WaPOO Half Wit
The Wapo is getting pretty desperate. They seize on this to attack Trump:
Trump Keeps Claiming that the Most Dangerous Cities in America are Run by Democrats; They Aren't
So, instead of the top twenty being run by Democrats it's only sixteen of thirty two (with three independents - likely meaning leftists.)
From the Wapoo article:
The most recent data to that effect is from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reportcovering the first half of 2019. The cities with the most violent
crimes are many of the most populous cities in the country, as you
might expect. Those with the highest rates of violent crime are from a
range of different states.
of the current mayors of these cities are Democrats. Two of the mayors
of cities with the most reported violent crimes overall, though, are
independents and one, the mayor of Jacksonville, Fla., is a Republican.
Among the 20 cities with the most violent crime per capita, one isn’t a
Democrat: the independent mayor of Springfield, Mo.
Get that! Trump said twenty and they are going out to thirty two. Now why do you suppose that is?
Their argument is it doesn't matter:
generally have more crime than suburban and rural areas. That’s been
true for decades if not centuries and is true across the planet. The
connection has been the focus of repeated research.
In other words, if it were the case that cities were also more prone to
elect members of one party over another, it might seem as though the
most crime-riddled places in America were a function of leadership from
Well, reader, I have a surprise for you.
kidding, of course. You are certainly aware that cities tend to be
heavily Democratic. In the 2018 House elections, Democrats won every
district identified by CityLabas being purely urban. They lost only one district identified as an
"urban-suburban mix.” In other words, Democrats won 81 of the 82
congressional districts identified as fully or partially urban.
So this writer sees no causal relationship in this correlation?
Since there’s a correlation between size and amount of crime and
between size and propensity to vote Democratic, it’s problematic to
draw a causal relationship between crime and Democratic leadership. It
may be the case that cities with more crime are more likely to have
Democratic leaders. Such a comparison, though, is fraught, relying on
the validity of reported crime data, the metric used to establish which
cities are included in the analysis, the time period under
consideration and so on.
In other words, it's just the way things are and has nothing to do with the Democrats, who just happen to run these places.
But that didn't used to be true. Republicans used to run a LOT of cities. The Democrats targeted the cities and imported poor people so they could accomplish that task. They created political machines that were nigh unto impossible to defeat (the last Republican to hold the mayorship in St. Louis was in 1948) and they accomplished this by handing out money. Why would it surprise anyone if theft and robbery are big in a place where people have been bought and paid for? And where the police and courts are weak - as is the case because the Democrats wanted to get this vote?
This is just another attempt at gaslighting America.
Hat tip: Roy Spencer, who observed:
... because only 19 of the 20 cities with the highest per capita rates of violent crime are run by Democrats... not ALL 20.
Jassy May adds:
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 600 words, total size 5 kb.
30kb generated in CPU 0.06, elapsed 0.7602 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.7215 seconds, 115 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.