There's a lot of lousy science here, and some poor writing. For instance, if you're going to title it with a screaming headline like Progressive Leftist Neo-Feudalism, don't lead with a statistic within the margin of error.

Inequality

You're ignoring the fact that prosperous states will have more inequality by necessity because they have more wealthy people. The only surprise would be if NY, CA, and DC didn't have high inequality since such a large percentage of the richest Americans live there.

As counter-evidence, consider the map of poverty rates, with the "red" states mostly at the bottom (more poverty) and "blue" states mostly at the top.

Rule of thumb, "noisy" statistics don't work well in a narrow focus. Zooming out to nations would be better, but even then in need of context. For instance, in addition to the US being the most economically conservative among our peer nations, we're also an extreme, almost impossible outlier among them in terms of inequality, the 120th worst of 167 countries. (Statistically speaking, that means the Gini score within the US will almost certainly be even noisier.)

As a side note, the worst inequality in Northern and Western Europe is in Italy at #73 (where it has always been a problem) and in the most conservative economy, that of the post-Thatcher UK at #72.

Crime

Pointing out that crime being higher in cities is a centuries-long fact of life that is mandatory for accurate analysis.

Even with that, blaming cities for gun crime ignores the fact that the courts have basically taken away their right to regulate guns. Also, municipalities in or near red states see guns crossing their boundaries. (See "Less than half the guns used in Illinois crime come from Illinois, data analysis shows" for example. Chicago can have all the gun laws it wants, but Indiana has few regulations, and the guns come from there.)

Yes, violent crime is up in cities. However, it has also gone up dramatically in rural areas. Also, both are an aberration, as the crime rates have been falling steadily for decades.

Economics

Note that praise of Trump has several fatal flaws, including the massive and entirely unsustainable deficits run up under his admin. In fact, deficits almost always fall in years Democrats are in the White House and almost always rise when Republicans are. But even at that, the Trump admin was a shocking outlier.

"Democrats Destroy Middle Class Savings" is a ridiculous statement to make over such a short time span. You can't draw conclusions based on a few years of data, especially with the economy's volatility during that time.

Go back to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 for a very different perspective. Regardless of short-term ebbs and flows, the data is, if anything, steeply tilted toward conservative tax policies being responsible for the damage to both the debt and to the middle/lower classes.

Using shoddy, context-free statistics is either flawed analysis or pursuing an agenda rather than objectivity. Or both.