Connecting violence and party not reasonable All of which brings us to the core question: Is it reasonable to connect the violence and partisanship?
In short, no.
“I don’t think there’s any data that would allow us to draw a causal conclusion here,” said David Weisburd, executive director of the Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy at George Mason University. “Somehow arguing that Democrats cause crime or something of that sort just doesn’t fit the history of crime prevention in the U.S.”
If you interpret the claim as referring to Democratic leadership, Weisburd notes that President Bill Clinton had one of the strongest recent administrations in terms of funding the criminal justice system.
But more broadly, linking crime and votes simply doesn’t reflect how crime works. Studies have repeatedly found that urban crime is not a widespread phenomenon — like voting is — but a product of small groups of people in small areas.
One 2015 study examined crime networks in Chicago and found 70% of nonfatal gun injuries occur within networks that contain just 6% of the city’s population. Another study that year found crime across a number of cities was concentrated in “microgeographic hot spots.”
Weisburd said his research revealed a “law of crime concentration”: Across an array of large cities, 1% of city streets account for about 25% of the crime, and 5% of streets account for about 50% of the crime.
An array of local socioeconomic and cultural factors plays a role in which areas yield that concentrated crime. But it’s a lot more than politics.
A 2018 study from Boston University found racial segregation is a key risk factor for firearm homicide. Other local factors skew homicide rates and make a raw ranking a poor tool for understanding what’s happening, said David Kennedy, director of the National Network for Safe Communities at John Jay College of Criminal Justice told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for a 2019 series on homicides.
“You get a number. It’s completely accurate. And it’s deeply unrepresentative of what’s going on,” Kennedy told the Journal Sentinel. “Many American cities are the product of a long, long historical reality of white supremacy and racial violence and disproportionate action by the criminal justice system.”
Our ruling: Partly false
We rate this claim PARTLY FALSE based on our research. The information cited has some fundamental issues, notably that it uses out-of-date FBI data and ranks cities by crime rate when the FBI specifically warns against doing so.
This glosses over the array of intensely local factors that influence crime. Violent crime, in particular, stems from a limited group of people in a limited area, so assuming that segment has a particular political bent based on the city at large — and that their violence stems from those politics — is a stretch at best.
It is true that large cities do have more crime. And they do have more Democrats — both in terms of general voting and local leadership. But it’s a classic example of correlation without evidence of causality.
conix, CORRECTION: conix note: Murders Are Rising. Blaming a Party Doesn’t Add Up.
Stuff that bs Trump one-sided cherry-picking talking point. Can't delete that linkless post, but can give you this.
The data reveals a different picture than the party-driven explanation President Trump and the Department of Justice have offered.
By Jeff Asher Sept. 28, 2020
[...]
Murder is up 29 percent in Democrat-led cities in the sample and up 26 percent in cities with a Republican mayor relative to the same time frame in 2019, and five of the 13 cities on pace for record-high murder counts have Republican mayors.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
