SANFORD VICTORY IS TELLING

Mark Sanford won by 9% points over Colbert-Busch. There are two points to be made concerning that victory. The first is that the most accurate poll before the election had Sanford winning by only one point. The second point, and the more important one, is that the elections results support a hypothesis that politics is in your genes.

Some time ago in Florida, exit polls were the standard for accuracy in polling, meaning that this type of poll result most accurately matched the actual vote. in that presidential election, the exit poll results predicted Gore the winner over Bush but major news networks suddenly changed the prediction to naming Bush the winner. I am one of many, many people who believe the Secretary of Florida States “cooked the books” to favor Bush. In other words, the first exit poll results were correct. As we all know, the Supreme Court of the Untied States eventually put Bush in office, which started 8 years of disaster for the United States. I choke up when I think the SCOTHUS acted illegally but that is what they did.

What I am implying is that state officials in South Carolina, which are totally in the hands of Republicans, cooked the books and that the PPP poll prediction was correct, just as polls were in Florida. Polls can be inaccurate but Sanford won by 9% points—a humongous error when compared to 1% difference. The skullduggery with the vote did not make a difference but State officials did not know that ahead of time so the dug up more dead votes then they needed.

The second point is more important and stands as a warning for Democrats. It means the Red South will stay the Red South even though it denies logic. They claim a sense of high family values but that is only when they are judging democrats, for example Bill Clinton. The point is that their politics is innate; it is in their genes. They are genetic Republicans and will distort the facts justify their vote. Of course, there is not a Republican gene like there are for a few diseases: the concept of one gene one disease. There is a family of genes working in synergy; scientists might use the term ‘polyploidy’ instead of synergy and ‘homology’ instead of “universal traits” common to Republicans.

There is a large collection of “sub traits”. Greed or selfishness is a common example of a sub trait. We could consider altruism as a trait counter to greed. These traits seem consistent with being either Republicans or Democrats political philosophy. Some traits come in pairs; for example consider the two traits greed and persistence. I watched for 22-years while a group of three professors worked every day to control the politics of the college I worked in—greed for power (University Industrial Complex, Amazon Kindle.Com). They were active in the Republican Party. Think about gregariousness and hierarchy dominance in terms of America Politics.  We have an innate tendency to form groups but we also have an innate tendency to organize within groups. Now collate, layer in, or put your thoughts in order in respect to power; that is what genetic synergy means. On one would think that each trait has equal strength or influence. How persistent would you be to become a leader? Look at their attack on Benghazi and Clinton. Better yet, consider that they have been trying to destroy Social Security since 1935; bringing it up every day for 35 years should tell you something about persistence.   

Look at mark Sanford why would he put himself up to the tumult of running for office with his history of marital infidelity if he weren’t driven by a desire for power. Why would a “religious” population vote for such a man? Could it be that Republicans will vote for Republicans not matter their values? That should tell us something about the genetic impact on politics. I found the book Albion’s Seeds (Amazon Kindle.com) fascinating. The politics of hereditary rule (monarchy) was clearly the politics of colonial Virginia and was the “genetic seed” of Republican hierarchy dominance in America. It originated in the dark forests of what is now Germany and before that out of the Fertile Crescent. Republicans see themselves as royalty and Democrats as servants. They see themselves as deserving to be leaders and Democrats as deserving to be followers. A Republican cannot under any circumstances vote for Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a Democrat—it would be as unnatural as a Republican supporting women suffrage, gay marriage, racial integration, abortion, and a servant being a leader; as upsetting as a black man in their White House. It is as upsetting as secular law, which we in America base on the idea that all men are equal. A King does not compromise with a follower; a slave master does not compromise with a slave, so why should a Republican compromise with a Democrat.

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated