- Jan 2014
Mr. Jim,two economic students, huh? why believe two economic students? were Scott Baio and Antonio Banderas, Jr. not available? They probably know more about how to conduct a scientific study on hate crimes than two economics students...why did the National Review, a lying ass right wing media site, choose to believe two students who majored in economics over the scientific study conducted by real experts, not economic graduates? And why do silly ass trump voters believe the lying ass National Review when they tell them two graduate students in economics should be believed over real experts? besides the fact their head is so far up trump's bloated posterior? riddle me that.
now for some facts to go with your usual right wing lies-
"In 2016, counties hosting a Trump rally saw a 226% spike in hate crimes," reads a post on Facebook from the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders.
The authors told PolitiFact that the paper is currently under peer review for publication in an academic publication. The authors presented it in 2019 at meetings of both the Southern Political Science Association and the Western Political Science Association.
Here’s how the authors summarized their work in the Post:
Using the Anti-Defamation League’s Hate, Extremism, Anti-Semitism, Terrorism map data (HEAT map), we examined whether there was a correlation between the counties that hosted one of Trump’s 275 presidential campaign rallies in 2016 and increased incidents of hate crimes in subsequent months.
To test this, we aggregated hate-crime incident data and Trump rally data to the county level and then used statistical tools to estimate a rally’s impact. 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.
We found that counties that had hosted a 2016 Trump campaign rally saw a 226% increase in reported hate crimes over comparable counties that did not host such a rally.
The phrasing used by Sanders implies that hate crimes spiked in one jurisdiction, jumping from one level before the rally to a rate three times higher afterward. That’s not the case. As the study summary says, the 226% difference compares Trump-rally counties to non-Trump rally counties with similar demographics.
So a more accurate phrasing might be: "Counties that hosted a 2016 Trump rally had 226% more hate crimes than counties that did not."
Sanders’ post said, "In 2016, counties hosting a Trump rally saw a 226% spike in hate crimes."
This is from an academic study. However, it’s worth noting some caveats -- that the data can be subject to "statistical noise" and jurisdictional differences in hate crime definitions and police aggressiveness, and that cause and effect are hard to pinpoint.
Perhaps most important is that Sanders’ wording implies that the 226% jump stems from comparing hate crimes before and after a Trump rally within the same county, when in fact it’s a comparison from Trump rally counties to similar counties that did not host a Trump rally.
The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True.
Did counties with Trump rally see 226% spike in hate crimes?
True, why trust a study done by two guys with backgrounds in statistics, and data interpretation?