Shift in the Political Map

My Recent Posts

Why were 2016 president general elections socialist pollsters so wrong, and Trump's campaign consultant correct? 

 

Major political shift occurred around major events and pollsters may not have recognized a shift. For example major past shifts:  The Kansas Nebraska Act threw out the Missouri Compromise limiting slavery,  Great Depression was sold as a failure of capitalism but was a failure of cronyism, and hacks in black robes of the judiciary trashed the Judaeo Christian foundation pitching The Declaration of Independence in the circular file and writing legislation with Roe v Wade.  


We only need to look at Planed Parenthood to know that the US government has hijacked the nation and thrown the founding documents in the trash.   The identification of sexual perverts in Hollywood and Congress is the cherry on top of the pie they created.  That pie strips gender from the nation, defines humans only by a government document, and citizenship as a foot print on American soil.  Public support was not obtained for any of these.  Hacks in black robes of the judiciary issued bench legislation.  

The pollsters knew since Roe v Wade the states won by each party do not change much.  A shift of a few states could determine an election.  Gore lost his home state since Bush H said he would support evangelicals and thus the presidency.  Obama had poor GOP candidates so won states like Florida that sit on the fence.  Bush W ended the boom times of Reagan's tax cuts by increasing taxes, moving back to a steeper progressive income tax.
 
Was the Trump election the result of another major sift in the political map?  Is that why he won Penn., Wisc., and Ohio?  Is governor Walker of Wisc. another sign of the shift?   How about the change in the State legislatures and Governorship's?  
 
Has Roe v Wade run its course and as a nation we realize you can not survive committing Genocide.
 
Has stripping gender from the nation not been for more open personal choice  while respecting others but to limit personal choice?
 
The lose of property right become burdensome? They are listed as the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments.  Are we rejecting the FDR 1944 state of the Union that presented the Democrat's Second Bill of Rights?  Obama with ACA completed FDR's list.  FDR never intended to Amend the Constitution but would use bureaucratic regulation and legislation mostly from the bench to accomplish the list.

Comments

Jeff Michka Added Dec 10, 2017 - 7:50pm
The raving maniac, Sutrino sez: Has Roe v Wade run its course and as a nation we realize you can not survive committing Genocide.-Have rightists like yourself stopped telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies?  You rightist scream murder about fetal worship, but don't care what happens to the kids when they're born...let 'em starve, eh?  It's their parent's fault, never anyone else's.
Tom C. Purcell Added Dec 10, 2017 - 8:02pm
Michka,
 
I can respect the opinion that abortion might be a necessary evil under certain, unusually bad circumstances but with this particular subject, the onus is really on the political left, because they have convoluted the issue and have tried to warp immorality into modern morality.  So now it's polar - either genocide or let 'em starve. 
 
Abortion should not be the solution to a dilemma.  The destruction of a human fetus should not be available as a convenience, because that is not only inherently immoral any way you slice it, but opens the door for further evils to cultivate around it, like with the body parts-trade, a disgusting byproduct of the Planned Parenthood organization.  
 
Planned Parenthood operates under the guise of morality, as though it's there to help women and children.  That's not what it is, and organizations like it do a grave disservice to the communities in which they operate.
Hamilton Added Dec 10, 2017 - 8:43pm
Tom,
Allow abortion rights and you uphold an adult woman's sovereignty over her own body and everything that's going on within it. Disallow abortion rights and you prevent the death of a fetus but violate the woman's personal sovereignty. This conflict is a conundrum that I think hasn't been adequately solved and probably never will be.  I'm no mind-reader but I'd guess the decision has gone the way it has because SCOTUS has assigned the primacy of the rights of sentient adults over those of the unborn.
 
