Hacker News Reader

This isn't just a list of highest murder rates per capita, it's got some population threshold- likely the 300k population on wikipedia- which boils down to there being like 5 Republicans that have managed to get elected in large cities.

> This isn't just a list of highest murder rates per capita

It is: https://freedomforallamericans.org/highest-murders-in-us-by-...

Edit: To be fair though, it is A list. I'm sure there are others as well, as the authors note, its hard to gather most recent data

The point is that if you have a small municipality, a small number of murders would easily top your examples. St. Louis has a murder rate around 70/100k. As a toy example, Murphy, N.C., population 1700, saw a double murder last year. So their rate is almost 118/100k.

So yes, your list is applying some sort of population threshold, which means you are then also just selecting for big cities.

There are no major cities run by the republicans. The closest we get is Jacksonville (which is a county with some urban area) and Mesa (a suburb of phoenix)… and does anyone really want to live in Jacksonville or Mesa?

Maybe occasionally a Republican will slip in as mayor of San Diego or Miami, but 90% of the time even those cities are run by democrats.

> and does anyone really want to live in Jacksonville or Mesa?

So those people count less because they vote for the wrong guy?

Some apparently believe that because "cities are run by _democrats_" 164 years in charge is not a problem in itself. 164 years of continious ruling over a city, but of course the other side is the currupt threat to democracy. The mental gymnastics involved are olympic.

My point was that neither Mesa nor Jacksonville are seen as great places to live, and you aren’t going to convince HN that they should vote like these cities do so that their own more appealing cities can be more like those less appealing cities.

There simply aren’t many examples of what America’s economically vibrant cities would be like if the other side was in charge, but maybe vibrancy is just not compatible with conservative ideology, and the stick to the suburbs, small towns, and rural areas because they are more…conservative (places elect leaders that mesh with their values).

It's worth questioning why most people living in urban areas lean and vote more liberal than the rest of the country. Those areas also tend to make (and thus contribute) more money on average, too.

sure. So to answer your question, lets start with the voter turnout in those cities:

St. Louis, MO (DNC rule 76 years): 29%

Baltimore, MD (DNC rule 56 years): 58%

New Orleans, LA (DNC rule 153 years): 29%

Detroit, MI (DNC rule 63 years): 17%

Cleveland, OH (DNC rule 35 years): 29%

Las Vegas, NV (DNC rule 82 years): ?? %

Kansas City, MO (DNC rule 34 years): 19%

Memphis, TN (DNC rule 53 years.): 23%

Newark, NJ (DNC rule 72 years.): 12%

Chicago, IL (DNC rule 94 years.): 35%

Cincinnati, OH ( DNC rule 41 years): 19%

Philadelphia, PA ( DNC rule 74 years): 18%

Milwaukee, WI ( DNC rule 65 years): 31%

Tulsa, OK (outlier): 26%

Pittsburgh, PA (DNC rule 91 years): 30%

Indianapolis, IN ( DNC rule 9 years.): 27%

Louisville, KY (DNC rule 56 years): ??%

Oakland, CA (DNC rule 48 years): 36%

Washington, D.C. ( DNC rule 64 years): ??%

Atlanta, GA (DNC rule 164 years): 25%

(for mayoral elections)

You're just shoving data around thinking it proves a point. What point do you think that it proves?

Alright, so tax volume is an accurate measure for who is a more worthy voter, but not how many urbanites care enough for democracy to even show up to a ballot box?

Multi-generational city rule and less than a third of voters showing up are not even abysmal data points – it's a gotham-style dystopia.

A lot of those cities are in the black belt where the red states they are in actively practice voter suppression, eg by making inner city voters wait in long lines without access to water. You can’t just blame the voters for not showing up when the state you are in is actively against them voting.

The DNC doesn’t “rule” over cities. Mayors are not DNC representatives or federally aligned. This is a disingenuous report with no sources and should be held with Extreme skepticism.

Obviously you’re right but my god that is a very troubling coincidence…

You honestly believe murder rate is higher in cities because the mayor is a Democrat? Or are cities with Democrat mayors much larger and diverse than Republic mayor cities? Do you think the people in Democrat cities vote in a Democrat mayor because they want more murder?

You can read a million different things from a list of items with similar attributes. Especially one compiled without sources or any context of the regions of the US.

Not the GP, but obviously as a general rule, Republicans are the hard-on-crime (three strikes, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time") party and Democrats are the soft-on-crime (Soros DAs, "we must address the root causes of crime") party. Even the most partisan on either side must admit this to be true.

From there, it's not a great leap to think that places with a soft-on-crime attitude at the local level might engender more criminal activity than places with the opposite attitude. Similar to why there are so many homeless people in California: the weather is lovely and local attitudes are permissive to it compared to other places, so it sucks less to be homeless there than, say, North Dakota. I think it passes the smell test to suggest that it sucks less to be a violent criminal in Baltimore than, say, Carmel, Indiana.

> are cities with Democrat mayors much larger and diverse than Republic mayor cities

What are you implying about diversity?

> Republicans are the hard-on-crime party

That's hilarious. It is interesting that these memes are so persistent even in light of the present. No, Republicans are not 'hard on crime', they are hard on anybody that isn't a white, preferably wealthy, evangelical republican.

How convenient of your political opponents to be so cartoonishly evil, so that only the most ignorant or craven could possibly support them!

In reality, Trump gained in all minority populations between 2020 and 2024. He actually lost white Protestants, and white voters in general, in the same time period[0]. In income, too, poorer voters shifted more towards the Republican candidate, while the more well-off shifted more towards the Democratic candidate.

This has been a fascinating realignment in traditional partisan composition. You're probably right that historically the Republican Party has been hard on those who aren't white, rich, and religious; but over the past 10 years or so, it's actually the Democratic Party that is the party of the white, rich, and religious[1].

[0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/demographic-...

[1]: The new left-liberal dogma that comes in many names, but has a lot of overlap with traditional religion.

> Not the GP, but obviously as a general rule, Republicans are the hard-on-crime … party.

…To the point that they elected a convicted felon to the presidency.

Believe it or not, there exist pretty good reasons why some people don't find the whole "convicted felon" thing to be very persuasive. But besides, do you dispute my overall characterization of the two parties? Insofar as major political parties can be generalized, this is true, is it not?

Maybe you should just retort with a list of your favorite big Republican run cities as counter examples? I’ve noticed you haven’t mentioned any, just throwing out rural areas or small towns in Indiana?

I’m curious about the association between income disparity and crime rate.

I suspect big cities tend to have a larger underclass population and a larger wealthy class. Predictable results ensue: Democrat administrations, and higher crime rates.

> Not the GP, but obviously as a general rule, Republicans are the hard-on-crime (three strikes, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time") party and Democrats are the soft-on-crime (Soros DAs, "we must address the root causes of crime") party.

This is not true at all. There are plenty of violent, hard on crime moderate Democrats that run these cities. Your bias and romanticization of politics is showing. Again in your comment the description is disingenuous and lacking sources and evidence.

You might want to research the US moderate political beliefs. Many are RINOs and DINOs which pokes a lot of holes in the current culture war. Especially if you spew bs such as, Rs are hard on crime and Ds are soft on crime.

> What are you implying about diversity?

What are you implying about it? I am implying that any time people of diverse cultures and beliefs are packed together in an area like a city, you probably end up with a higher murder rate situation than if those people weren’t packed together into a city. Yes?

rule?