What fallacy is this? or is it a cognitvie bias

  what fallacy is this? or is it a cognitive bias. closest thing i can think of is Dunning-Kruger. example. (i will use fictional state names) The governor of Freelandia has a high approval rating among its citizens while the governor of Libertyville has a lower apporval rating. thus one concludes that freelandia's governor and the state itself is better than libertville.

But looking at objective facts,In Libertyville, they have top ranked schools, some of the best healthcare in the nation, low poverty, low unemployment, but since it is not as good as some other states in it's region, people say the governor isnt that great. In Freelandia their schools are ranked among the lowest, the hospitals are closing left and right, the state pension system is woefully underfunded, poverty is abundant and there are little to no social programs to help mitigate its relevance.  but the level of patriotic pride is high and the notion of underfunded schools and hospitals is "fine" because the general populace has fiscally conservative views on funding these things, and thus is generally happier that the state inst spending money on it  despite the negativity consequences. Nonetheless the governor of libertyville is straightlaced and direct and some people dont like that while the governor of freelandia is brash and often says non politically correct things and he is adored for it.

it appears that voter apathy and lack of awareness combined with pride causes individuals in Freelandia to think everything is good and thus giver their governor a high approval rating or has teflon protecting him from criticism while some in places like libertyville, because smarter people dont want to rest on their laurels, need to find everything there is to criticize, even if it gets to a histrionic level.

i do a lot of political debates, so im wondering what to call this fallacy. last note. in real life, i find it quite disheartening that someone thinks a governor is "doing well" when the state is chockablock of issues that can be measured numerically (poverty ranking, unemployment, graduation rates etc. ) while states that objectively dont have these issues are thought of as "worse: by some just because the governor approval rating is "okay"  (FYI,  if you didnt know by now, freelandia is a euphamism for many red states, while libertyville is blue. In real life i live in a "libertyville" and im sick of histrionics about my state becuase its not perfect, while seeing people i know that live in freelandia, ignore true issues and praise those who dont correct them.

Sorry for the novel. Anyways let me know what this bias/fallacy would be