Three Notes on US Presidential Election: Worsening Republican Prospects: The Fox, The Trump and The Pope

This blog has nothing to do with tech or mobile. Its again about the US 2016 Presidential Election, just my musings as we go along with this political circus, if you are interested, follow me across the fold. Normal tech writing will return shortly.

 

 

(Welcome back)

 

So yeah. The US 2016 election. This is part of my occasional series on the US elections and today I want to talk about three serious complications that are making life far more worse for the Republicans than even I had anticipated last October when I wrote that Hillary Clinton was cruising to a double-digit victory and this February when I wrote that the Republicans might even run into a brokered convention. Yes, suddenly and quite unexpectedly three big problems have surfaced that make matters worse for the conservatives of the US political system. We can call these problems the Fox, the Trump and the Pope.

THE FOX PROBLEM FORCES LUNACY OUT RIGHT FROM THE START

We now have 12 Republican candidates already announced and several more to go so the expectation is about 15 or so will get into it. On the Democratic side its Hillary and 3 pretenders now, which haha, is particularly funny that two of the three rivals have not even been loyally Democratic members of the party for much of their careers. Lincoln Chafee the ex Governor of Rhode Island (the smallest state by area) was a Republican early in his career and Independent later. And Bernie Sanders the Senator from Vermont (another tiny state) has been an Independent for most of his career. The third political dwarf to 'challenge' Hillary Clinton is Martin O'Malley the former Governor of Maryland... another small state. But yeah, GOP (Republicans ie Grand Old Party) have gosh 12 announced and many more still to come. Its the largest field of legitimate candidates either party has ever had. And now they face the problem of how to do the TV debates.

And weirdly, Reince Priebus the Republican Party Chairman has decided to abdicate this vital decision - to the TV networks. Who of course, being competitive, have different rules per network haha. The first two debates are with Fox and CNN. CNN has taken a somewhat 'reasonable' approach to their debate, they split the group into the 'adults table' and the 'childrens table'. The kids go first, the poorly-performing candidates have their own pre-debate, before the main event, where the top 10 candidates have their real debate. On the same day, on CNN. This may seem harsh, but at least all candidates get to be on TV the same day, and to debate.

Fox, however, is taking a much more - should I say free competition approach. Only the 10 top candiates will get on to the debate. Not the rest. Now the situation is somewhat in flux and as the Republican party in New Hampshire already protested and a local newspaper decided to organize a simultaneous 'forum' for the remaining candidates outside the Top 10, it seems like Fox will also offer that for the bottom tier (and with growing unhappiness among many in the GOP, this may still evolve with Fox who may cave in and do two debates like CNN). But as of now, one proper dabate on Fox in August and then there is the forum for the rest.

And the Top 10 are decided by the average of the last 5 polls. So before the first TV debate gets to teach the voters about what the positions and differences are between the canddates, Fox will use a popularity contest method - national polling - to 'pick' the only 10 who get to be heard. Sounds not exactly fair to me, but who am I to say. Republicaians love their freedom of competition and capitalism and freedom of press and power of money .So yeah, good luck to them all

But it does pose now some interesting thoughts. We are two months from the first debate (Fox) in August. I think we can actually determine with near certainty the top 7 who will be in that Fox debate, and with minor caveats, actually 9 of the 10. That means there is a fight for ONLY ONE slot, which will be fiercely contested by probably six highly-qualified prospective US Presidents... One slot. So lets do the math.

The Real Clear Politics polling is of course the gold standard and they keep tabs of just about all relevant polls. And they have had a very consistent view of the top 3 candidates for the past several months. In just about every national poll, these three candidates have scored 10% or more (none at 20% ever) with maybe missing the 'double digits' once. Its Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Marco Rubio. Its a safe bet, unless one has a total career collapse in the style of say a sex scandal (with another man, or several, perhaps underaged) then they are safely in. Its possible one falters and is no longer a Top 3 front-runner but these popularity contest polls before the first debates are so strongly consistent on name recognition, their position is now baked in. Be sure to see Bush, Rubio and Walker

The second tier is those hovering in the high single digits around 8% or better. This group is four candidates, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee. These are also safe. They have held steady support for several months, Rand Paul hasn't been under 7% since February. Ted Cruz lowest was 6% twice since April. Huckaebee's worst is one 5% and twice 6% since January. Ben Carson has one 3% and one 4% in April - but the 10% cut-off currently is at 2%. And Ben Carson's average of the last 5 polls is a healthy 9.2%. This group must make sure they dont' do any political blunders but they don't have to perform any stunts either. They are safe as long as they now hold steady.

The third tier is one but big candidate, Chris Christie (sorry about the joke about his size). Christie's front-runner status is long gone but he is holding very steady with his loyal support. He has not scored below 4% in more than a year of polls. His highest has only been 7% since February (that was in April) but its a steady 4 or 5, occasional 6. That gives Chris Christie the average of 4.8% according to Real Clear Politics today. He's still well above twice the level of the cut-off. What Christie needs to do is monitor the pack, make sure nobody has a big sudden rise - and keep himself in the media - something Christie is very good at. He will eventalaly do better when the debates start, its a format that suits him very well (and may also doom him, if he takes a ganble too far, in the style of Newt Gingrich) but Chris Christie's political career hangs on making that initial Fox debate cut-off. And he is on the better side of this chance. We can say he's likely to be in. Thats 8 seats of 10 gone. Then lets do the Don.

The Trump card is Donald the Trumpster. Now that he has formally announced, he locks the 9th slot. Trump has such strong name recognition that while he has zero chance of winning the Republican nomination and most see him totally as a joke candidate - even among Republicans, he is more hated than liked (59% of REPUBLICANS say they can never vote for Trump, he has the biggest negatives of any candidate that has ever run for President. Any candidate ever .He will never get the Republican nomination, that is certain). But Trump through his celebrity at this stage has enough popularity to make it safely in. Give him 4% and now we have 9 of 10 slots gone..

So its not a race for 10 seats. Now its 9 seats taken and 1 left. And who is there to fight for that privilege? New York State former Republican governor in a Democratic state, George Pataki. Louisiana current Governor and minority by race candiate Bobby Jindal (of Indian heritage). Former CEO of Hewlett Packard and only female candidate expected to run on the GOP side, Carly Fiorina. Current Governor of the vital swing-state of Ohio, John Casich. Former Senator Rick Santorum - who finished second last time, winning 11 states when he ran against Mitt Romney in 2012. Current Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina. And Governor Oops, from Texas, Rick Perry. Now, Perry is never going to be anything other than Governor Oops but the other six of this group are legitimate candidates for President or at least Vice President. And only one seems to get to join the first Fox TV debate. (BTW the one closest to that tenth slot is the only one not seriously even trying to win - Rick Perry is at 3.2% today to Rick Santorum first eliiminated at 2.2%. And Perry yes, he is only in it to try to erase the memory of Oops and restore some crediility to his legacy)

Consider the irony. Fox decided who gets in. And who is there? Ben Carson? He will never be the nominee, he is as incompetent as Sarah Palin (and as prone to idiotic statements) he will not ever be the VP choice either. Why is he running then? Who knows, Fox TV job maybe or book deal.

Marco Rubio won't be the President. Not this year when the Republicans hate Obama partly for his youth, inexperience and high rhetoric and speaking skill. And Rubio's early pitch that he's the new John F Kennedy isn't winning over any conservatives either. Rubio is too much like the Republican Obama. VP maybe, President not this year.

Ted Cruz is not even running to be President in 2016. The nation is not polarized enough for him .The party is not 'red' enough for him. He needs the Republican party to nominate a typical compromise wimp again this time, to lose badly to Hillary in 2016, so that Ted Cruz can be the Ronald Reagan coming in to save the party with a true conservative - in 2020. Cruz is not even running now for 2016. He is running for 2020. 

And what about Rand Paul. He is not running to become the Repbulican nominee. He has just taken over the Ron Paul family business (which is running for President every four years) and Paul is not even viable until 2024 when Rand calculates that the party went Tea Party mad in 2020 with Cruz, and only AFTER that mess, and the Republcians have their 'Mondale Moment' can the party heal, and then - only then - can Rand Paul be the true heir of Ronald Reagan and bring the broken party to its new birth. Listen to how wrong Rand Paul is to basic current Republican mantra - no spying of citizens for 'national secruity'. The iraq war was a mistake perpetuated by Dick Cheney and W Bush. The party has to embrace blacks, curb cops.. This is close to US mainstream thinking - when the GOP has been cured of its disease of Tea Partyism. But no way can Rand Paul be the Republican candidate now in 2016. No way. Yeah, Rand Paul is not even running for 2020, he's now running for 2024.

