Originally posted by: tom
Crime is in the major population centers, so acities metric is better.
As usual LAM can't read. The homeless stats are per capita.
Wow, you can't even read your own shit? Right on the front page, there's a bar graph showing IN LURID COLORS how California has a homeless population of 171,000 people, EEEEEEEEK! They're using absolute numbers to make their "point."
Since stupid fucking Tom was attempting to "prove" that liberal cities have more crime than conservative cities, only a city-to-city comparison would make sense--not a state-to-state comparison, idiot fucking bozo Tom.
The only fair metric would be to compare cities of equal demographics, including income and physical geography, and try to make the major variable political affiliation. It would be unfair, for example, to compare one city with harsh weather to another with mild weather--the latter would have a higher rate of homelessness.
So what you want to do to invalidate stupid Tom's contention is to compare cities of roughly equal size, similar economic characteristics, and similar geography. Turns out that when you do that, conservative cities have a SLIGHTLY higher rate of homelessness AND a slightly higher rate of crime. The differences, though, are barely within the range of statistical variation.
The abovementioned measures have been made literally hundreds of times, by sources on all sides of the political spectrum, over the last several decades. It turns out that the major factor affecting crime and homelessness is population density, which is of course independent of partisan politics.
Stupid Tom!