Gavin Newsom fighting the right fight

UsualName said:
This is called cognitive dissonance. It’s when you believe that something isn’t bad because you have a personal connection to it. Blue states are in fact by and large safer and more prosperous than red states.

Watch the video below of a crowd at an Oklahoma governor debate that just happened when the democrat candidate brings up this fact. Even the moderator can’t wrap their head around the fact that Oklahoma is dangerous as hell and nowhere near as safe as NY.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1583160379944759296
More...

This is a playing some games with statistics. Oklahoma has like three times less population than Jersey, 5 times less than NY, and while I understand it is per-capita, OK has 1/3 of its population concentrated in two major cities (Tulsa and OC). New Jersey has a far more suburban population that is quite safe, until you go to Camden or Trenton. New York State, with some very few exceptions has most of its crime in NYC with some smaller amounts in Buffalo/Albany...the rest of the state is suburban or rural. The comparison shouldn't be state to state, but city to city. Both OK cities are republican mayors, so if either turns out to be worse than other cities, the Republicans own that. But important to compare correctly, and also be specific on crime - all crime? Violent crime? Murders?
 
Tsing Tao said:
This is a playing some games with statistics. Oklahoma has like three times less population than Jersey, 5 times less than NY, and while I understand it is per-capita, OK has 1/3 of its population concentrated in two major cities (Tulsa and OC). New Jersey has a far more suburban population that is quite safe, until you go to Camden or Trenton. New York State, with some very few exceptions has most of its crime in NYC with some smaller amounts in Buffalo/Albany...the rest of the state is suburban or rural. The comparison shouldn't be state to state, but city to city. Both OK cities are republican mayors, so if either turns out to be worse than other cities, the Republicans own that. But important to compare correctly, and also be specific on crime - all crime? Violent crime? Murders?
More...

Why? States govern the things that impact crime, gun laws, law enforcement funding, education and school systems, job availability etc. You’re welcome to make a city by city comparison but state by state is the true comparison of liberal policies vs conservative policies.
 
UsualName said:
Why? States govern the things that impact crime, gun laws, law enforcement funding, education and school systems, job availability etc. You’re welcome to make a city by city comparison but state by state is the true comparison of liberal policies vs conservative policies.
More...

So you believe that the governor of NY state has a much bigger impact on NYC crime than the mayor?

I certainly don't.

Comparisons for state by state tend to not work when you look at demographics because there are too many variables that make this difficult for simplistic comparisons. The COVID comparison comes to mind, where everyone was taking a state like Florida, which has the second highest concentration of elderly and third highest population in total, and comparing it to a state like North Carolina. Totally ridiculous.

Now, if you want to compare things like tax burden, or abortion policy, or something like that, you don't need to look closely at things like population density or age demographics.
 
Tsing Tao said:
This is a playing some games with statistics. Oklahoma has like three times less population than Jersey, 5 times less than NY, and while I understand it is per-capita, OK has 1/3 of its population concentrated in two major cities (Tulsa and OC). New Jersey has a far more suburban population that is quite safe, until you go to Camden or Trenton. New York State, with some very few exceptions has most of its crime in NYC with some smaller amounts in Buffalo/Albany...the rest of the state is suburban or rural. The comparison shouldn't be state to state, but city to city. Both OK cities are republican mayors, so if either turns out to be worse than other cities, the Republicans own that. But important to compare correctly, and also be specific on crime - all crime? Violent crime? Murders?
More...


Do you think it is fair to label the party in power of the Mayor's office as responsible for crime. Cities are always going to have crime due to the concentration of people and the fact that poor people cant afford to move out to the suburbs ands till work. The wealthy and upper middle class are not robbing or becoming homeless due to mental health issues because they can afford to live and get medical help. The crime in a city be it NYC, FL or OKC always stems from the poor areas and economics of the specific city. Most cities have population way above their means and crime is a sad natural by product. You dont have crimes in rural areas where there are like 1000 people in a large town versus 9 million people living on top of each other.

NYC (5 boroughs) for example has poor areas but crime is extremely mobile and subway system and transprotation system makes it easy for anyone to get into the city or attack more vulnerable spots. No matter what city you go to, you can easily find out what areas to avoid or not be in late at night. Regardless of who is the mayor. Drugs and prostitution are too profitable to ever eliminate in a city where police can never cover such large areas.

Now City Hall can take actions to clean up certain areas or drive economic development but I have found these plans pursued by all mayors regardless of political affiliation because it is what mayors strive to do.

The big problem with crime in this country is the parties desire to split the issue into blame rather than review how to improve economic conditions. Unfortunately when either side does look into this, it is usually move eocnomic development into a poorer area, move out the poor and make the area a new expensive neighborhood for people to spread out into while displacing those who need it.
 
El OchoCinco said:
Do you think it is fair to label the party in power of the Mayor's office as responsible for crime. Cities are always going to have crime due to the concentration of people and the fact that poor people cant afford to move out to the suburbs ands till work. The wealthy and upper middle class are not robbing or becoming homeless due to mental health issues because they can afford to live and get medical help. The crime in a city be it NYC, FL or OKC always stems from the poor areas and economics of the specific city. Most cities have population way above their means and crime is a sad natural by product. You dont have crimes in rural areas where there are like 1000 people in a large town versus 9 million people living on top of each other.

NYC (5 boroughs) for example has poor areas but crime is extremely mobile and subway system and transprotation system makes it easy for anyone to get into the city or attack more vulnerable spots. No matter what city you go to, you can easily find out what areas to avoid or not be in late at night. Regardless of who is the mayor. Drugs and prostitution are too profitable to ever eliminate in a city where police can never cover such large areas.

Now City Hall can take actions to clean up certain areas or drive economic development but I have found these plans pursued by all mayors regardless of political affiliation because it is what mayors strive to do.

The big problem with crime in this country is the parties desire to split the issue into blame rather than review how to improve economic conditions. Unfortunately when either side does look into this, it is usually move eocnomic development into a poorer area, move out the poor and make the area a new expensive neighborhood for people to spread out into while displacing those who need it.
More...

Its one of those "the buck stops here" type things. Is urban crime the fault of the party in power? Of course not directly. But you can certainly draw some connections if the party in power has been in power for a while, and the crime continues to get worse. In a hyper partisan environment, people are more concerned with whether their "team" is responsible and then won't accept any accountability if it is. Or vice versa.

You guys (I forget who, but I think you were one) brought up Jacksonville as a crime-ridden city in Florida, and you're right to do so. The republicans have had Jax for 7 years now. Crime continues to get worse, the city is a cesspool and the downtown is disgusting. You can't walk 15 feet without being accosted. I speak from experience. The republicans own that.

But the democrats own the degradation of NYC.

The only way we get better is when we admit, honestly, what is causing the problem. What works, what doesn't. Instead of "whose team is ruining that", we should focus on "what person is making it worse, and why" and get rid of the person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top