Are Democrats at risk of losing "law and order" issue to Donald Trump?

But your concern is noted

is for him and his cronies to steal as much as they can and to shoot people who are guilty of not being white.

Trump has links to organized crime over his lifetime, he committed obstruction of justice 10 times, he has been in legal trouble his entire life & his presidency.

Nixon - Watergate & other corruption.

Reagan -- how many laws did he break with Iran Contra, Ollie North, drug dealing? Like Trump he also knew Roy Cohn with links to organized crime.

We are tough on crime on the poor but weak on crime when it comes to the elite.

It really should be called the "authoritarianism is good" issue.

And no, I don't think Democrats should get on board with "authoritarianism is good". They could, however, get on board with a "rule of law" agenda, emphasizing how many laws have been broken, and how Republicans don't care.

First, "Law & Order" is code for keeping black citizens down. The people that accept this code were going to vote PINO anyway.
Second, the climate has changed, after George Floyd, and the true problem is manifest to a larger number of moderate people than before. "Tough on crime" isn't a priority right now, especially if tough means even more of the same.
Third, crazy, stupid, COVID, jobs, & race are occupying tens of millions of folks.
They have bigger fish to fry.

There isn't one area where trump is better on the issues than Biden.

Not one.

But the 60-65% Of the rest of us aren’t sold on trump.

The Dems hate him and the swing voters and independents favor Biden overwhelmingly.

It isn’t even close.

So no, this “law and order” nonsense will attract no one to trump. Not one voter.

I hated that planned treaty, glad it was never implemented.

It wasn’t perfect but it was a far better approach than we got when Dumb Donald tore it up.

TPP would be much harder to get rid of. I agree thought there are very, very few issues where Biden doesn't come out on top. He's better on almost every issue.

I'd be looking to my state government to do something, not 'the Democrats'.

Family values, law and order, common sense government, blah blah blah ad infinitum.

They wouldn't know law, order, common sense, or values if it jumped up and bit their nose off.

prez trump, if you are so law and order-y, why to you fire inspector generals left and right and only give "lost your confidence" as a reason?

as if we don't already know

We are very much at risk of appearing to be anti-American to the moderate voter.

The democrats don't have to worry about their base, it's solid, what we need to worry about is the undecided voters who will determine who wins the White House.

I have had 3 friends, all moderate Democrats who have expressed dismay to me about the current optics. None would ever vote for Trump, but they are wavering in their support for the Democrats as they feel they have moved too far to the left. One of those friends, a resident of Minneapolis, told me this morning that she can't wait for the Mayorial and City Council elections so she can vote against them.

The "Defunding the police" narrative, while well-intentioned, is a losing battle for the Democrats when we have something like CHOP demonstrating the worst-case example of what no police presence looks like to the public. Tearing down statues of George Washington and Lincoln is not a good look when you are asking the general public to trust you.

Optics matter.

Tell them Trump sold this country out to Russia. We actually want to make America better & Republicans and these moderate friends are holding up progress.

Watching police brutally suppress protestors is bad optics for me. George Floyd is bad optics to me. Trump's church photo OP is bad optics to me.

If people want Biden to run to the right of Trump on this issue I'm done.

"Optics matter" to people who have only a cursory understanding of history and current situations.

Optics absolutely matter, regardless of if you want to admit it or not.

about it. They are not helping Democrats get elected for sure.

The slogan is unpopular with most demographic groups, too, with two notable exceptions: Black Americans and Democrats. In the two polls where results were broken down by race, Black respondents said they supported defunding the police by an average of 45 percent to 28 percent, while white respondents opposed it by an average of 61 percent to 23 percent. This is in line with other polls that have consistently shown that white people mostly see police in a favorable light, while Black people are likelier to have experienced mistreatment at officers’ hands and take the problem of police violence seriously. So what we’re seeing here may be another reflection of Black and white Americans’ different experiences with police.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-like-the-ideas-behind-defunding-the-police-more-than-the-slogan-itself/

However, regardless of how different groups see the issue, the "Defund the Police" narrative is not going to help us in any way beat Trump in the upcoming election. The Republicans will use it against us relentlessly for the next 5 months...probably to great effect, don't forget Willie Horton.

It is widely acknowledged during modern times that the ad was racist. Trump had a racist ad during the midterms about the Caravan which was compared to the Willie Horton ad that backfired on them. This isn't the 80s when we were less diverse far more conservative where politicians could get away with dog whistles & subtle racism. Trump says "Kung Flu" the media is not afraid to label it racism. Trump says Pocohontas the media labels it racist every time.

Defund the police is really a nuanced position. When you explain how policing works and all the tasks they do many of which are not crime related. Police budgets make up a large portion of city budgets and a lot of the problems could be better solved by investments. Instead of having police watch the homeless you can invest in programs to help. This is more of a local issue rather than a national one.