Hamilton Added Dec 10, 2017 - 8:50pm
Thomas,
I'd say Trump's election was a result of a major shift in the sentiment of our electorate, not one of a political map. Trump was chosen by the People, over one fascist Democrat, one socialist Democrat and no less than sixteen 'conservative' Republicans. Yes, he was chosen as a means to swerve 180 degrees away from Obama's Islamosocialism but even more so, he was chosen because he was from completely outside the political class and he was the only candidate who was openly critical of that political class as a totally corrupt element of our society. Trump was indeed chosen to drain the swamp.
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 10, 2017 - 9:15pm
Jeff M., the justice system in America charge people with homicide of both the mother and her fetus and any week of gestation, and that has been the standard long before Roe v Wade.   Since justice should be blind we have a clear standard to apply to abortion.  
 
Europe has a typical 12 week period to have an abortion.  Only a few countries have longer and even less much shorter.  How about following their criteria for all types of homicide?  Thus both mother and other people responsible for the homicide are treated equally.
 
Today 1.3% of abortions in America are homicide by even the Supreme Court standards since they occur after the fetus is viable, 20.8 weeks.  The Judaeo Christian standards the feeling of the fetus/ baby in the womb.  That is about 12 the standard in Europe.
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 10, 2017 - 9:19pm
Tom P., abortion is a moral and social issue that should be solved not by the edicts of men in black robes that are selected by politicians with bias towards their ideology. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 10, 2017 - 9:25pm
This is one view: Allow abortion rights and you uphold an adult woman's sovereignty over her own body and everything that's going on within it. 
 
But and equally valid view is from the fetus that by the Declaration of Independence the principle document that the Constitution implements.   Life    And since in is a proven fact that when an egg and sperm join an animal is created which include man, life.   Just as seed at that same point defines a tree that will grow.  No one would disagree that each seed defines a very specific plant or three.    A seed does not create a frog.
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 10, 2017 - 9:29pm
hamilton, I put a question on a shift of the political map.  It will take a few elections to determine if it occurred.  We do know that the chances are high because a shift occurred  in the 2010, 2012, and 2016 elections.  The number of states that are under GOP control is unprecedented.
Dave Volek Added Dec 10, 2017 - 9:52pm
Thomas
 
In Canada, most of our provincial and federal elections are fairly decisive: i.e. the winning party gets a wide margin. When we look south and the American newscasters call a 53% to 47% a decisive victory,  that would be a close race in Canada. You Americans have a very uncanny ability to keep your elections close. Maybe it's a psychological need to add to the drama. 
 
Like many, I was surprised that Mr. Trump wasn't punted of the primary race shortly after it got started. But when we were down to the last four and Mr. Trump was in first place, I thought he could win this thing and then win the presidency. All it takes is a few mistakes from the other side during the campaign to turn a 53% to 47% into something tighter. When it gets to 51% to 49%, it becomes a coin flip.
 
In the end, I believe the soft support for Mr. Trump were more motivated to make a trip to the polling station than the soft support for Ms. Clinton.
 
 
 
 
Hamilton Added Dec 10, 2017 - 10:18pm
Thomas,
You discussion about when life begins is applicable but so is the constitutional rights of the woman. Like I said, this is a conflict and a conundrum, perhaps without solution. My last sentence, above, I think, is the best explanation for the current status of this issue.
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 10, 2017 - 10:48pm
Hamilton there is no question when life  begins, science has answered that, at conception.   And the justice system by charging homicide for the death of the mother and fetus clearly means they absolutely agree.  The question is the same question that faced slavery.  Does the mother right more important then the fetus.    Slavery put forth the same question.  Genocide is the situation where one class of humans have by political reason is a higher form of human then another class.  Abortion says that a mother is a higher form of human that a fetus.   
 
Hitler said a jew is a lower form of human.
Islam says a non-muslim of my sect is a lower form of human.
An enemy at war with my nation is a lower form of human.
A member of tribe B is a lower form of human then tribe A.
 
The law of nature and of natures God does not create classes. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 10, 2017 - 11:07pm
Al K., Roe v Wade is an important part, but if it was the driving part the people would have rose up and over ruled the Supreme Court decades ago. 
 
This is a possible political shift due the change I believe in the importance of the principles in The Declaration of Independence.   Free society based on no class vs a class society: The societies of plato's Republic,  Thomas More's Utopia, Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, and Karl Marx's communist Manifesto are books defining possible class societies.   History is full of class societies. 
 
