And if they used Governor, you might complain that they didn't use Statehouse. And if they used that, you might come up with another reason.
My guess is that they used Trump AND Biden because they were the only politicians on the ballot in each of the states they studied. Many states didn't even have a Governor race in 2020 (the year they studied for election and murder).
The best thing would likely be to look at a matrix of policies for each state to identify potential impact from a specific policy over time and in combination with the other factors.
As I mentioned, likely because it was a data point that crossed city, county, and state lines. I can't think of another data point that provides that type of insight across such a broad swath of the population at a specific point in time. If you have some, please provide, it would make for a richer data set.
> The best thing would likely be to look at a matrix of policies for each state to identify potential impact from a specific policy over time and in combination with the other factors.
Plenty of that analysis is available, unfortunately the results don't penetrate the echo chamber. Here are a few [1] [2] [3].
[1] https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/254669.pdf
[2] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your...
[3] https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-...
That's largely not what we want when looking at policy that is typically enacted at the local level.
I asked for a matrix analysis with how various policies interact and perform over time, not a single subtopic. Those seem to be on a subtopic, and generally not related to the policies typically cited for being soft on crime (topic at hand). They could be part of the matrix as they are indirectly connected.
Are you aware that two of your sources contradict each other? One claims that stand your ground laws have no impact and another claims they increase violent crime and firearm homicide. Also interesting is that Rand omits some studies entirely. I would have liked to see what flaws they would have found in them rather than just leave them out (and leave us wondering if it was overlooked or due to a flaw).
The power of the governor varies substantially from state to state.
> plus they are the ones who set regulations (although city level regulations can vary wildly)
At least in most states, the laws are crafted by the legislature, and implemented by the Governors. Either way, I think it's very reasonable to assume that the in states that voted for a particular President, the local regulations within that state are more likely to be in line with that President and their party than if they voted the other way.
> The best thing would likely be to look at a matrix of policies for each state to identify potential impact from a specific policy over time and in combination with the other factors.
Yes. I would imagine if such a matrix showed that the policies of the Democratic party, normalized for other factors, were correlated with higher murder rates, the prevailing narrative would be well founded.
The point is, absent that, there's no reason to accept or speak to that narrative, other than to mislead and disseminate disinformation for political gain.
I think this is our main issue - which interpretation of the narrative are we discussing. A lot of times each side takes the worst interpretation or intention of the other. In the HN charitable spirit, I interpret the Republican narrative as questioning if policies like doing away with pretextual stops or sanctuary cities contribute to increases in crime. Likewise I interpret this article as trying to support those policies by showing there's little difference between the states. The part I take issue with, is that just analyzing based on partisan status and not on policies missed the debate around policies and doesn't control for socioeconomic factors. If they had focused on those, then it could provide much stronger evidence that the policies in question aren't contributing.
Now maybe I have it all wrong and this article is simply bashing Republicans (some of the text suggests that)
"Either way, I think it's very reasonable to assume that the in states that voted for a particular President, the local regulations within that state are more likely to be in line with that President and their party than if they voted the other way."
Potentially. In my state the legislature frequently passes things that are vetoed by the governor. The majority of the population is also in cities aligned to the governor's party (eg policies that start in the cities are requested by and sometimes passed on their request). I'm sure it's different in other states too. One big factor too, is that there was a lot of hate for Trump that could have nudged some middle of the road states away from their typical voting or the governor party(NH, VT, RI etc) which would affect the averages by party.
But you are sort of right - local policy tends to be the ones discussed. So even in "red" states, some of the large cities could be implementing "blue" policies. Although the same can be true the other direction - not all cities in "blue" states are implementing the policies in question.