This person has good suggestions from a legal perspective.

Defund the police is really a nuanced position. When you explain how policing works and all the tasks they do many of which are not crime related. Police budgets make up a large portion of city budgets and a lot of the problems could be better solved by investments. Instead of having police watch the homeless you can invest in programs to help. This is more of a local issue rather than a national one.

You called it out perfectly, it's a nuanced position. The problem is that modern media and the people consuming don't do nuance. I recall reading articles about how the average person never reads past a headline anymore.

You understand the nuance, I understand the nuance, but do Joe & Jane Public understand the nuance? We won't win if the swing voters abandon the Democrats because of a lack of understanding of the nuanced message.

What I think the general public wants to hear, is pass police reforms that don't cut police funding while at the same time we increase funding for social services so that the police aren't forced into situations where they aren't the right mechanism.

It goes back to the old saying when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The police being the hammer...We need more tools in the tool belt.

My neighbor is a 75 year old Cuban woman who now votes Democratic, along with her two sons. She hates Trump. But when she spoke to me at length the other afternoon while doing some gardening all she could talk about was "Defund the Police" and how it was a terrible idea that would never work. She continued to shake her head. I had trouble getting her to change the subject.

This isn't about getting to the right of Trump. Republicans thrive on short sound bite symbolism. We just handed them one with "Defund the Police," and the attached images they'll use of related looting.

It is simply reality.

alienating many Independents and right leaning democrats, as back in 1968 and 1972.

If he needs to.

Likely he’ll have to. As we’ve seen over the last few weeks once again, people do not like feeling unsafe, or frustrated by lawlessness and violence.

Watch The 13th documentary or anything related to mass incarceration and it will critique the crime bill. Read The New Jim Crow.

Bill Clinton apologized for the bill.

But certainly can point to the lower crime rates?

There are lead-crime links.

The lead-crime hypothesis arose out of the confluence of several events, primarily the decrease in crime rates in the 1990s and the reduction of environmental lead pollution in the 1970s.[56] After decades of relatively steady increases, crime rates in the United States started to sharply decline in the 1990s. The trend continued into the new millennium. Multiple possible explanations have come about, with academic studies pointing to complex, multifactorial causation as different social trends occurred at the same time.[46] The fact that in the United States anti-lead efforts took place simultaneously alongside falls in violent crime rates attracted attention from researchers. Changes were not uniform across the country, even while increasingly stringent Environmental Protection Agency rules went into force from 1970s onward. Several areas had far greater lead exposure compared to others for years.[46]

While there is strong evidence indicating that genetics influence the development of violent and aggressive behavior,[57][58] more recent attention has focused on environmental factors such as lead exposure.[59] Though there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that knowledge of a relationship between lead exposure and behavior dates back centuries,[26] direct observations would not be documented until the late 1800s.[60] Research in the mid-1900s observed that children previously treated for lead poisoning displayed a series of aberrant behaviors, including violence and aggression.[38] Further research has yielded similar results, finding that past lead exposure functions as a predictor for criminal activity.[4][61][62][63] Nation-wide analyses have also demonstrated positive associations between air-lead concentrations and measures of criminality and homicide.[1][64] A meta-analysis of studies examining the relationship between lead and conduct problems arrived at a similar conclusion, suggesting that the magnitude of the relationship between lead exposure and behavior is comparable to the relationship between lead exposure and I.Q.[3] While the scientific literature suggests there is a relationship between lead exposure and behavioral issues such as delinquency and criminality, directly relating these observations to the decrease in overall criminality is more difficult.

According to Jessica Wolpaw Reyes of Amherst College, between 1992 and 2002 the phase-out of lead from gasoline in the U.S. "was responsible for approximately a 56% decline in violent crime". While cautioning that the findings relating to "murder are not robust if New York and the District of Columbia are included," Wolpaw Reyes concluded: "Overall, the phase-out of lead and the legalization of abortion appear to have been responsible for significant reductions in violent crime rates." She additionally speculated that by "2020, all adults in their 20s and 30s will have grown up without any direct exposure to gasoline lead during childhood, and their crime rates could be correspondingly lower."[46] According to Reyes, "Childhood lead exposure increases the likelihood of behavioral and cognitive traits such as impulsivity, aggressivity, and low IQ that are strongly associated with criminal behavior".[46]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis

You don't have to be "more" or "less" L&O, you have to be "enough". The risk comes when Democratic Elected officials advocate policies and slogans like "defund the police", which gets used as a brush to color less radical Democratic leaders. Fortunately, Biden has already disavowed the movement.

Very interesting.

