There's a lot of commentary in the media and here on Twitter about how violent protests and looting in Democratically controlled cities is bad for Joe Biden. But I haven't seen anyone say stories like these are bad for Trump/Pence.

This same story from @washingtonpost notes that police in Weatherford Texas were very late and ineffective at stopping violence from heavily armed right wing groups. But I don't think that anyone is saying officials in Weatherford (which is hardly a "blue city") are soft on crime

I'm posting these stories not because I think this violence should be laid at the feet of the president or because I think local officials deserve blame. But instead because I'm interested why that isn't the immediate reaction to stories of right-wing violence.

I've seen countless takes about how the rioting in Kenosha will probably hurt Joe Biden in the election.

But I've seen no takes that Rittenhouse shooting in Kenosha will hurt Trump.

(Don't get me wrong--I've seen people *blame* Trump for Rittenhouse. But that's different.)

I don't have the political expertise to know whether these takes are just descriptively accurate--that Democrats can take political hits on crime, but Republicans can't or won't.

But I do wonder whether those descriptive takes might be self-fulfilling prophecies.

When voters constantly see headlines that looting and violent protests *will* be used to attack Biden, or when they see multiple pundits talk about how Trump's law and order rhetoric is likely to be effective, is it possible that it primes people to view crime politics that way?

I frame that as a question, because I do not know the answer.
But I do know that I've spent the past several days hearing from people who think that public violence could hurt Biden.
And I'm starting to wonder whether this isn't an example of stereotypes shaping views.

Are people questioning whether Biden's comments are strong enough--even though he's repeatedly condemned violence--because democrats are held to a different standard when it comes to crime?

When armed vigilantes pour in from the suburbs to assault and shoot people, why do we assume that this doesn't count as a failure of Trump's promises of "law and order"? Is it because we do not view members of militia as criminals, but young people who set fire to stores are?

I don't have any good answers here. Just questions. But as I'm asking these questions, I do worry that the answers I hear from others and the assumptions that I myself have sometimes made are based on political stereotypes and double standards.

BTW -- here's the WaPo article. It's an important glimpse into political violence outside of the big urban cities that have captured most of the media coverage when it comes to protests and violence. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/protests-violence/2020/08/27/3f232e66-e578-11ea-970a-64c73a1c2392_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_protestviolence-630am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans