The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[RINO Tom]

... That proves nothing, except that you guys almost certainly never visited Ohio. Neither have I, for the record, but at least I don't proclaim to know the future political orientation of a state based on one Presidential election and a couple of out-of-context maps.

Ohio wasn't some massive swing towards Trump; Clinton hemorrhaged former Obama supporters, due to a variety of reasons. Let's take a look at turnout in the state from the 2012 and 2016 Presidential Elections. Overall, 54,387 fewer people voted in 2016 than 2012.

5,590,934 - 5,536,547 = -54,387

Now, look at the change in raw numbers from Obama to Clinton and from Romney to Trump. There were 433,540 fewer people who voted for the Democrat in 2016 than 2012, but only 179,569 more that voted for the Republican.

2,827,709 - 2,394,169 = -433,540
2,661,437 - 2,841,006 = +179,569

So, where did voter turnout drop the most?

Cuyahoga County (Cleveland): 645,262 - 608,879 = -36,383
Summit County (Akron): 268,358 - 260,346 = -8,012
Stark County (Canton): 181,746 - 176,165 = -5,581
Mahoning County (Youngstown): 121,584 - 115,971 = -5,613
Lucas County (Toledo): 210,621 - 198,830 = -11,791
Montgomery County (Dayton): 266,707 - 259,876 = -6,831
Hamilton County (Cincinnati): 418,894 - 409,109 = -9,785

What really happened in these counties?

Cuyahoga County
447,273 (Obama) - 398,276 (Clinton) = -48,997
190,660 (Romney) - 184,212 (Trump) = -6,448

Summit County
153,041 (Obama) - 134,256 (Clinton) = -18,785
111,001 (Romney) - 112,026 (Trump) = +1,025

Stark County
89,432 (Obama) - 68,146 (Clinton) = -21,286
88,581 (Romney) - 98,388 (Trump) = +9,807

Mahoning County
77,059 (Obama) - 57,381 (Clinton) = -19,678
42,641 (Romney) - 53,616 (Trump) = +10,975

Lucas County
136,616 (Obama) - 110,833 (Clinton) = -25,783
69,940 (Romney) - 75,698 (Romney) = +5,758

Montgomery County
137,139 (Obama) - 122,016 (Clinton) = -15,123
124,841 (Romney) - 123,909 (Trump) = -932

Hamilton County
219,927 (Obama) - 215,719 (Clinton) = -4,208
193,326 (Romney) - 173,665 (Trump) = -19,661

In counties where the Democrats lost the most voters, there wasn't a significant shift towards the Republicans. Voters simply went third party or, more often, stayed home.

It's also important to note that even though Trump won Ohio with a higher percentage of the vote than Bush in 2004 (51.31% for Trump, 50.81% for Bush), Trump didn't even reach Bush's raw vote totals (2,841,006 for Trump, 2,859,768 for Bush). And, this is not due to population decline in the state, since Ohio's population was 11,353,140 at the 2000 census and 11,613,423 in 2015.

Voter turnout in Ohio since 2000...

2000: 4,705,457 (2,186,190 = Gore | 2,351,209 = Bush)
2004: 5,627,908 (2,741,167 = Kerry | 2,859,768 = Bush)
2008: 5,721,831 (2,940,044 = Obama | 2,677,820 = McCain)
2012: 5,590,934 (2,827,709 = Obama | 2,661,437 = Romney)
2016: 5,536,547 (2,394,169 = Clinton | 2,841,006 = Trump)

Basically, Trump experienced a decent increase in votes over Romney, but Clinton experienced a dramatic decline over Obama - especially from his 2008 peak, and even from Kerry's results. There's nothing to indicate that (a) there were a significant number of Obama-Trump voters and (b) the next Democrat cannot recreate the results that Obama received simply by turning out the vote. Even if Trump held all of his voters, if the next Democrat could slightly increase Obama's 2012 numbers, the Democrat would win.

Came here to post this.

Posts like this are why this site remains valuable.  It's so simple and easy to think of Ohio as "Obama-Trump Ground Zero," and he just pretty much destroyed that narrative with, ya know, actual research and facts.

[RINO Tom]

I agree with your assessment of Jefferson's views, but will say that I don't think it's much different than the rhetoric used my many today in arguing against protectionism. Economic conservatives/libertarians believe in pro-free market policies, not pro-business policies. Government should not take a proactive role in protecting business, giving them special favors/protections. etc. Government simply should get out of the way and let businesses succeed or FAIL on their own.

