Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Kansas man who yelled "get out of my country" and shot two Indian engineers and a third person defending them.
2. White supremacist who stabbed an African-American in New York to death with a sword; was attempting to "kill as many black men ... in New York as he could"
3. White ex-Army man from Texas, obsessed with conspiracy theories including "an implant that would take away a person's desire for God"; shot and killed a security guard then tried to claim allegiance to ISIS after the attack
4. White student, member of "Alt Reich Nation", stabbed and killed black college student Richard Collins
5.Man who yelled that "Muslims should die", attacked edit: harassed two Muslim teenagers and killed two men who came to their defense
I'm not a Trump voter but I'm puzzled by the following:
"We included controls for factors such as the county’s crime rates, its number of active hate groups, its minority populations, its percentage with college educations, its location in the country and the month when the rallies occurred,"
You know what that's actually called? Cherry picking.
In short, they excluded a number of places using arbitrarily selected factors like % college education.
It would be compelling to note what the data indicates PRIOR to such adjustments.
Lastly, your title is wrong. It should read reported hate crimes. Since the article itself claims they are under-reported any good statistician should note that it may mean more people are encouraged or motivated to report them vs more actually occurring (we don't know which and to what extent). This phenomenon would be akin to abuse victims coming forward during #metoo. #metoo didn't CAUSE harrassment, it increased reporting of it.
P.S. Your request to counter that analysis is bunk. Either it stands on its own or it doesn't and frankly it looks shaky and is certainly unproven given what I see.
College education is likely negatively correlated with the locations where Trump held his campaign stops, and education has a negative effect on hate crimes. If you didn't include college education in the model you would likely see positive bias on your estimator of the effect of Trump rallies on hate crimes. They could have left it out and made Trump look even worse. That's just my theory, but I could be wrong.
As for counter evidence, I am always searching for numbers that back up Trumps claims. So, that's why I'm interested in that.
They used an online map from the Anti-Defamation League as the basis for their data. Trump did a campaign rally in a nearby county, so I checked their data. It reported three incidents in the county from 2016-2019:
- Approximately 15 people participated in a "Build the Wall” rally
- Jewish individual received anti-Semitic comments after writing an article about Israel
- Man received Facebook message calling him a "filthy Jew," along with other anti-Semitic comments
None of these are crimes, much less "hate crimes". If you expand the definition enough you can "prove" anything.
Spot checking various locations, it appears that the most common "hate crime" reported is offensive flyers on college campuses.
Here is an exceptional video pointing this exact problem
I would have to read the study to comment. The Washington post is not reliable for reporting truth. In fact, this publication has been a sewer of misinformation.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 05-14-2019 at 05:02 PM..
I'm just curious about the rebuttal Trump supporters are going to come up with in regard to this study. You often hear them praise Trump as the most peaceful, loving, altruistic president ever, but they never seem to understand that much of the country sees his rhetoric differently. Personally, I think he ran a vile campaign - hitting the low point when he mocked the disabled NYT reporter Serge Kovaleski. It doesn't surprise me that you find a statistically significant effect of Trump rallies on hate crimes.
College education is likely negatively correlated with the locations where Trump held his campaign stops, and education has a negative effect on hate crimes. If you didn't include college education in the model you would likely see positive bias on your estimator of the effect of Trump rallies on hate crimes. They could have left it out and made Trump look even worse. That's just my theory, but I could be wrong.
As for counter evidence, I am always searching for numbers that back up Trumps claims. So, that's why I'm interested in that.
So, let's talk about where the logic breaks down.
Since they're citing an increase in hate crimes the places with high college education would already have that baked into their starting point.
So, they should go up from say....1 to 3.
An area with few college educated people should then go from 10 to 30.
Regardless however, a higher percentage of college educated means that they would not already be committing such crimes, nor be encouraged to commit more of them but the proportions should still hold.
I get a very strong odor of "hey lets do a study" followed by "oh that didn't say what we wanted" and then "well lets start excluding data until it does".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
