Monday, March 7, 2016

Bernie Sanders Wins Least Violent States

Hillary Clinton may have swept the South, so far, but but Bernie Sanders won eight out of eleven states outside the South with much larger turnouts and almost all the Southern states have already voted. (Now 9 out of 12 additional edits updating full count will be listed below as we go.)

Bernie Sanders also wins more in states that vote Democratic or swing states for the General election; and these are the states with the larger turnout and more enthused voters necessary to win in November.

This virtually guarantees that he will significantly cut Clinton's lead and may still win despite what the media is trying to convince us.

The primaries were front loaded with states that Clinton was expected to win which creates the illusion of an insurmountable lead, intentional or not.

Bernie Sanders also does much better in the states with the lowest murder rates, including his home state which consistently has the second lowest murder rates and Clinton does much better in the states with the highest murder rates, include her prior home state of Arkansas which was in the top ten until recently before dropping to thirteenth. Bernie does much better in states that ban corporal punishment in schools; while Hillary Clinton does better in those that still allow it.

This is important for several reasons including that the people in states that support policies that result in lower crime rates may recognize that Bernie Sanders also does and support him. One of the most important long term contributing causes to escalating violence is corporal punishment and child abuse which often escalates to more violence including bullying, hazing, domestic violence and higher murder rates. This is also used to teach children from an early age that they should obey without question and believe what they're told by authority figures. These are authoritarian child rearing methods which don't help teach critical thinking that enables adults to sort through issues and recognize when politicians are constantly promising one thing during the campaign and doing another after getting elected.

I reviewed how early child abuse leads to escalating violence and can be used as an indoctrination process in many past articles including Does child abuse and bullying lead to more violence? and Dobson’s Indoctrination Machine; and last year I also did a series of articles, listed below that examined other contributing causes to violence and backed each separate subject up by finding additional peer reviewed studies that supported my own brief studies. Few of these were reported well in the traditional media or by traditional politicians; however the studies that I found to back them up were also available in alternative media outlets or in the academic world. In many cases, thanks to grassroots pressure local communities, do a much better job learning about how to reduce crime and pressure their politicians to help them.

They aren't promoting the get tough on crime and zero tolerance policies that consistently fail. Instead they try to recognize the root causes of crime and address them. These states are the ones supporting Bernie Sanders, while the ones that support authoritarian policies that don't reduce violence or may even increase them support Clinton.

Clinton demonstrated her support for these authoritarian policies when she famously said "We have to bring them to heel," which is the type of control policies used in police states and taught by authoritarian manner starting with corporal punishment. According to Corporal Punishment in Public Schools, by State (2008) Arkansas, where Hillary Clinton served as first lady used corporal punishment more than any other state except Mississippi, which was first and Alabama came in third. The fourth one drops off significantly, those are the only three that paddled more than four percent of their students.

The right wing often claim that one of the biggest problems with crime is black on black crime where they are killing each other. These claims are often exaggerated or mixed with outright lies; and there are also problems with white on white crime; but they're not completely false. What they fail to mention is that most murders are often within their own race regardless of which race. They also fail to mention that minorities are subject to corporal punishment in schools much more often than whites, teaching them to use violence as way to accomplish their goals. If they were willing to research this they would realize that their practices of "bringing them to heel" is one of the biggest contributing causes of violence and it is counter productive.

Those without political power are routinely held accountable to the full extent of the law and no excuse is considered. Those that control the law often set the stage so that children don't have the resources to develop properly but when inevitable problems arise they're not held accountable.

For all practical purposes this should be considered institutionalized entrapment on a massive scale!

Hillary Clinton's reference to "super-predators" was based on prediction that were widely circulated in the nineties that turned out to be false. These predictions came from academics that were in denial about how corporal punishment leads to escalating violence and the academics that were doing the more reliable work weren't give the opportunity to make their case in a high profile manner but they turned out to be right.

The same research that indicates that corporal punishment leads to escalating violence also indicates that it impairs children education and makes it more difficult to develop critical thinking skills. Many of these children learn from an early age that they're supposed to comply with authority without question which is why many of the states that still allow corporal punishment also have the highest recruiting rates in the military where they want people to obey orders without question.

Children raised in authoritarian manners are more likely to trust their leaders if they don't have the critical thinking skills to do their own fact checking. Some times this includes leaders who seem to be major supporters of real reform, or perhaps were once supporters of real reform and those that still trust them think they still are. Regrettably there are too many former reporters that slowly became part of the system and began doing more to protect their own agendas than their people, including some that many never thought would betray them.

This means that political endorsements from former reformers like Charles Rangel or John Lewis might hold a lot of sway when older people raised in authoritarian manners make their decisions especially if they didn't learn to fact check when they were young and may have started following what they considered reformers early on. It shouldn't be surprising, to many, that Charles Rangel might cut deals to endorse corrupt candidates, since he has a history of ethics violations; however John Lewis, who is often considered a civil rights icon seems like a surprising person to endorse Clinton who has a horrible record as I indicated in Regardless of Polls Bernie Sanders Supports Blacks much better than Hillary Clinton.

His endorsement is highly disappointing and many people including me don't want to believe that he would allow undue influence impact his judgement; but this raises major doubts especially after that comment about how he never saw Bernie Sanders during the civil rights movement but that Hillary Clinton was there. This doesn't stand up to a minimum amount of scrutiny although there is almost certainly some truth to parts of it. The civil rights movement was a large movement and most of Bernie Sanders work was in the North including some organization in Chicago. Also reports indicate that he didn't meet either of them until getting into congress when he met both. The implication that Bernie Sanders wasn't involved in the civil rights movement and Hillary Clinton was seems an awful like an "artful smear" and it was hard to believe it came from John Lewis, but it did, no matter how much most of us don't want to believe it.

Younger voters that weren't around during the first civil right movements didn't develop the emotional attachment to John Lewis and they may also have been raised in a much less authoritarian manner. This might explain why they might be better at sorting through Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sanders background and coming to different conclusions. I'm not recommending that people trust me any more than they should trust John Lewis; instead they should check the facts including many that I listed below or it might be better if more people did their own research even if some of the sources I cited might be helpful.

I have no doubt that if people do they'll find that there's an enormous amount of evidence to indicate that Hillary Clinton is a corporate puppet whether it is Goldman Sachs, Wall Street behind the curtain or the Military Industrial Complex or many other corrupt special interests.

Of course the same critical thinking skills should be used when recognizing propaganda tactics including memes or graphics like this one. These are simple and catch peoples attention but slower reading and research should be more important in the long run since graphics can be used to promote bad causes just as easy as it does good ones. I don't mind reminding you of this since I have no doubt that there is an enormous amount of evidence to back up the claims in these graphics.

A close review of Clinton's record raises major doubts on one issue after another about her credibility or whether she intends to keep her promises. She has changed one position after another during the election. Most of her older positions support the corporate interests that are financing her campaign and she has demonstrated that she will change her position on issues like the one Elizabeth Warren called her out on with the banking bill that she opposed as first lady but then after accepting enormous amounts of money she voted for it as Senator. This is just one example of many. I have also listed some of my past articles below, along with the ones about the previous studies on root causes of violence below. Whether it is the root causes of violence, support for children minorities or working people these articles include long lists of sources indicating that she routinely does the opposite of what she claims.

People that develop better critical thinking skills do a much better job sorting through theses stories and they're more likely to support Bernie Sanders in large numbers. This includes young people who are much less likely to be raised in as authoritarian manner as older people since child rearing tactics have been changing significantly, so they often develop better critical thinking skills than the previous generations which were often subject to more corporeal punishment at children when they learning skills were developing.

In last nights debate Bernie Sanders did a slightly better job addressing the question about the crime bill and they both did a poor job addressing the question on gun control; however Bernie Sanders does much more to address economic inequality, education issues, abandoned inner cities, and many other issues that could be long term contributing causes for crime if they're not addressed properly. Unfortunately Hillary Clinton has history of supporting corporate ideologies which often contribute to higher crime indirectly.

The following will be updated as the primary season goes on to include other primaries.

According to Murder Rates Per 100,000 People by State the five states which have the lowest murder rates in 2013 were New Hampshire, 50th, Vermont, 49th, Minnesota, 48th and Maine, 47th, Hawaii, 46th, all of which voted for Bernie Sanders by large margins with high turnout. He also won Oregon, 44th, Idaho, 42nd, Utah, 41st, Rhode Island, 39th, Washington, 37th, Wyoming, 36th, Colorado, 35th, Wisconsin, 34th, Nebraska, 33th Kansas, 30th, West Virginia, 26th, Oklahoma, 21st, Indiana, 17th, Michigan 14th and Alaska, 12th.