So Walker, Bush, Huckabee, maybe Christie are in the running for President out of this Top 9 lot, but those Fox will keep out has 4 or 5 more plausible Presidents (and Fiorina as a plausile VP). For what end? so we can have Ben Carson and Donald Trump deliver silly comments from the podium? That candidates who aren''t even running for seriously Presdient this tine like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio can talk, while John Casich, George Pataki, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Linsday Graham etc are left out. Yeah. Its really weird. What has Reince Priebus been smoking?

So where is the problem now? Its the variation of the children's game 'musical chairs'. Six or more valid candidates are running for ONE chair, to be in the proper debates either now with Fox or get onto the 'adult table' proper debate later on CNN in September. One chair. One slot  And Fox will use the average of the last five debates to calculate who that lucky tenth person is. So now, its a race. A race just to qualify. Now these, several of which are rather 'mild-mannered' and professional Governors/ex-Governors who would be expected to be dignified and respectful, now suddenly have to compete to get TV airtime and maximum visibility. In a hurry. Its likely the first of the 5 polls that decide the August Fox debate will be run in late July. And to be in the Top 10, that candidate needs some time before the poll is published (actually, before it is run) to get the Republican voters to accept whatever that TV stunt was, to hear about it and approve of it.

This is a cattle call. The Fox News producers are now insisting the bottom tier perform circus tricks for us, to convince Tea Party edge conservatives to suddenly fall in love with any one of them, to get that candidate to leapfrog the others to make that precious tenth slot. I would argue its a safe bet that for those of the bottom 6 who fail to make either Fox or CNN first debate, the 2016 season is over. The debates have a disproportionate effect on everything from grassroots support to campaign funding to volunteers to political endorsements to press visibility. They have to make it in. And only one slot is open on Fox in August. So we now will see a mad scramble by this lot to try to get onto TV and to say something totally outrageous that pleases the extreme wing and should get maximum TV coverage of where - where Republican voters watch their news ie Fox. And then the conservative talk show loonie circuit of Rush Limbaugh etc. 

I think this is almost a prescrpition for a kind of political poker, where each candidate has to bid ever more ourageous promises that the base will love. English as a national language. Deport the illegals. Bomb Iran. Throw the gays out of the military. Mandatory prayers in schools. Overturn Roe vs Wade (the Supreme Court case that decided a woman's right to choose in having an abortion, ironically a case about freedom that Republicans, the freedom party now objects to). How about denying votes for the unemployed? Elminate food stamps. Sell kids to slavery. Where will it end. I think this cattle call to get into Fox's first debate will bring out the worst in this gang of six, and if their poll numbers get close to Chris Christie and Donald Trump - those will be forced to respond - and they have no problem getting in front of the camera and saying something outrageous, quite naturally, making it even more difficult for several of the more mild-mannered candidates like say a George Pataki, Bobby Jindal or John Kasich. Someone like Rick Santorum or LIndsay Graham can probably still get some TV time even if Christie and Trump hog much of the microphones.

Note that these extreme views will then be bounced off the top tier candidates too, who will be struggling to avoid answering. We saw last time in 2012 that the season got ever more divisive and competitive and Romney was pulled far to the extreme by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum and gang. This time the race STARTS with the extreme cookiness. This is the weird Fox impact to the season, that starts in the gutter and will only get worse from there. Some of the statements that will come out from this race for the last debate slot will be stuff the candidates will truly be ashamed of, of how could I say that... But like a poker game or an auction, you have to outbid the other guys and it will get progressively worse, especially as the count gets into the first polls that actually will count, and only a few polls are left to have that last opening. Last week of July, first week of August, we should see an unpreceedented shitstorm of sillyness form the desperate campaigns fearing they will be cut out. And remember, those issues will then be thrown at the top candidates who all have to take a position - should be cook the black children of felons before they are fed to the guard dogs at the border fence..Remember Newt Gingrich talking about puttng poor kids to work as janitors. THAT is the 'good old days' of 'sensible' Republican views compared to what we will see now. Which brings me to