Such has not been the case historically, however. Opposition to government intervention in the economy as a matter of principle is a relatively new phenomenon; in Jefferson's day, the battle over the tariff was waged between manufacturers in one corner, who favored a strong tariff to protect their interests, and an alliance of farmers and southern planters in the other, who opposed the tariff for the same self-interested reason. The former represented the Hamiltonian faction who organized as the Federalist Party and later merged with Henry Clay's "National" Republicans to become the Whig Party in the 1830s—and by every meaningful standard, they represented the conservative element in the politics of their time. Jeffersonian support for free trade sprung from the same well of distrust for centralized power, whether political or financial, that inspired their admiration for the French Revolution. Theirs was not a principled support for the free market, but a reflexive opposition to the expanding power of big business, which they saw as an existential threat to the republican nature of the United States much in the same way progressives today talk about campaign finance reform.

[RINO Tom]

Re: Thomas Jefferson political party

Clearly Democratic. He would balk at the sight of the plutocratic Republican party, and their desire to concentrate power in the hands of the few.

Broadly speaking, history has very rarely been about "big govt vs. small govt", otherwise the French Revolutionaries would be considered right-wing. Rather, it is about studying power structures and competing interests.

This concept of the government providing for its people through things such as social welfare was largely proposed during the Progressive Era, over a century after Jefferson. The very function of today's government would have made absolutely no sense to people before the Progressive Era, let alone to people before the Industrial Revolution. The government of Jefferson's era largely had one goal: to protect private property. The underlying left-wing basis that ties the left to government intervention, wealth distribution through social programs, simply did not exist.

During this pre-industrial era, the majority of America lived in an agrarian society. Jefferson had a very idealized view of this agrarianism; a world of self-sufficient farmers, with no wages and no real hierarchies* (*for white men). This was in opposition to the free-market industrial capitalists of the day, who largely envisioned a class-based society. The industrial capitalists benefited from policy such as road and port upgrades, so that they could trade their goods on the open market, while Jefferson and his vision of the self-sufficient farmer had no need for such policy; thus, they saw taxes that funded these projects as money going directly to the rich elites.

It soon becomes clear how Jefferson is more similar to the modern Democratic Party, and how the Federalists are more similar to the Republican Party. This is precisely why FDR believed himself to be the ideological heir of Jefferson and Jackson (despite being the most "big government" president ever), and why the Democratic Party had begun to hold Jefferson-Jackson dinners in the late 40s (when Truman, a Democrat, desegregated the military and spawned a segregationist revolt). Though, to be fair, expecting right-libertarians to understand historical context is a little bit demanding.

Came here to post that.  Won't stop some 15-year old libertarian from saying otherwise, though.

[RINO Tom]

Despite the near unanimous hatred towards me by red and blue avatars alike, I honestly believe I'm quite the average Republican Party voter.

Putting this here because it's actually quite accurate.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for simple truths?

[RINO Tom]

Let's start with the provisions in the original Constitution relating to arms:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clause 11 itself is notable. In order to be able to give effect to any Letter of Marque and Reprisal that might be issued, the recipient would have to be able to acquire arms, up to and including cannons. However, while indicating that private control of arms was possible in certain circumstances, it certainly doesn't imply that the Federal government was required to stand aside laissez-faire and allow people to get whatever weapons they want.

Clauses 15 and 16 define the Militia to a certain extent. First off, it serves as both a police and a military auxiliary, able to be called up when needed. While the Federal government has authority to set standards for the Militia, it is the States who have the actual responsibility of training and organizing. the Militia. Note that the government organizes the Militia.  There is no such thing under the Constitution as a private Militia.

The Federal government has authority to determine what weapons are available. That's the standard that was used (tho not necessarily calling specifically to these provisions) to ban saw-offed shotguns, and could reasonably be used to ban Saturday-night specials and 3D-printed guns.  These provisions can also provide for the required registration of automatic weapons, and there is no reason to think it could not be applied to all classes of weaponry.

So having said all that, what exactly does the Second Amendment do?

Primarily it guarantees to everyone the right to be in the Militia except if they have committed offenses that would authorize restrictions upon their civil rights. Note that the Militia is not synonymous with the National Guard, nor could it be made so, for Clause 15 makes it clear that for purposes of the Constitution, the Militia is not a strictly military body. Also, nowhere does it say that only the organized portion of the Militia is the Militia. Rather the organized Militia is the portion that is to be made available by the States that have organized it to the Federal government upon request. Thus I think Scalia's legerdemain in saying Heller didn't have to be part of the Militia to be able to own a gun was pointless. By any reasonable standard, Heller was part of the Militia as defined by the Constitution.

