one and maybe only mitigating circumstance that could be used to defend governors of these states.

• Medical blunders like putting COVID-19 patients in nursing homes devastated elderly population in New York. Similarly, overuse of ventilators caused its own deaths trough lung damage that could be prevented.

• War on HCQ cost its own lives. Supposedly "respected" doctors and scientists like Mandeep R. Mehra spent their time on pompously promoted study about HCQ deficiencies, which was latter retracted with great shame. Meanwhile, deaths in Massachusetts (especially Boston) skyrocketed. Similar pattern was seen in other Democratic states - medical professionals used so called "science" as a cover for their own unwillingness to adapt to this new and almost unprecedented situation.

• Finally, it must be said that in order to display PC behavior, governors of Democratic states at the beginning of epidemics shunned all advice to curtail public gatherings like Chinese New Year despite known threat back then. Democrats also criticized Trump's travel ban on March 1 as "racists".

Overall, image cultivated in MSM of Democratic states being more "educated" and "scientific" is simply not true. Democrats simply have more academic and media establishment on their side, but their results are, simply saying, much worse then Republican states, and are in fact among worst in the world.

• I'm upvoting this answer partly because diversity of opinions are good, and because this gives a good explanation for why the original question was closed as opinion-based. I will need to think about tying "better" to "flattening the curve". Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 4:14
• This answer includes a useful perspective, but I disagree strongly that deaths/deaths per capita is the best metric: given that COVID-19 deaths are overwhelmingly among the elderly if you don't control for population age you're just going to get a list of the oldest and most populous states. Flattening the curve is still a better metric because the worst outcome is not that a bunch of people die from COVID, it's that the healthcare system gets completely overwhelmed (a la Italy) and a bunch of people who would otherwise be saved die of various causes. Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 10:43
• Looking at totals (even per capita) by itself only shows which states have been hardest hit over the pandemic to date, which can quickly become obsolete. If a state had 1500 deaths per X people in April and 500/X since, is that actually better than a state that had 250 deaths/X pop for April and May, but 2000/X in June? It’s the same total deaths...until you see what July looks like. But one of those patterns bodes much worse for overall numbers. That said, I do think it’s a better idea to look at a numbers based on deaths rather than reported cases, since it removes the question of testing. Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 14:05
• to further what Jared said states on the costs were generally harder hit due to having more travel and being more dense. There are in fact a multitude of similar issues that affect the odds of a state originally being infected that are too hard to control for to make total deaths a good criteria. However, that is not enough to downvote this. The luddite anti-science stance in the third bulletpoint, which goes counter to the very concept of skeptics and is backed by cherry picked antidotical evidence that likely had little affect on overall effectiveness of covid-19 handling, is though. Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 16:46
• This is utterly useless if you don't adjust for time. By late March, Italy had over 10k deaths while the US had much less. Fast forward to today and you can see that Italy handled things MUCH better than the US. Same thing here, democrat-led states generally got hit earlier than other states. Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 18:35