THE TRUMP PROBLEM CROWDS OUT ALL OTHERS

Trump is the Sarah Palin of this cycle. Whenver he is near a microphone, all media will focus on him. They will hang on his every word hoping like they did with Sarah Palin, that the next thing out of Trump's mouth is another whopper. Trump doesn't need to ask for attention, he has it. He is instantly the top news item on any day (until he is eventually worn out by the rest of the field, who will at some point band together to utterly ridicule him for everything: his past massive inconsistencies and countless positions that are either utterly against the party or completely factually untrue or demonstrably idioitic ideas). Trump is now in it. He now wants to win. He knows he can talk the language that connects with many voters (while he has a ceiling he cannot breach). If he gets 25% of Republican voters on his side in an early state, he can win that state, in a field that is 15 candidates wide and the leaders currently poll at under 20%. Even though Trump is hated by 59% of Republicans, a 25% support level can rather easily win him a state or two. And then he's a really legitimate 'front runner' candidate. Remember at one point equally wacky Billionaire Ross Perot was a front-runner until his constant gaffes exposed how weird he really was.

But that won't happen until late into the debates season, possibly not until the first primaries are done and a consensus has formed that Trump is an omnipresent nuisance of no real value to the party. Until then, however, he will now alter the very nature of the race.

There never was a guy in it purely for the show, with no disregard about the other candidates, who is still technically a Republican. Its like the worst of Ron Paul meeting Ross Perot but with the instant TV charisma of Obama in 2008 merged with ample vile racism easily approved by the Ku Klux Klan or the US Nazi Party. There are Tea Party members who cringe at some of what Donald Trump says. But that is not how he changes the tone. Trump was a Democrat in his past and an Independent at another time. That gives him a lot of perspective that a life-long Republican would not instinctively have (or be willing to admit). Trump is also a competitor like none in this field have ever seen. He is ruthless like MItt Romney of 2012 but with steroids. So Trump will pounce on anything he thinks scores him points and he can read the polls. Trump knows he's in 9th place right now. He will start off by hitting at the top guy(s) starting with Jeb Bush.

And now comes the pain. From the inside. Trump on Iraq - a clear mistake. Trump on taxes, of course there have to be higher taxes on the richest people. Trump wants the US government to spend on fixing the infrastructure. He openly says that the USA has fallen behind and is on par with Third World nations. This is what Fox News has told its viewers is the heretical view of the socialist fake President Obama and those hated Democrats. Now the businessman candidate says the same things? On many positions - especially those with economic impacts, he speaks with an authority none (other than Carly Fiorina maybe, but she won't be in the Top 10 finalist debaters) can touch. Who did he say was the best US President since Reagan? Not W Bush of course, Trump despises that Bush but neither did he pick his dad, Bush 1. No, Trump thinks Bill Clinton - yes a Clinton - was the best of the last four Presidents! And Trump says quite openly that he admires Hillary Clinton and Trump thinks Hillary can beat any of the other Republican candidates.

This is some serious pain for Republicans in many areas where they were trying to feel comfortable in a collective lie, even when deep inside they knew they were wrong. What it will do is let Republicans and conservative Independents think more kindly of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and see some of the Republican attacks as vicious and nasty. Some Republicans and many conservative Independents will feel more accepting of views that go against mainstream Republican mantra (but happen to be what Hillary and the Democrats have been selling for years). So these are issues that Fox News debate prep was not expecting to have to discuss, suddenly Trump makes topics become alive that need to be covered. If not by the moderators, Trump will toss verbal bombs at his rivals - and he knows very well how to talk the language that base Republican voters connect with, and ridiculing the ruling class and the Bush dynasty.

A Chris Christie or Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee are that good debaters and that good on their feet on stage, that they could do this to a 'normal' degree in a televised debate. Similar to what we saw from Newt Gingrich last time going after Romney. But Trump elevates the attack drama theatrics to a whole new level. He has taken on far bigger ACTING egos than these POLITICAL egos. The politicians on stage will have a lifetime of caution trained in, don't make a gaffe, debates can kill careers, remember Oops. Trump doesn't care. Trump is in it to win it, he has to crush all who stand ahead of him in the polls and he is a ruthless businessman. He will use the fastest way to do it, which means he will be a wrecking ball iin the debates. After the Fox Debate the only thing we will be talking about is how much Trump destroyed his rivals in that 90 minutes, and how much we can't wait for CNN's debate. All this while knowing full well that Trump will never be elected President or even nominated by the Republican Party (and he's far too vain to ever even consider being just a Veep).

