>they vast majority of the article is n=1 where they sampled one year For the sections on murder rates (not their change), n is the population. These sections

>they vast majority of the article is n=1 where they sampled one year For the sections on murder rates (not their change), n is the population. These sections make up the majority of the article. For the section on year-to-year changes, those are comparisons of two populations (each with n being that year's population count). There's no way sampling error would have a noticeable effect on the rates for states or major cities. Instead, those changes are caused by things a model should account for. TFA doesn't present a model, because that's not the point. >"6 out of 10 Highest Murder Rate Increases are in Trump-Voting States". From a statistical view point, that is to be expected if there are no differences. I think that's the point of TFA. >What do you believe - poverty or political preference leads to increases of crime? TFA's conclusion is the narrative of murder rates increasing because of Democratic political leaders doesn't jive with reality. The title is provocative, but and it takes an unnecessary jab with, "A more accurate conclusion from the data is that Republicans do a far better job blaming others for high murder rates than actually reducing high murder rates." But you're really just agreeing with the article.