I personally do, and I think that the Democratic Party should, support the rule of law. That said, neither I nor the Democratic Party, as a whole, have any control over the protestors that are currently active in this country. I think that we should oppose the destruction of public and private property while acknowledging that the people who are responsible for this vandalism have legitimate gripes that government should address—post haste. I still don’t think that Democrats should actively cheer on vandals, no matter how just the vandals’ cause may be.

As for the “law and order” campaign strategy, it only works if you are the challenger. It worked for Nixon because LBJ was President, and Nixon could accuse Democrats of failing to maintain law and order. It won’t work for Trump because he is the incumbent, and he is the one who is failing to maintain law and order. I am not expecting this to be an issue in the upcoming election because Trump has failed to insure law and order now. The people rightly assume that nothing will change if he is re-elected.

-Laelth

How important is "law and order" issue to voting Americans?
Today? Less important than seeing equal justice instead of systemic racism and oppression. Americans at heart are suckers for fairness and tend to react very poorly when they see unfairness - even if it takes some of us in the white community a lot longer to see what is plain for viewing...

Law and Order should also NEVER mean or be interpreted as a green light to bark orders at civilians like a dog trainer and demand acquiescence and servility ONLY from Black men or minorities, but NEVER from a white man in the same situation. And that is just the tip of the iceberg...from arrests and abuse by officers to sentencing disparities to total lack of services and options to help re-entry to society for most, the ENTIRE Criminal "justice" system is in terrible need of total overhaul.

Do Democrats need to be stronger on "law and order"?
No. If you mean empty slogans and video taped abuse of citizens as a measure of strength.
Yes. If you mean adding de-escalation and psychology training to give officers more tools that a loud command, a gun and a badge.

True strength can only be shown by those who HAVE power and yet do not need to discharge that power to influence a situation and obtain a desired outcome - an interaction WITHOUT shots fired, beatings given or dead bodies at the scene.

How would that be manifested?
Manifestos generally don't get fondly remembered or age very well...

Should Democrats support tearing down statues?
In some cases, absolutely. In other cases, proper context is important, but in most cases how do you properly contextualize genocide or owning slaves, even if wishes to free slaves were spoken out loud, but actions to move in that direction were not taken...

The entire concept of a statue to "honor" someone should always be revisited after the passage of time to see if the norms of the past remain worthy of immortalization and reverence or instead require revision to properly honor, yet contextualize or nuance the representation of the honoree.

Should Democratic leaders remain silent during vandalism?
No, and they have not...I have not seen a single Democratic Party leader or member tout the virtues of violence or looting or rioting...they have all supported peaceful protest and condemned violence as counter-productive - even if they may say they understand the frustration that leads some to outbursts of irrational actions and rage.

Is there a political price to pay?
Only if you feel in your heart that we STILL have not had enough systemic oppression and racism and that we need another 400 years to "get over it". The political price SHOULD be paid by those who remain silent or advocate for anti-diversity and pro-Confederacy positions and thoughts.

Or is it no big deal to you?
As a white man who has enjoyed privilege my entire life, all I can do is act now to see that the systemic injustices and prejudices that while once beneficial to me and my children, MUST be reversed and addressed. There can be no real progress without a rewrite of policing in America and a re-education of white Americans to recognize and address biases and accepted 'norms' that are in no way either acceptable or normal in an equal opportunity society.

Until Black men can feel the same thing I feel if I get pulled over by the police - namely upset that I am probably getting a deserved ticket instead of fearing for my very life and going over a mental checklist of actions I cannot dare take for fear of it being my last act on Earth - then there is still too much work to do to be overly concerned with political prices and images.

in a knee- or chokehold, in unequal incarcerations, unwarranted traffic stops, etc. So, no.

occupying cities like Seattle and burning private businesses it sure does. If I thought Biden supported these things I would set out the election.

When the Democratic Party is viewed as the side supporting people doing these things, then regardless of what Biden says or thinks about it, he risks being dragged down with it.

He might be affected by it but he risks it? How so?

this is your concern?..."law and order" defines police brutality...white cops killing black men women and children...worry about something else...Biden's got this

eom

one more vote than he got in 2016. But his death cult will show up on election day. The don't want a perfect candidate. They want someone who will "keep the coloreds in their place." Nothing else matters.

Don't quite see how he's any sort of "law and order" anything. It's a joke. Police reform will bring the relief we need and only police reform in a major way.

For profit prisons also must go.

If Biden was a radical and supported crowds tearing down statues and defending eliminating the police in certain areas, then no.

Fork that noise.

the less enthusiastic about them they become.

So, for some the answer is yes it should be of some concern - personally I love the property-less hipsters agitating to 'burn it all down', they're my absolute favorite.