Trump is also long-trained on TV audiences and winning manufactured conflicts and delivering punchlines. A few brave rivals will try to hit back in the debates and then face the fury of Trump if one happens to land a punch. Trump can take his time and his unending TV time on all networks to pound on that unlucky rival for weeks on end. And then make a point of hitting back in the next TV debate too. One or two cannot bring him down, he can only be taken down by a joint effort by the others (even then he might prevail). Trump is rare natural instinct TV star, totally in another league to any politician ever, far stronger on camera than Reagan was or Obama (Obama is better speaking to a crowd). Trump is up there with Letterman and Colbert and Stewart, able to ad lib and get the audience to laugh with him - see his joke about his hair. He's obnoxious yes, but not unlike how Jeremy Clarkson on BBC's Top Gear used to divide his audiences into those who loved him or those who hated him. But a super sharp wit and always, always the top dog whenever TV cameras roll. Like Elvis, like Sinarta, like Madonna, like Bowie, a TV star. The only ever businessman who was also TV star. In those TV debates, the whole Republican field is as outclasssed as peewee athlestes would be against an adult professional championship team.

Trump is undisciplined, we can see how much he went off-script in his announcement speech and he is prone to huge blunders along the way. He can very well go too far (like Newt Gingrich's moonbase) but will never fail on camera like Governor Oops. The problem with Trump's ego is, that if he does a Gingrich Moonbase style gaffe he will just move right past it, and blane the audience and pundits for being too stupid to get his grand view. He won't be shamed to quit the race. It will not deter from those who love his style. He will play the role of the 'Truth Express' we saw with John McCain of 2000 (he finished second to George W Bush that time). Trump will be very honest about the corrosive effect of money (this again feeds Hillary's position in the general election) and Trump will slash out at all rivals at every chance he's near a microphone, simply because he is a competitor and has a large task to accomplish attempting to down 8 rivals ahead of him, in a matter of half a year or so. But while he can do outrageously Nazi-ish racist comments and tone-deaf foreign policy comments, he also does connect with many - often very modestly-educated - voters. And the worst of all fears is, if Trump really gets bitten by the Presidential bug, when he is out of the running at some point in the GOP Primary season - eventually the rest of the field and all major Republican party members will simply gang up against him and the entertainment will end - at that point Trump may even decide to run as an Independent. It would be the final death-nail for any Republican candidate because Trump's message is poison to any Democratic voters, so all his votes would come from the eventual Republican candidate. If he runs as an independent, Trump could get 10% or even 20% of the vote. If Hillary takes 50%, you do the math. The word massacre does not do justice to how badly the Republican candidate would lose and with that loss, would also go the Senate and the House.

But its more likely, that when Trump is forced out, he leaves and sulks and then throws nasty bombs from the sidelines and probably endorses Hillary. Running in the primary season in the early states will cost him a couple of million, ie nothing. Running the full primary season to the convention would cost him probably around 100 million, thats a lot of money even for a Bilionaire. But entering the actual election as a candidate would run at least 500 million and probably closer to $1 Billion and that would be one seventh of his net worth. I don't see him wasting that amount of money on this vanity project. He will drop out before the general election. Now, if he had a few rich donors, at some stage, that could then truly mess up the picture (for the Republicans, as I said, Hillary coasts to victory regardless).

THE POPE INSERTS A WEDGE INTO RELIGIOUS WING, ESPECIALLY THE YOUTH

So the Fox debate rules result in the primary season now going madly towards kookyville from the start. Tea Party members may be starting to say that some of the positions taken become too extreme haha. Then we get the The Trump bringing in tons of painful inconvenient truths that many conservatives know in their hearts - if you intend to make America strong, grow the military, build that giant fence, fix the roads and railroads and airports - that will cost money and it means raising taxes, no two ways about it. Its what the most successful businessman ever to run is telling us, and by the way its also what Hillary and the Democrats are telling us. Maybe its time to grow up about that illusion of trickle-down voodoo economics... Etc etc etc. So pushing Republicans to ever more extreme positions, while noticing many Republican mantra positions are utterly untenable. And then we get the third effect, The Pope.