500 years ago Martin Luther said that Christ forgave our sins and we need to recognize this and act accordingly.  The Ten Commandments is the moral code for man and as Jesus said in answer to a question the first two are the most important.    It is impossible to have a class society if you live by the commandments.  The revolution Martin Luther began has a clear path to The Declaration of Independence.  
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 10, 2017 - 11:13pm
Dave V., the problem is that the dynamics nature of our system has resulted in a two party system when in fact the parties are combinations of two or more smaller parties.  This results in the issues of the smaller parties never being discussed.  The discussion that we do have are often not the critical ones because the important ones do not create a consensus.
Ian Thorpe Added Dec 11, 2017 - 9:53am
Dave V "Psychological need to add to the drama." I think that just about sums up many of them.
Even A Broken Clock Added Dec 11, 2017 - 10:48am
The elephant in the room is the low electoral turnout within the US. Part of the reason why elections are close in the US is because even for presidential elections, we have less than 60% of the voting age citizens who even bother to cast a vote. And during other elections, even fewer turn out. This disengagement from the electoral process is disturbing. It either says that people don't think their vote matters, or that the non-voters just do not care about how they are governed. We pontificate on the meaning of having a few percentage point swing in an election and declare it is indicative of a sea change in the nations mood. Balderdash. Not even 25% of the voting age population voted for Donald Trump. But with the system we have, that resulted in his election.
 
I recognize the validity of the election, but I can see the point of those who do not view the results as valid since it is a small minority of the population who actually supported the winning candidate (same can be said of the losing candidate).
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 11, 2017 - 11:28am
The two party system I think causes this problem.  The real issues are watered down or the politicians may be from a different sub party in the major party.  That politician puts on the mask of the political sub party that the voters agree with.   Then once elected follow the sub party politics that he is a member of.    Basically fraud.   So if 80% of the time the politician is a fraud then why vote.
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 11, 2017 - 11:31am
Donald Trump did not have a history of being a fraud.  The GOP candidates that had a history in politics were thus tagged as frauds.  Ted Cruz and Ron Paul had a history of being far less frauds.   Trump had no history and no association with the GOP before one major election period and then not as an elected politician. 
Bill H. Added Dec 11, 2017 - 12:04pm
 
Thomas - Don't forget that your so-called "Socialist" pollsters include your own beloved Fox News, who also showed Trump losing big-time in the elections.
John Minehan Added Dec 11, 2017 - 12:53pm
"Was the Trump election the result of another major sift in the political map?  Is that why he won Penn., Wisc., and Ohio?  Is governor Walker of Wisc. another sign of the shift?"
 
This was predicted by a journalist named Salena Zito from Pittsburgh.   Even Zito sees challenges for Trump. 
Dino Manalis Added Dec 11, 2017 - 12:58pm
Unfortunately, polls are politically biased and based on wishful thinking, not reality and don't represent all of us, including mainstream America.
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 11, 2017 - 1:49pm
Fox News  Bill H., owner's children that were taking over the company are known liberals or progressives.  Fox broadcasted 100% of Trump's primary rallies.   They did not broadcast all of his general election rallies if I remember correct.   Hillary's lack of coverage was because she was poor entertainment.   Only a few of the Fox opinion hosts fully supported Trump.
 
John M. and Dino M., their are always a few people that get it correct.   The reporter that traveled around the country in 2016 also predicted that a change had occurred.   The Tea Party was a change in view that did not turn into political organization.  It was to weak to withstand the combined actions of both the Democrats and Republicans. 
 
What we see happening in the Democratic Party is that the National organization is weak and the states run the show.  Obama I think caused this shift.  The key is that major donor give to the candidates directly.
 
