Corporate crime actually affects most people more (IIRC wage theft exceeds the actual losses to petty crime alone, and let’s not talk about the losses to people’s retirement funds from corporate malfeasance and insider trading) but the effects aren’t immediately noticeable so people don’t pay attention to it.
2024 Non-Presidential races and issues
- Thread starter wco81
- Start date
Whats fun is living in Alabama, going to the local Nextdoor.com community, and seeing people there talk about how dangerous New York is and how they don't want New York politics introduced to Alabama because of it. In reality, Alabama has double the number of homicides (per capita) than New York.
People literally base their reality on tv shows and movies. The average voter literally think movies are real life.
People literally base their reality on tv shows and movies. The average voter literally think movies are real life.
Republican view "criminal" as a class of people. Almost like a DnD race like Mage or Orc. You really see this with immigration, the idea that immigrants are mostly criminals even if they haven't committed a crime yet. When a migrant kills someone, they will claim "we let a criminal into the country!" but thats wrong. They are asserting someone is a criminal before even committing a crime. When someone commits a crime, they view that person as being born a criminal, not as someone who was innocent and then became a criminal after committing the crime.
You could share that with them, but I'm afraid it would only convince them that Alabama has an even more urgent problem of criminals.
That's literally what they think. The race part.
Another thing to point out. They weren't criminals before they came here. Something about America might have been a contributing factor. Something like racism and gun worship.
This, of course, is bullshit. The reality is that, if you have been robbed, it was probably your boss who isn't paying minimum wage or stole from you by making you work off the clock. Similarly, the recent supposed wave of shoplifting likewise isn't real.
No, the reality is that it's really easy to convince people that they should fear so-called street crime when the reality is that corporate crime is far far more likely to harm you, lead to layoffs, destroy your retirement find, or dump some poison in your neighborhood leading to things like cancer and death. Now that is rightly terrifying. By comparison, so-called 'street crime' is a picnic.
Americans have been carefully trained to overlook most corporate crime and to overestimate "street crime". As I noted above, the latter has been steadily decreasing, since 1990 at least.
Property crime is down 60% from 1990.
Yep, which, of course, goes to my post in the police thread about what racism actually is. A fear and ignorance of crime is very convenient for white people when they don't want to consider how the system might be unjust and they might be culpable.
I am a member of a couple of City of Chicago-themed Facebook groups (yeah, Facebook, I know....). They exist to post current and past pictures of places and moments in the city: Street corners at various decades, people in front of buildings, neat urban features, old Chicago businesses, etc. Nearly every post, regardless of the topic, has some usually exurbian troll posting some complaint based on conservative nightmare fantasies about how they can never come back to the city due to 'all the violence'. 'Can't walk around downtown no more....' 'They shoot at you as soon as you step inside the city boundaries.' 'It's just not safe like it was in the 60s/70s/80s....
'. Despite the constant counters by actual residents in Chicago proper, there is no dissuading these chicken littles in the steady insistence that Chicago is nearly a post-apocalyptic zone of lawlessness (yet also stifling from legally-madated wokism, go figure). It's tiresome in its regularity.
Last edited:
I do feel SF Bay Area has gotten worse. There are also a general decrease in civil in daily interaction. People are louder on public transportation, more damage on the infrastructure (though it may be more a funding problem), definitely more homelessness. I do feel a bit less safe compare to 10 years ago, but not significantly. I think there are more mental unwell people vs. actually danger people. So I do not think SF Bay Area is that unsafe. However, it is still a far cry from Hong Kong, Singapore or Tokyo on how safe it is.
I tend to go with the "funny, people sure get shot more in the country than in the city: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...es-lower-cities-than-rural-counties-rcna81462
Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2804113
Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2804113
I was in Houston for work a couple of weeks ago, visiting clients with a coworker. All but one of the Uber drivers we used were brown. They were either silent or made small talk. The one white guy engaged in conversation, and when he found out if we were from the NY area, immediately asked if crime was as bad as they hear down there. I told him not only is it not bad, it was not even that bad when crime was higher years ago for people like us. Being white means you avoid most street crime.
I when to college in Newark, NJ and would walk the 3/4 mile from school to the train station in the middle of the night after parties and was never even approached once, except for an occasional panhandler asking for some change or a smoke. If I was a black person who lived in the more dangerous wards in town, my experiences would have been different.
I when to college in Newark, NJ and would walk the 3/4 mile from school to the train station in the middle of the night after parties and was never even approached once, except for an occasional panhandler asking for some change or a smoke. If I was a black person who lived in the more dangerous wards in town, my experiences would have been different.
That in an of itself is a testament to the influence of media and political messaging. Both may have little bearing on reality, but a great deal on perception of said reality.
I haven't been on FB for years, but it strikes me that everyone's experience could be improved if there were a third party troll-blocking service.I am a member of a couple of City of Chicago-themed Facebook groups (yeah, Facebook, I know....). They exist to post current and past pictures of places and moments in the city: Street corners at various decades, people in front of buildings, neat urban features, old Chicago businesses, etc. Nearly every post, regardless of the topic, has some usually exurbian troll posting some complaint based on conservative nightmare fantasies about how they can never come back to the city due to 'all the violence'. 'Can't walk around downtown no more....' 'They shoot at you as soon as you step inside the city boundaries.' 'It's just not safe like it was in the 60s/70s/80s....
It's tiresome in its regularity.
People in rural counties are more likely to kill themselves. People in urban counties are more likely to kill someone else. But the former effect is enough bigger than the latter that people's total risk of getting killed with a firearm is highest in the most rural counties.
Which belies the assertion of so many I have heard that they want to live in rural areas. No, people don't. Living in rural areas is so much worse than living in urban areas that people are killing themselves to escape it.
My answer would have been short. "No, it's about twice as dangerous to live in Houston, but I'm brave."
And even then, once you leave the absolute-most dense urban areas, the homicide rates are just about even no matter the density.
It is still not ok to pat ourselves on the back for our crime rate. USA is still significant more violent when compare to other major countries/cities.
"crime and violence" is the 2nd most concerning issue Americans are focused on, after inflation https://news.gallup.com/poll/642887/inflation-immigration-rank-among-top-issue-concerns.aspx
That fact loosely connects it to the topic, but I agree, we should focus more on specific races in this thread.
Josh Stein, Democrat candidate for NC governor, is not going to take Mark Robinson, the firebrand Republican nominee for governor, for granted.
Robinson's previous opponent concentrated only in the NC big cities, didn't campaign in rural NC at all.
Despite the crazy things Robinson has said and done, the race won't be easy like the PA governor race in 2022, when a far right Republican lost to Josh Shapiro by a relatively big margin.
Read in The Guardian: https://apple.news/AtI9ts3biRjiBFLRtluLvLg
Robinson's previous opponent concentrated only in the NC big cities, didn't campaign in rural NC at all.
Despite the crazy things Robinson has said and done, the race won't be easy like the PA governor race in 2022, when a far right Republican lost to Josh Shapiro by a relatively big margin.
Read in The Guardian: https://apple.news/AtI9ts3biRjiBFLRtluLvLg
That looks like a wise path to take. NC is less in play than PA is, so it's good that Stein isn't going to take any geographic area for granted. Hillary Clinton's campaign did this in the 2016 campaign, and was considered a factor in the election results. Especially with the electoral stakes in 2024, leaving no stone unturned is sagacious.
Remember when Nancy Pelosi assured us that anti-choice moderate Henry Cuellar was a better choice than progressive Jessica Cisneros? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
US Rep Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and wife indicted
US Rep Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and wife indicted
Not to be conspiratorial, but there's probably a juicy backstory behind that decision. Perhaps with this simmering issue now at full boil, more details will be released. Have wondered—is this a situation where kompromat was held over him, while conversely, he held kompromat over some of the party decision makers? From an outsider's perspective, he appeared to be radioactive—a quality the party can ill-afford to countenance at a time of razor-thin voting margins and democracy held in the balance.
I don’t think you need compromat to explain it - Pelosi and her “organization” have a well documented history of undermining progressive politicians every chance they get.
The Democratic primary for the US Senate is this Tuesday.
It's been contentious, between a congressman and a Prince George's County executive.
The congressman David Trone started a wine distribution business so he's lent the campaign $60 million just for the primary. The state Democratic establishment backs Angela Alsobrooks, a black woman but Trone has the endorsement of Hakeem Jefferies and many other members of Congress.
There is little policy differences between them but the race has gotten personal with some Trone backers talking about how she'd need training wheels in the Senate because she doesn't have the experience at the federal level.
They're running to go up against Larry Hogan, who in some polls had a big lead against them but in other polls trail both Democratic candidates. Biden won the stat by 33 points and there's very little record of split voting between the presidential candidate and a Senate candidate so it's assumed the Democratic candidate for Senate would have an advantage, despite Hogan's popularity.
However McConnell and other Senate Republicans are targeting the open Maryland Senate seat as a pickup opportunity.
abcnews.go.com
It's been contentious, between a congressman and a Prince George's County executive.
The congressman David Trone started a wine distribution business so he's lent the campaign $60 million just for the primary. The state Democratic establishment backs Angela Alsobrooks, a black woman but Trone has the endorsement of Hakeem Jefferies and many other members of Congress.
There is little policy differences between them but the race has gotten personal with some Trone backers talking about how she'd need training wheels in the Senate because she doesn't have the experience at the federal level.
They're running to go up against Larry Hogan, who in some polls had a big lead against them but in other polls trail both Democratic candidates. Biden won the stat by 33 points and there's very little record of split voting between the presidential candidate and a Senate candidate so it's assumed the Democratic candidate for Senate would have an advantage, despite Hogan's popularity.
However McConnell and other Senate Republicans are targeting the open Maryland Senate seat as a pickup opportunity.
Maryland primary to set up unexpectedly tight Senate race
Maryland's Democratic Senate primary is careening toward a bitter finish as voters decide who to nominate in an unexpectedly competitive race in the deep-blue bastion.
abcnews.go.com
The Washington Post is endorsing Alsobrooks in that race.
Trone is a prolific fundraiser—have seen enough materials from him. The real test will be in the general election. Hogan was popular as a governor, and to his credit called out Trump on numerous occasions. He also benefitted from unexciting candidates on the Democratic side. Unfortunately, democracy can't afford another Republican in the Senate at this point.
Trone is a prolific fundraiser—have seen enough materials from him. The real test will be in the general election. Hogan was popular as a governor, and to his credit called out Trump on numerous occasions. He also benefitted from unexciting candidates on the Democratic side. Unfortunately, democracy can't afford another Republican in the Senate at this point.
Trone is a prolific spender, he's spent something like $50M of his own money so far.
And to be honest, Hogan would be a complete and total waste of a Senate seat. He's actually a MAGA enemy so a big slice of the Republican party is going to treat him like radioactive raw sewage. That'll go double if Trump is elected because Hogan has said mean things about Trump and Trump never forgets or forgives. And since Hogan is a Republican, he's not going to caucus with the Democrats even though he might actually be able to get something accomplished if he did.
Still he would be one seat towards a GOP majority and whoever replaces McConnell will be worse.
Hogan may not have indicated how he'd vote on judicial nominees.
That's a huge consideration.
Trump and the Republicans are talking about rolling back the IRA along with the usual promises to repeal Obamacare and any other number of legislation passed by Democrats.
If Hogan is going to vote the same as other Republicans on things like climate change, health care, taxes, etc. he probably won't be much different from the bog standard Republican Senator, maybe similar to Romney, who can sometimes be critical of Trump and vote to impeach but otherwise green-lights all the judicial nominees and other awful policies.
Hogan may not have indicated how he'd vote on judicial nominees.
That's a huge consideration.
Trump and the Republicans are talking about rolling back the IRA along with the usual promises to repeal Obamacare and any other number of legislation passed by Democrats.