The Pope as readers probably know already has just issued an edict or whatever it is that Popes do, to make it every Catholic's duty to do something. He wants us to stop global warming. First off, it puts global warming now on the agenda not by the bleeding-heart liberals but the Pope. It means we will talk about it and learn that yes, almost all climate scientists now agree, global warming is real, and almost all of those agree its man-made. And of those who disagree, most are paid experts in the pockets of the energy industry or the Koch Brothers etc. (or some, who have since changed their minds. All that changing is to accept global warming, none are changing minds to the opposite direction). So its the world scientific view vs Republican politicians. And now the Pope is on the side of the science too (oh, and the Pope - he too IS a scientist, chemist by training). 

So the Catholic priests in the USA are now compelled by their boss to make this an issue they will preach about and make activities on, with their congregations. While the Catholic Pope is not technically the boss of the other Christian religions, this is a highly popular Pope and this is also a non-controversial matter that impacts all life on the planet, and many other religious leaders will identify with it. Only the US Republican leadership and their rich energy-related sponsors are against it. So some religious leaders will feel conflicted yes, from other denominations but most are well educated fair-minded and science-accepting academics. So when they do examine the evidence, its very easy to join the Pope's view. This will be increasingly embarrassing for the mantra by the Republicans. 

The message from the Pope will resonate strongest with the youth. This segment is already strongly aligning with the Democrats. But those who do not, tend to be strongly religious. They have, however conflicts in that 'life is precious' argument where  Republicans are generally against abortion but then for capital punishment and for sending Americans to fight all conceivable wars around the planet. The compassion with Republicans seems to end at birth, after that almost all Republican mainstream views are against teachings in the Bible, about how we treat the weakest in the world is how we treat Jesus. And how the rich will have a hard time getting into heaven. The big cause for the youth of today is the planet. And the Pope is very popular for this initiative especially among the youth. Will Hillary and the Democrats run to embrace the Papal edict to help save the planet? Of course she (and they) will.

Now, in a contested field of 15 candidates, we will certainly see a few who will now break on climate change and take that brave position that yes, its real, yes its man-made and yes, we have to do something about it. That will further strengthen the position that the Republican old white men are all wrong. And its likely these who break on the position will be candidates who can't win - Rand Paul and Marco Rubio would sound like good candidates with the youth focus. A Geroge Pataki could be the moderate to go there. Bobby Gindal said earlier the GOP has to stop being the stupid party, this would be the chance to show some guts on that. But most of the front-runners can't cave on this mainstream mantra, Jeb Bush is already on thin ice with his views on Education and Immigration, he can't go soft on everything... 

The Pope makes the Environment now another significant topic. Obama has been on it for 8 years, Hillary is on it, and Al Gore made a movie about it. The Democrats own this issue and now the Pope says they are right and the Republican rich old white men are wrong on this. If you're the party of religion and the other side are the satanic cults of gay orgies, suddenly compassion for the poor, end to death penalty, gun rights, healthcare, childrcare, etc seem very 'Christian' and after all, the Democrats are not mandating abortions, they are in reality the freedom party, to allow choice. Is that really so black and white that one party is the pure religious party and the other party is Satan? Or now that Muslim-socialist-marxist-terrorist Obama will leave the office, maybe that Hillary is actually rather ok, as a proper white Christian woman.. Lets think about this global warming again...

If the whole Republican field manage to hold their ground and convince the base electorate that the Pope is wrong and they are right, then it could be mostly a non-issue. But if there are now ranks breaking, and some take the same view, global warming is real, it is man-made and some actions can be done now to stop its advancement, suddenly that dam breaks and the lie is exposed. Those candidates most likely to take this view are not going to win the nomination for President (but Marco Rubio is a strong candidate for VP) but strong enough to last long into the primary season. Then toss in Trump and then toss in regular news coverage of the debate where the Democrats will love every day spent on how some Republicans deny science and then news reporters quiz the candidates on their various views about this. And the undecideds break almost unanimously in favor of science on this. For most adults this is not the deciding issue of the election - but for the youth it will be one if not the biggest issue. Again it only pads Hillary's lead.