To day the Republican National Party is strong and the state organizations are weak but getting stronger.  That is seen in the take over of more state legislatures.  Will the major donors give to candidates directly which says the national party is not hearing them?    Or will they continue to give to the national party.  We are seeing that the national party needs more money to get their candidate on the ballot and then elected.  Will the donors take this to mean the national leadership is out of touch?
John Minehan Added Dec 11, 2017 - 1:59pm
I wrote this back in 2015 and it has held as predictive analysis:
 
"The important phenomenon is not that Trump may be  a fascist; it is that the conditions in the US are such that an opportunist can make political hay by advocating for fascistic policies.  As with Wiemar, that is a result of a government that is hemorrhaging legitimacy.  I'm not sure that will (or can) end well . . . . "
 
 
John Minehan Added Dec 11, 2017 - 2:03pm
Also from that time:
 
"I have (a possibly vain) hope that people like Gibson and Ralph Northam'81 might be part of a secular trend toward better government, but they might be just outliers in a secular trend towards collapse and anarchy.  (I always look at the bright side.) "
 
“More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”
target="_blank">Woody Allen
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 11, 2017 - 2:40pm

Webster dictionary defines fascism as:  
 
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition


2a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
 
Webster dictionary defines socialism as:
 


any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2a a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state


3a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
 
 
Let me summarize: Both fascism and socialism the rights state are supreme and individuals have not right except those supplied by the state.  Thus no one owns private property or their own labor.  They do not have a right to life itself.    The other difference are insignificant.
 
Now Trump believe that the laws of the government that follow the Constitution and thus the principles of The Declaration of Independence should be followed.   I am not sure he fully understand the Constitution since he has grown us in a quasi socialist mixed with Constitutional government.  But he seems to favor the Constitutional more then socialism.   Since the Constitution places individual rights sovereign over the government  Trump can not be a fascist.


Dave Volek Added Dec 11, 2017 - 3:21pm
Thomas
Canada has had three to five viable political parties since the 1930s. The rump party that is seldom in power is known as the NDP. However they have been the social voice for Canada, and the two main parties have picked up the NDP platforms to win elections.
 
With a Westminster first-past-the-post system (which is more or less what you Americans have), first place gets everything and second place gets nothing. With three parties, a winner often has only 40% of vote--both at the constituency election and the parliamentary election.
 
For some strange reason, the NDP has not gone away. Its presence has, in many cases, allowed its arch-enemy, the Conservatives, to win by taking away votes from the centralist Liberals.
 
There are many Canadians advocating for a proportional representation system similar to European elections. This seems to be more democratic as a party that gets 40% of the vote gets 40% of seats in Parliament.
 
These advocates fail to realize that both the Conservatives and NDP are already political alliances that are not internally united. The Conservatives have  liberatarian factions and centralists factions. The NDP have practical socialists and those who want to nationalize industry. If PR came into being, both of these parties would split, giving their factions their own voice. 
 
You are 100% correct in that both R's and D's are not internally united. They give the appearance of unity, which helps win elections. But there is all sorts of maneuvering for which faction is the most influential with the party. 
 
Advocates of PR also fail to acknowledge that Europeans are not exactly happy with their politicians and political parties. PR does not create a more contented population who believe their voice has been incorporated into the decision.
 
I say get rid of the political parties.   
 
 
 
Edgeucation Newmedia Added Dec 11, 2017 - 3:26pm
I think Trump won because he thought out of the box. His people saw something others missed. It may be infuriating at times but America is a more interesting place to live in since he was elected. Also, his people got out and voted and Hillary's didn't. I think the Dems will come out and vote next time and probably even in the 2018 elections as well. Things could shift yet again. 
Hamilton Added Dec 11, 2017 - 3:30pm
Thomas,
SCOTUS's purvue is never to break society into subgroups and assign higher and lower forms, to each group, and then to apply constitutional law on that basis. Perish that base thought of yours. SCOTUS decides how the law applies to a society of equals. In this case, as I said way above, "I'm no mind-reader but I'd guess the decision has gone the way it has because SCOTUS has assigned the primacy of the rights of sentient adults over those of the unborn."
Dave Volek Added Dec 11, 2017 - 3:31pm
EABC
 
I disagree that a low voter turnout is hurting democracy. If a voter can see much difference between the two candidates proferred by the parties, why bother?
 
I used to have investments in blue-chip stocks. Every year, they would send me a ballot of some kind to re-affirm the board of directors. I never voted for I just didn't know enough--and did not have time to know enough--to vote wisely. In essence, I let those who were a little bit closer to the corporate action to determine whether board should be acclaimed or be fired.
 
Australia used to have (and maybe still does) have a little financial punishment for those who don't vote. They get a 90% turnout, but there is no evidence that Australia is governed a lot better than other western nations.
 
And the non-voters are the most powerful demographic group. The political parties are very careful not to upset this group lest they get agitated enough to make it to the polls--and vote against a political party.
 
Don't blame the non-voters. They have an important role to play!
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 11, 2017 - 5:21pm
Dave V., the Constitutional structure before amendments assumed that there would not be political parties at a national level. The VP goes to the person with the second highest votes tells us this. Parties are inherent in human nature. Just two is a construction.
 
 
Edgeucation N., now did Trump think out of the box for the old set of rules or in the box for the set of rule if a step change happened in politics? I do not know.
 
Dems will come out and vote that is the tradition. The party in power loses house seats. So if the GOP does not loss the expected number of seats then what does that say?
 
Hamilton the definition I found for SCOTUS is (Supreme Court of the United States). The history of the Federal Courts is that of a political court making partisine decisions.  It integrates the power of the White house and Senate over time due to the length of a judge's length on the bench.  So the present benches favor the party in control for the last ~ 30 years 18 Democrat vs 13 Republican.  With the average since FDR 32 Democrat vs 19 Republican to get Senate approval.  As you can see the Democrats dominated the bench for decades.  Decisions will favor Democrats and if we take into account that the leadership of the GOP that favor crony Capitalism, the growth of government so long as it creates regulations in their favor, then these Republicans are in line with Democrats that also favor the growth of government and similar regulations. One hand washes the other and thus we get Roe v Wade decision. 
 
Dave Volek Added Dec 11, 2017 - 6:05pm
Thomas
I cite in my book that the founding fathers had a disdain for political parties and tried to write the Constitution without political parties. We know what happened anyways.
 
This important part of history means we have learn some new lessons if we want governance without political parties.
Bill H. Added Dec 12, 2017 - 1:03am
 
Thomas - The Republican party is not getting stronger, it has split itself in the middle to become two different entities, therefore weaker.
The Democratic party is in a state of disorganization.
As I have always said, we need a new party that will actually work for the people, not for the corporations.
Bill Kamps Added Dec 12, 2017 - 1:02pm
Trump got almost the same votes, in the same districts, as Romney.
 
HRC did not get the turnout in key districts that Obama got. 
 
HRC's margin for error was smaller than most people thought, because her votes were concentrated in fewer districts.  She lost 86% of the counties that voted.  Romney also won a majority of counties that  voted. 
 
I would say that there was not a great shift in this election.  However, the fact that the Democrats have their votes concentrated in the large cities, means  they are at risk if the turnout is small.  They have to win big in these districts to overcome the GOP votes that come from the rural vote in man of the states they hope to win.
Achmed Mohammedan Added Dec 22, 2017 - 8:25pm
Well hello, Jeff Michka.  Jeffi, jeffi, jeffi .. the raving lunatic jeffi ... There is a major problem with your comment/post.  No offspring shall "starve" as you assert.  Rather, they will, if their sires and the dam are incapable, or refuse, to provide support .. taxpayers have their hard earned income stolen from them, to support said progeny.
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 22, 2017 - 11:05pm
Bill K., wake up.   I have not gone into details to the  vote count in counties.  So let us say this is true, "Trump got almost the same votes, in the same districts, as Romney."  The results was however very different because 4M democrats did not materialize in the voting booths.  That resulted in EC improvement by Trump of 84 electoral votes.  What is not know is how many republicans didn't show up and were replaced by independence flipped to the Trump.
 
2012 Mitt Romney EC 206 popular 60M
Barack Obama EC 332 popular 65M

2016 Donald Trump EC 290 popular 60M
Hillary Clinton EC 228 popular 61M

Recent Articles by Writers Thomas Sutrina follows.