If Hogan is going to vote the same as other Republicans on things like climate change, health care, taxes, etc. he probably won't be much different from the bog standard Republican Senator, maybe similar to Romney, who can sometimes be critical of Trump and vote to impeach but otherwise green-lights all the judicial nominees and other awful policies.
Fully agree. I have no idea what Hogan thinks he can accomplish in the Senate other than worship at the MAGA altar. I think that's why Romney is leaving, if you think you're Republican but not in with the MAGA slime, you get to sit at your desk and collect a paycheck. And maybe get a red stapler.
Regarding forgiving and forgetting—it needs to be stressed that Trump is highly transactional. DeSantis, for example, has said mean things about him, but they are now reportedly mending fences since it appears to be in their mutual best interests to do so. That may not be the case for Hogan, since doing so would probably alienate some of the voters he would need to carry the state.
Hogan needs to remember that MAGA candidate Dan Cox won a whopping 32.1% of the vote for Governor in 2022. Getting too cozy with that crowd doesn't go down well in Maryland.
Angela Alsobrooks has beat out David Trone in the Democratic primary here in MD, so at least the Senate race won't be two old white dudes fighting it out. Hopefully she can muster up some enthusiasm and keep Hogan out.
Alsobrooks against Hogan should be quite the election. It's also nice to see that trying to buy a Senate seat doesn't always work out. Trone having a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease certainly didn't help his chances either.
The NRCC sees this as a multi-seat pickup opportunity now.
This would be the exact kind of own goal I've come to expect from the Democratic Party in Texas.
It's obvious that Pelosi has an anti-progressive bias, but pushing for that type of damaged candidate achieved what, a Pyrrhic victory? This could have a number of knock-on effects at a time when the party and the country can ill-afford them.
Eh, Pelosi has an incumbent bias moreso. One thing I can't fault her on between her times as either Speaker or Minority Leader is how stable House Democrats looked in the last decade compared to House Republicans. In the last decade, Republicans ousted not one but two of their own Speakers and lost a Majority Leader to electoral incompetence. But that stability came at a serious cost of locking new blood out so long that it's no surprise why 2016 was such a rebuke of the Democratic Party of the time or why 2018 saw some major shakeups at the entry level in the House.
Those are good points. A similar situation occurred in Germany, when Angela Merkel held the position of Chancellor for 16 years. To do so, she had to maintain order and stymie up-and-comers. As a result, when she left office in 2021, her party, the CDU, suffered steep electoral declines due to no one in the pipeline to take the reins. Ideally, a party should have a process in place to account for succession, continuity, and evolution. As a result, we're witnessing a type of gerontocracy in the political establishment in the US now. This isn't being ageist, but a clear-eyed look at the future. Who will be there to fill the shoes when the incumbents are gone?
I'd be hard pressed to provide accurate commentary for Merkel's leadership as Chancellor, much less as a party leader. But part of this issue does actually fall on Obama as he eschewed the party leadership part of his Presidential tenure. The 2010 midterm may have been an immediate reaction but 2012 and 2014 saw continually eroding Democratic support going down the line to state races because that's the way the party operated. The Democratic Party today seems at least somewhat more aware across the board of the need to maintain this institutional pipeline but there's definitely legacy cruft in places like Texas.
It's hard to blame the members of the House for being old. It's the rest of us that keep electing the same people over and over.
Age of Members of 118th Congress (& Averages)
Looking for the age of every member of the 118th Congress? Get FiscalNote's report on the age of Congress, including the oldest, youngest, and interesting finds from the data!
Attachments
But, it needs to be stressed that there are structural reasons for this—mainly how seniority works in Congress. And, even tossing out the incumbency biases that voters may have—there are good reasons to have long-term members. It takes time to learn the system and build relationships. Sometimes this can work well—such as when LBJ pulled chits to get the CRA passed, but other times not—where cronyism, nepotism and inertia hamper progress. The question is, how to reform the system to produce better and more equitable governance?