I don't think they're stupid, it might be accurate to say they've not been served well by the education system, and that they're suffering from false consciousness whereby they've been convinced to vote for policies that hurt them. John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

I am mostly grunching this thread, but the correct answer is that elites have managed to make race such a salient issue that middle class/poor whites support conservative policies that mainly work against their economic interests, because elites have been able to frame reforms as attempts to transfer wealth to minorities at their expense.

In his day, Dr. King wrote entire books on the subject about a desire to awaken class (as opposed to race) consciousness among poor whites, which would serve the poor of all races. As recent as the Obama administration the moderate wings of the Democrat party were trying to get poor whites on board with reforms designed to lift everyone.

Sadly, the Democratic Party of today is pretty much the mirror image of the Republican Party (less outright fraud and scams, but the end result is more or less the same), in making everything about race, and using this framing to enrich the respective elites at expense of the poor. For their efforts, they have convinced the urban poor to support pro-crime policies, which have devastated the communities they live in; as much as Republican policies have historically negatively affected the rural poor whites who are their most loyal voting base.

It isn't a bug that the more the Democratic Party embraces 21st century race based progressivism, the more wealth is transferred to the top 1%. It is a feature.

I agree with you about the elite divide and conquer strategy. Identity politics splits up poor voters into segments fighting each other which benefits rich people. Dems and Reps ARE NOT THE SAME. Maybe in 2005, I would have agreed. There's certainly a different result produced by GOP governance. As you can see from the data posted, all GOP governed states rank last in terms of violence, education, and wealth. Additionally, the GOP is the only party pushing legislation to criminalize trans, abortion, general (poor) human existence. The policy they push is different and produces different results.

How would you define this?
Approximately is fine.

Headline on the website today.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/15/busin...sco/index.html

Let me guess- the results WOULD be different, were it not for something Republicans are doing in San Francisco... right?
Like, we can deconstruct the various reasons why certain states have Republican or Democract state level governance, lots of moving parts to that discussion, but there arent any working examples of the left, never mind the far left, having local control where the results aren't a total disaster, which is a fairly direct 1 = 1 relationship.

What we can observe in basically every city run by the far left is an undesirable outcome, especially if allowed to run for too long.

Why do you suppose that is?

You cite an anecdotal news story as evidence of "every city run by the far left is an undesirable outcome"? SF is a horrible example for your contention as it's pretty much the richest and most educated place in the world.

There is more crime in all cities. If you want to compare statistics between GOP led cities and democratic run cities we can, but the results are the same. GOP policy (or maybe other factors) seems to lead to higher poverty, lower education, and more violence. I think it is GOP policy that's directly responsible for the poor statistical outcomes in their states.

GOP lead cities are there any?

Even here in Canada my old city defunded the police after George Floyd and extreme left policies. Stabbings and shootings are just normal activity . Was home two weeks ago and heard two gunshots at 1:30 from a drug house a block away. Ive had a knife pulled on me and thought I was getting mugged in the last two years. Now in a rural community and I dont lock my door

It looks like Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Fresno, Mesa, Omaha, and Virginia Beach all have GOP mayors.

I can arrest that there is plenty of crime in Mesa-- had an apartment broken into by a meth head once.

Also Miami even-- somewhat surprising but Cubans are Republicans.

It's probably unwise to leave your door unlocked as rural areas tend to have drugs and the associated crime.

Yeah, there are many GOP led cities. If you want to compare city versus city statistics we can, but the data is the same. For instance, Houston is much more violent than Chicago and Fresno more violent than San Francisco.

LOL at the denialism.

Its not like this 'anecdotal news story' is otherwise untrue or not reflective of the city in question, which is pretty much the high-point of far left governance in action; San Francisco.
Those left wing policies resulted in that horrible outcome in that citty. Likewise, we saw similar stuff in NYC, who wound up electing Rudy G in the early 90s to turn it around (and despite what he's become recently, he absolutely did, by instituting polcies that were the opposite of the far left policies that resulted in NYC being in the condition it was in the 1980s)



https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/d9648ab2

If your thesis were true, why are the top 10 cities for crime all run by Democrats?
Like, surely of the 10 cities with the worst crime, were your theory true, at least a small MAJORITY would be non-Democrat run, right?
But there isn't a single city in the Top 10 worst for crime that ISN'T Democrat run.

Houston is led by a Democrat.

You linked to an (ai generated?) article that cites the first half of 2019 as source data. Neighborhoodscout uses the latest data which seems much differnt: https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top100dangerous.

It's kind of hard to compare cities, but my point is GOP led areas bring up the bottom 10 in all 3 categories of violence, education, and wealth. Why?

I see. I wanted to find a larger city to compare, but it doesn't exist. My bad. Fort Worth is the largest (R) led city.

And interestingly enough (re Miami), is that the mayor of Fort Lauderdale is a Democrat.

Its super easy to compare cities.
I linked to an article that showed its sources, that being the FBIs UCR.
I had a feeling you would talk about the article rather than the data.

Anyway, its super duper not hard to compare cities. Its really easy.
Can we agree on this?
https://www.populationu.com/gen/most...ties-in-the-us

Explain to me why the most dangerous cities are basically all D run?
If your theory were true, the opposite should be true.
If your theory were partly true, then the results would be mixed.
But the results show something that is the opposite of what would be true, were your Democrat theory true.

There are always going to be exceptions when it comes to this sort of stuff in politics. These aren't the laws of physics we're dealing with here.

Agreed, but when the results are this consistent, they're not 'exceptions' we're talking about.
They're repeatable results.

Well his theory could probably use a little fine tuning-- maybe pitch it to the folks at freakenomics or something.

It's not possible to compare cities because all cities are run by democrats. This is because educated and rich people occupy the cities.

We can compare Fort Worth to other similar sized cities, but cherry picking cities isn't super useful statistically speaking.

If you think about it using states is better because it creates an average of all cities in that region. When we do this, we see a pattern where all R states are doing really bad in terms of violence, education, and poverty.

If cities are occupied by the educated and rich, why do you think they're committing so much crime?

I think a majority of the crime is linked to gangs, homeless and the drug addicted which tend to live in the cities

When you have laws that say you will not prosecute theft up to $950 lots of folks go yee hah

Well sure. It was more a rhetorical question than one I really needed an answer to-- obviously cities aren't just full of rich people.

Because the cities are where $$$ is. $$$ attracts people of all sorts. Crime goes up.

Are they committing so much crime? It was my understanding that rural areas tend to have higher crime per capita than cities.

Incorrect.

https://www.edelson-law.com/blog/202...ft-in-america/