So to recap, while I think every adult has the right to own guns, including automatic weapons, as part of the Militia, the government has the right to require that people register as part of the Militia, be sufficiently trained to handle weapons, to have those weapons registered with the government, and to tax possession of said weapons and ammunition.

[RINO Tom]

1. A large chunk of her 2008 supporters had died or left the party.

This is the single most important reason - the following are listed in descending order of importance:


2. The Democratic Party had much weaker organization in most of these areas than it did in 2008, reflected in lower turnout - especially of the kind of voters who are likely to cast their vote with the preference of their union, local party, or whatever other institution in mind.


4. The Obama presidency wasn't particularly kind to these areas. Between hospital closures, opioid overdoses, suicides, unemployment, poverty, rising crime, college costs, health care costs, the availability of decent primary and secondary education, the list of ills goes on. There are a lot of recent policy failures that disproportionately harm rural areas and smaller cities.

Regions like Upstate New York and Michigan's Upper Peninsula have been drifting into various social pathologies for decades, but this accelerated during and after the Great Recession. All of this combined to make a pro-incumbent candidate like Clinton less appealing, especially against a candidate who campaigned on strong policy changes.

Sanders' experience representing Vermont also helped. It's not all craft beers and ice cream over there, you know. Part of me wonders whether a HRC who had spent the past eight years representing New York State would have been more suited to a presidential campaign than one who split her time between the Obama Cabinet and working the out-of-sight rich speaking circuit.

I don't think her tenure as Secretary of State was helpful to her campaign - there were moments, like when she invoked Henry Kissinger in her defense at a primary debate, when this felt particularly apparent.


5. In 2008, Hillary Clinton was running as a vehement critic of Obama. In 2016, she did her best to run as his avatar.

Democrats in 2008 who preferred Clinton to Obama usually did so for two reasons that tended to reinforce each other: (1) Racism, which the Clinton campaign didn't shy away from exploiting, and (2) skepticism about a young Senator with few policy accomplishments and unclear loyalties running on platitudinous rhetoric and vague promises.

Needless to say, almost everyone here recognizes this as a fraught discussion in which there little left to say aside from whatever profanities make you feel better. However, when you look at general election results, there are some patterns that you need much more discussion to explain: Obama did much worse than Kerry in some extremely white rural and small metro counties, but in others he did much better. On top of that, Clinton almost uniformly performed worse compared to Obama in these areas, in both the 2016 primaries and the general election. This is especially true when you look at raw vote totals or the Democratic percentage of the vote rather than Clinton-Trump margins.

Anyway, people opposing Obama "from the left" wasn't really a thing in 2008 - especially not within the party - and to the extent that they existed, they strongly preferred him to Clinton.

One last observation: Remember Clinton's mocking "the skies will open, angels will sing" bit? In 2016 she could have delivered the same words about Obama, unchanged, but with complete sincerity. (She could have used them to mock Sanders, though, albeit for slightly different reasons.)

[RINO Tom]

^ Wow, that was a very good post.

[RINO Tom]

Honestly, a very good candidate for the name of the thread, not because of this post alone:

History is made by flawed people, because people as a whole are by nature flawed. That means you have good people who sometimes do horrendous things. At the same time you have bad people do on occasion something great.

Andrew Jackson is a horrible person, but he is credited with the expansion of government for better or for worse beyond just a select group of elites.

Now here is the kicker that undermines a lot of what this thread was saying. If Yankees are the anti-authority/rebellious/egalitarian ones, than why was the whole of the 19th century defined by a largely New England centered party that almost always sided with the elites, versus a party based in the South and west that was almost universally defined at its core of opposing the elites?

The OP got one thing right, Yankee values were in fact defined by religion and the reason why these values and this group are losing ground to Southernization is because said religion has waned substantially in its influence to almost nothing. These regions of the country vote Democratic, because they are secularized not because they are "Yankee", and we live in a political era that is polarized based on religious fervor.

Now lets look at the dirty laundry. 

Part I: Immigrants and Religion:

These supposed egalitarian Yankees, were aghast by Catholicism, their opposition to the Church of England was because it was "too Catholic" in its trappings as much as anger at hierarchical control and they disdained such influences. So what happens when a bunch of Irish Catholics start arriving by the boatload in Boston. 1) You discriminate like crap against them and 2) you move to Michigan/Illinois/Oregon.