Also most if not all the races he won were with high voter turnouts than the races Clinton won in the South. Oklahoma has an average murder rate at 4.5 so the states he won, as of the original writing all have below average murder rates; Michigan was the first one he won in the top half. Only six of the states Bernie Sanders won still allow corporal punishment in schools, and they almost certainly don't use it as much as the other southern states. Kansas doesn't allow corporal punishment that draws blood, they had a law maker that wanted to change that a few years ago and allow it but he failed and it raised an enormous amount of attention outraging many people. What they didn't mention so much was that most of the other Southern States do allow this and they have higher murder rates than Kansas, which has the second highest murder rates so far of states that went for Bernie Sanders.

Clinton won won Louisiana, 1st, Mississippi, 2nd, Missouri, 3rd, South Carolina, 4th, Maryland, 5th, Nevada, 6th, Delaware, 7th, Florida, 8th, Alabama, 9th, Georgia, 10th, Tennessee, 11th, Arkansas, 13th, Illinois, 15th, North Carolina, 16th, Pennsylvania, 19th, Arizona, 20th, Texas, 23rd, Virginia, 24, Ohio, 25, Kentucky, 28th, New York, 31st, Connecticut, 38th, Massachusetts, 43rd, and Iowa, 45th.

Sixteen of the states she won had above average murder rates (due to variations in population and murder rates 21 states are above average and 29 are below average.) including eight in the top ten, and these were the ones with the lowest turnouts. She won two states in the lowest ten but only by small margins; and only five including those two, were below average. Twelve out of eighteen states that Clinton won still allow corporal punishment, and they use it more than the states that voted for Bernie Sanders. Nevada was one of the few states in with the top ten murder rates that don't allow corporal punishment in schools. In another article, Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating? I compiled all the states where there were reports of voter suppression; and Hillary Clinton didn't win any of state with the lowest twenty five in murder rates where there weren't reports of voter suppression or other irregularities.

The correlation between states with high murder rates and those supporting Hillary Clinton is much stronger than I would have expected. If I hadn't done some of the studies listed below prior to this election it is unlikely that I would have recognized it. The Republican side doesn't seem to have as clear a correlation; however they don't have candidates that provide such a clear contrast. It is hard to imagine why the political establishment decided to present Hillary Clinton as the inevitable front runner years ahead of time and refuse to cover any possibilities in a reasonable manner; but thanks to Bernie Sanders stronger than expected candidacy it created a surprising opportunity to compare the electorate, although many may consider it controversial.

The following are past studies on contributing causes of crime. In most cases I did my own statistical review based on states and their characteristic and found additional studies that were peer reviewed coming to similar conclusions, and in some cases also reviewed studies that came to different conclusions.

Ignored evidence linking corporal punishment, poverty and crime grows

Does lack of education increase violent crime? Religion?

How much does Income Inequality Affects Crime Rates?

States with high murder rates have larger veteran populations

Teach a soldier to kill and he just might

The tragedy of gambling politics in United States

How does gambling and gun control impact violent crime?

Politics, not technology, caused botched executions

Troy, Cameron, Gary all innocent? And executed?

Democrats do a bad job on crime; Republicans and the Media are worse!!

Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit

Life Insurance and media companies are encouraging lots of murders

Union Busting adds to corrupt bureaucracy and incites crime

The following are past articles on Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton and their records, also citing numerous sources:

Regardless of Polls Bernie Sanders Supports Blacks much better than Hillary Clinton

Bernie Sanders wins foreign policy debate hands down despite propaganda

Nominating Bernie Sanders would virtually put Minimum Wage on the Ballot and Drive Voter Turnout Up

Hillary Clinton Is Using Children As Props While Her Record Betrays Them

Why would anyone consider Hillary Clinton if they knew this?

Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein or Revolt in the Streets?


  1. This article is a must read for anyone who is confused. Some people are stuck in the "Garden of Eden" stage of critical thinking, which is exactly what our current indoctrination, sorry, education system wants: those who embrace the "Do as I say, " or as Cartman puts it, "Mind my authority."

    Poverty causes a lot of things and crime and violence head the list of causal effects. If everyone were living a decent life, there would not be so much hatred. It's been said, "Money is the root of all evil," and where that may be true, I like to quote Rev. Ike, "The lack of money is the root of all evil": a cursory view of the crimes committed in ghettos througout the USA serve as empirical evidence.

  2. Thanks, your right poverty is one of the leading causes of crime although I usually focus more on child abuse leading to escalating crime. But, even if I'm right, abandoned inner cities where corporation are rigging everything leaving people without educational or economic opportunities is as important in those areas.

    With poverty being a leading cause of crime that means that every corporate scam like pay day lenders, insurance, casinos or lotteries contributes to poverty and indirectly contributes to crime.

    So does union busting outsourcing and many other things.