This political correctness can have a serious backswing when people go to vote. As we have seen in US, and as we will see in Europe.
But it is also a little racist to try to hide the problem, as if criminality is inherent to the ethnicity and cannot be solved, so may as well be ignored.
Ignore the data supporting one side of the debate, and of course the other side will seem more convincing.
Finnish people were considered Asian in some American states in the early 20th century. Should they be included in crime statistics with Chinese?
Also, if police are required to collect this data, who else is? Should you be able to look up the registered ethnicity of a person similar to how anyone can look up tax returns in Sweden (and other Nordic countries)? If not, why not?
Your backswing is just the same old bigots getting a momentary upper hand because of the way the chips happened to fall in the last election. Whether they can leverage that into more lasting power remains to be seen.
Trump at the moment has a very low approval rating - maybe not everyone got what they read into him?
Polls also predicted him to have less than a 10% chance of winning the election. Not all data is good data.
The predictions were essentially right. Hillary Clinton had a better chance of winning the election, but Trump successfully rolled the dice with his 10% odds: he campaigned in some critical states that were expected to go blue and won them over by a narrow majority.
Also worth noting that accurate national polls wouldn't have captured a Trump victory (since Clinton lead in the popular vote). You would need state polls, but they're not always accurate. Trump's win in Michigan was a big surprise, but so was Sanders' win in Michigan a few months earlier.
Polling was incapable of accurately determining what the odds really were. If that die was six-side, but I told you there was a consistent 10% chance of rolling a 1, then I'm providing you with a bad probability. The media and pollsters did the same (for whatever reason).
Nope.
If polling couldn't determine what the odds really were, the probabilities, which showed it was well within the realm of possibility that trump would win, aren't evidence the polls were out of alignment with reality.
Semantics at this point. I'll rephrase your comment with consistent terms:
If polling couldn't determine what the odds really were, the odds, which showed it was well within the realm of possibility that trump would win, aren't evidence the polls were out of alignment with reality.
The possibility of Trump winning does not exonerate the accuracy of the odds presented by polls. The odds were not correct, and the polling data was flawed.
If there are 10% odds of something happening and it happens after one event, that's absolutely not a reason to say the data points that generated the odds are flawed.
That is the reason you presented.
I'll clarify, to help.
The reason not to trust polling data presented today is that the probabilities presented in the past were not accurate.
If you rolled a ten sided dice once and it came up with a ten, would you feel repeated tests that showed there was a 10% chance of that outcome should be ignored in future?