“You hear about certain places like Chicago and you hear about what’s going on in Detroit and other — other cities, all Democrat run,” President Trump said at the White House last week. “Every one of them is Democrat run. Twenty out of 20. The 20 worst, the 20 most dangerous are Democrat run.”
This was such an obvious – if damning – point that it hardly attracted any attention. It’s hard to imagine anyone who would be surprised by this assertion. Think of dangerous cities. Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago. What do they all have in common? They’ve been run into the ground by Democrats for as long as anyone can remember.
At a time when some of these same cities are going up in flames from “protesters” who are supposedly mad about George Floyd, it only makes sense to point out the best argument against electing Democrats to run the country in November. Do we really want Minneapolis-style leadership in the White House? In the Senate?
Alas, here comes the Washington Post and their preeminent fact-checkers. They decided they didn’t like the idea that Democrat-run cities inevitably turn into cesspools of violence and crime, and so they ran this big story debunking the president: “Trump keeps claiming that the most dangerous cities in America are all run by Democrats. They aren’t.”
Okay then. Whatcha got, WaPo?
“Let’s look at two related sets of data compiled by the FBI: most violent crime and most violent crime per capita,” writes the Post. “The most recent data to that effect is from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report covering 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.
“Most of the current mayors of these cities are Democrats,” they reveal. “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.”
Wait, this is your big fact-check? That a whole three cities in the top 20 aren’t Democrats? You really wanted to write a whole piece highlighting the fact that Trump is, for the most part, exactly on target with his criticism? Great job, guys!
Knowing that this meager fact check won’t feed the dog, the writers push forward with a long explanation of why, even though Trump’s assertion is correct, it doesn’t actually matter.
“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,” they claim. “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.”
You know what, you’re right, WaPo. Maybe it isn’t true that Democrat-run cities tend to fall into widespread criminality. Maybe it’s actually the case that criminals are more likely to vote for Democrats!
Is that the point you guys were trying to make?