It doesn't mean anything and it doesn't have to, it sounds negative and also like it could be true. It's the sort of thing people will remember and parrot if they end up having a conversation about the election. "Oh yeah? I think that guy is weak on crime". I think that's one of the reasons why really basic, negative arguments can work in elections, people repeat it so much that it becomes a fact, even if there was nothing there to support it in the first place.
It doesn't mean anything and it doesn't have to, it sounds negative and also like it could be true. It's the sort of thing people will remember and parrot if they end up having a conversation about the election. "Oh yeah? I think that guy is weak on crime". I think that's one of the reasons why really basic, negative arguments can work in elections, people repeat it so much that it becomes a fact, even if there was nothing there to support it in the first place.
This is sort of a bizarre claim. How can a senator be "weak on crime"? They can either pass or repeal laws, making things a crime or not a crime, but they don't enforce the law...
I guess they can also pass budgets which cut FBI spending, but neither side seems interested in that.