Over the last few weeks, a number of Republican presidential candidates have begun to criticize President Obama and the Black Lives Matter protest movement, saying they are encouraging crime. Although there’s little evidence of a crime wave outside of a few major cities where homicides have increased, the political rationale seems obvious: The candidates are playing to the G.O.P. base, a normal part of the primary season.

Another possibility, though, is that Republicans are also still searching for the best angle of attack against Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Democrats, who remain narrow betting market favorites in 2016. Despite recent economic turbulence, the Democrats’ main advantage at this point is a generally positive economic outlook for next year, which requires Republicans to look for other issues they can wield against the incumbent party.

Recently, G.O.P. candidates have been linking recent crime to protests against police misconduct and even President Obama’s public statements on the issue. Donald Trump, for instance, alleged that police officers in Baltimore “allowed that city to be destroyed” after protests there, and also called for “law and order” and strengthened police powers in response to a “crime wave.” Similarly, Ted Cruz and Scott Walker responded to the murder of a sheriff’s deputy in Texas with statements blaming Mr. Obama for increased anti-police language, which they suggested endangers public safety and law enforcement.

Some G.O.P. strategists fear that these tactics could be damaging in the general election, but the party’s turn toward a hard-edged message on crime can be interpreted as an attempt to find a noneconomic issue it can use against Democrats. When parties can’t run on the state of the economy, Lynn Vavreck, a political scientist and an Upshot contributor, has argued, they have to emphasize an alternative issue where they have an inherent advantage and the other party can’t easily change position. Could crime be that issue for the G.O.P.?