 For the ones that remain, you try to use compulsory public education to teach them the King James Bible and then you try to keep them from voting (And you thought the South were the only ones who believed in restricted voting rights). Early Federalists and Whigs (which yes included Plantation Owners in the South as well) were very much against expanded voting favoring land and wealth requirements, because it would mean ceding power and control to those low class and later largely Catholic immigrants. Once the immigrants started to be exclusively Catholic, then the class divide among Yankees evaporated and both joined forces in a political alignment defined by religious identity. Later on they would use rivalries for jobs and political influence among more recent immigrant groups as a wedge against the Irish political machines.

This dynamic lasted for over 100 years until the Great Depression and the Greatest Generation swamped out the WASP-Yankee led political machines in the cities of the North and even whole states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Anti-Ethnic politics also helped to galvanize support for Prohibition as well, which united Calvinists both North and South in support in the 1920's. Just as the same two groups (Northern Yankees and Southern Plantation Society) locked arms to pass the Immigration laws in the 1920's, as well.

Part II: Native Americans. While it is easy to think this is something that was exclusive to Southern originated folks, you must never forget that there is a reason why Native American Groups hate Thanksgiving (Yankee originated) as a holiday and often protest on that day. From the time of the landings on Plymouth Rock all the way until end of the 19th century, guess who was just as zealous if not more so in persecuting the indigenous peoples of America? You guessed it! This also was motivated in part by religion and it also a joint project carried out by people both North and South just like prohibition. 


Abolitionism: Yankee culture has one redeeming quality that sustains it about most everything else and it is the reason why modern day Progressives will engage in any amount of historical revisionism to latch onto the group while shirking off any traces of their other antecedents (Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson say hello). Groups that supported abolitionism did so for many different reasons over the course of the period leading up to the Civil War, but it should be noted that it was not because of widespread egalitarianism, it was for most of them, again because of theology. Some believed that slavery ran contrary to God's will, for others it was simply more practical, slavery was an impediment to spreading the gospel to the enslaved peoples. Contained within this was extreme levels of 19th century cultural Imperialism and white supremacy that would make most on the left sick. But history is full of good things being done by a mixed group of people, some of whom are doing so for the wrong reasons.

There is a reason why Republicans have for most of its history been a party hostile to immigration, whether it was based in New England and fighting for abolition or based in the South and fighting for the end of abortion. Over the course of that same period Republicans have generally been the party most favorable to business interests as well.

Yes when you shift your base from one group to another, some other aspects of the political culture will change as well as a result and that leads to others shifting subsequently in reaction to that. However, the reason why the North is Democratic and Republicans began the migration to the South with the Southern Strategy to begin with is because Yankee culture was on the decline in the 20th century.

1. Massive Immigration and low rates of birth meant that percentage of the population that was Yankee was declining.
2. Further complicating things is the Germanification of the North over the course of the early to mid 20th century through a combination of displacement and inter-marriage. That is why those census maps show so little English and so much German in the Northern States, when accounting of course for reporting bias in those surveys.
3. The loss of political clout and the dethroning of pre-New Deal era political machines meant that the Republicans could no longer sustain themselves in the region while being shut out from the South and Southwest.

The effects of this process meant that the Republicans no longer had a firm base that could dominate their base region of the country anymore and not only that but internally were no longer majority Yankee by the strictest definition of the term, as a lot of German, and even and other non-Yankee whites had joined the party by the 1950's.

Over the same period of time, secularization had a substantial impact on the same group of voters and so you had a now secular group of people on the one hand and a Republican Party that is becoming more and more Catholic over the course of the mid 20th century. Tribalistic rivalry based on religion had been what had kept Yankees Republican for so long.

The Republican's Southern Strategy and the shift towards a more Catholic base in the North were reactions to the decline in power of the Yankee demographic, and then by shifting served to intensify that political realignment over the coming decades.

I have long been of the opinion, that our present political ideologies and also the parties themselves share interwoven antecedents and origins and to try and latch onto one and say this is where all good things came from whereas all bad things came from everything else, is in my opinion a dangerous example of historical revisionism.

[RINO Tom]

Trump’s latest irresponsible actions and his cultist crowd increasingly resemble Hitler’s final moments in his bunker, as the Allied forces advanced on Berlin ...

Bro, we have a smart one liners and simple truths thread ... this is for quality effort posts.