That eight million people live on top of each other as we do and there is so little crime is amazing. A period of historically low crime in the city.

Nonetheless former Democrat, Cuomo, running as an independent for mayor said in a recent interview "I want to talk about, 'I'm afraid to have my daughter on the train, the subway."

Notice he can't say that he is scared himself or that his 'daughter' says she's scared. Because it's not scary. It's just something to worry about.

So the subway problem here is mostly one of scaring old people for no reason.

And if we want to get mad about the subway I have several slogans:

PUBLIC TOILETS NOW!
FIX THE SIGNALS!
STOP LISTENING TO MUSIC WITHOUT HEADPHONES!
THAT STROLLER IS TOO BIG COME ON!
FIX THE ELEVATOR NOW!

Real problems.

@futurebird also, if you want to prevent people falling on the tracks, that's such an easy fix, *and* it will save money!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLKN_Rmb39I&t=226s
(just the 3-ish minutes starting from 3:46)

@futurebird the last time I felt actually fear on the subway was right before everything shutdown with COVID. We knew there was a pandemic, that it could kill lots of people, but we all had to get to work anyways. So people had masks, gloves, hand sanitizer, and we packed in on the train.

Listen. I know this is something more center-leaning (or simply nervous) Democratic voters don't like to hear about the elected Democrats we *hope* will protect us from this ongoing and growing police state.

I just wonder if Governor Kathy Hochul has reflected on how, in caving to imaginary Republican fear about crime and immigration, she helped keep the myths alive. Do more moderate Democrats learn? Experience regret?

Or is she thinking ...I should have leaned right harder?

If a reporter asks you "What will you do about the ghosts haunting the city and turning our kids into toads?" You MUST say "Ghosts aren't real. No one can turn someone into a toad." Not "Many people are concerned about ghosts... we have a brought in the national guard to protect from ghost-related concerns. Nonetheless most scientists say ghosts aren't real. Blah blah blah..."

The latter makes you sound like you are nervous and LYING about the ghost problem. It makes people scared of ghosts.

You can't win over someone who thinks the city is being terrorized by ghosts by doing this, and you are making more people suspect that the ghosts might be real after all by not being firm and clear about the facts.

"But then they will say I'm soft on ghosts!"

They will say that even if you bring in the got damn ghostbusters themselves.

If a reporter asks you "What will you do about the ghosts haunting the city and turning our kids into toads?" You MUST say "Ghosts aren't real. No one can turn someone into a toad." Not "Many people are concerned about ghosts... we have a brought in the national guard to protect from ghost-related concerns. Nonetheless most scientists say ghosts aren't real. Blah blah blah..."

The latter makes you sound like you are nervous and LYING about the ghost problem. It makes people scared of ghosts.

The more I think about this the more obvious it is that what centrist, right leaning Democrats do on issues like crime is doomed to fail. On the issue of crime you have:

1. What is the problem and how bad is it?
2. What are effective ways to address the problem?
3. What will we choose to do with current resources?

What message is sent by saying "it's not such a big problem, hinting that the ways to address it aren't what we are doing... but then going all in for right wing solutions?

The more I think about this the more obvious it is that what centrist, right leaning Democrats do on issues like crime is doomed to fail. On the issue of crime you have:

1. What is the problem and how bad is it?
2. What are effective ways to address the problem?
3. What will we choose to do with current resources?

What message is sent by saying "it's not such a big problem, hinting that the ways to address it aren't what we are doing... but then going all in for right wing solutions?

@futurebird If they were really concerned about people being pushed in front of trains, they'd install those walls/doors that open synchronously with the train doors that places with properly developed subways have. This actually has a ton of benefits (no track hopping, no trash getting down on the tracks, no danger of tripping/falling onto the tracks) in addition to preventing attacks, and is even estimated to pay for itself over time.

If a reporter asks you "What will you do about the ghosts haunting the city and turning our kids into toads?" You MUST say "Ghosts aren't real. No one can turn someone into a toad." Not "Many people are concerned about ghosts... we have a brought in the national guard to protect from ghost-related concerns. Nonetheless most scientists say ghosts aren't real. Blah blah blah..."

The latter makes you sound like you are nervous and LYING about the ghost problem. It makes people scared of ghosts.

@futurebird I agree, but I also wonder whether this actually works?

Sadly, I don't recally any time where someone said "here is the BIGNEWCRIMETHING and we need to do things about it", only to be laughed out of the election cycle because the BIGNEWCRIMETHING wasn't a thing after all.

Is that because laughing them out doesn't work, or is it because laughing them out sadly simply doesn't happen enough?

@jollyorc

Politicians are terrified of taking this stance. I don't think I've ever seen anyone take it. But what I have seen is mealy mouthed Democrats who try to explain their policy ideas without ever pushing back on the fake-ness of the scare get twisted up and ruined.

In the 80s there *was* a low-grade and ongoing problem with crime in US cities because their populations had dropped due to suburban exodus.

So a politician who didn't recognize that would get destroyed in media.

@futurebird If they were really concerned about people being pushed in front of trains, they'd install those walls/doors that open synchronously with the train doors that places with properly developed subways have. This actually has a ton of benefits (no track hopping, no trash getting down on the tracks, no danger of tripping/falling onto the tracks) in addition to preventing attacks, and is even estimated to pay for itself over time.

@Azuaron @futurebird

It might also reduce in the station somewhat and improve odor. It's much hard to clean smelly stuff off of the tracks (whether tossed food, or bodily wastes) than it is to clean it off the tiled floors.

When people, mostly transit advocates who want more funding to repair subway stations and signals and improve the system objected to the national guard last year they were written off as simple peace-nicks who protest *everything* and don't understand the political reality. "This will keep conservative NYers feeling safe, what's the big deal"

But it isn't making them "feel safe" it's validating the republican idea that the city is in chaos when it's just NOT.

@futurebird

The difference between being unsafe and “feeling” unsafe is the difference between reality and a fever dream.

Every “law and order” push I have ever seen in my lifetime has accomplished one thing very well: to make people “feel” unsafe regardless of reality.

And feeling unsafe is all the permission most people need to step in line with the fascists and support the targeting and oppression of pretty much anyone.

There are many older New Yorkers who worry about their kids riding the subway. After all they see all of the stories in the news. And the National Guard! *they* don't go on the trains themselves but they remember the 80s. (In the 80s the subways were much more dilapidated and crime was higher, ridership was lower which made it less safe.)

But when these older people tell their kids to be safe we laugh at them and brag "I ride at 3 am CALM DOWN" that must be be so stressful.