These are three issues I did not see coming (I did say its possible Trump would run but I wasn't really expecting it). The GOP nomination fight is already set to be the nastiest its ever been due to the widest field ever, that there is no front-runner, that the early state voting splits incredibly widely among the top tier candidates, and the effect of Citizens United money. I said it was possible we're headed to a brokered convention. These three factors now, a Fox debate threshold rule that forces weak candidates to pander to the extremes and do it very vocally and rapidly in the next few weeks, plus the entry of Trump who will hog the limelight and expose many Republican standard positions as nutty, combined with now the Pope making the environment a legitimate issue (especially for the youth) and introduces doubt to should religious conservatives actually abandon the old rich white man's party to the Democrats who actually embrace far more of the Bible, inspite of that issue about abortion.. The GOP nomination got far more rough with these three developments and the Democrats are truly dancing.

Comments

[Catriona]

Tomi, you are delusional. Trump will be laughed off the debate stage. No one takes him seriously. Yes, he threatens to make the first debate a joke, but Fox can change the rules if they want. He has a 65% unfavorability rating among Republicans.

Anyway, you do realize that most Catholics in the U.S. are Democrats, don't you? John Kennedy was Catholic, as is John Kerry. Most of the Mexican community is Catholic, and isn't likely to vote GOP, regardless. And the Catholic hierarchy has never been held in high regard, particularly after the abuse scandals. I don't think the pope (who hails from a truly socialist country that has explicitly rejected a market economy) holds much sway over young voters or any major voting bloc in the U.S.

As for denying science, the Democrats do just as good a job as the Republicans. Witness the hysterics over fracking (which has done more to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. than all of the leftist's pipe dreams such as solar and wind farms). Or the idiotic opposition to genetically modified crops, which have dramatically increased yields and reduced starvation worldwide. And it's the Jenny McCarthy Democrats who don't get their kids vaccinated. There is plenty of anti-science idiocy to go around both parties.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Haha hi Catriona, you read fast...

First - you said nothing of my first issue. That the Fox rules will bring out the madness and the whole debate season goes into the gutter even before Fox introduces the 10 who get to take the stage. Can I take it you at least agree this is a problem that the GOP did not have in February when I did my big preview.

On Trump. You misunderstood what I mean. We KNOW Trump is a joke. Most Republicans could not imagine voting for him. He has the biggest negatives of ANY candidate of either party EVER. He won't be nominated. All sensible thinking people see right through his bullshit. That is NOT the POINT. The point is, that he hogs the camera and attention. He is a professional TV star who is able to hold his own when David Letterman tries to ridicule him, live on Dave's show. He's that good. Thats Madonna class entertainer. He's deeply polarizing and his TV show does not have high ratings but it doesn't matter, he is INSTANTLY the focus of all who watch. He is the TV star among novices. He's not a politician, he is undisciplined, he makes gaffes faster than Rick Perry counting to three. But he is the only TV star in that field and in a TV debate, he will steal the show. Easily. Its like stealing candy from a baby. It doesn't matter how many contradictions he makes and pundits of the talking classes will ridicule him afterwards, he will score the one-liners and zingers just like Newt Gingrich did at his best, except Trump does this in his sleep. He's practised for this role for two decades. Not to run for president, I mean to dominate TV debates. He is the only pro of that field. That is why he will utterly disrupt that format.

Catholics yes, more Democrats than Republicans I know that. But also that all Christian leaders look to what the Pope says, and this issue is TOTALLY non-controversial to ANYONE other than Republican politicians in the USA (and their oil and energy industry Billionaire sponsors). Catholic scandals haha, good point, but doesn't apply to THIS Pope, he is partly the answer to those issues.

And to denying science. Haha, good one. That DEMs deny some OTHER science, but this is the DECIDING issue for youth - have you talked to any youth Catriona about the planet? Its their cause. And now any religious youth - who could be leaning Republican, hears that the Pope is on 'their' cause on 'their' side. I BETCHA to use Sarah Palin's term, I betcha there will be a lot of converts to Democrats because of this, among youth. We will see in the exit polls haha so lets see and come back to this issue. I am certain of this.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Catriona]

@Tomi, the SOLUTION to the issue of carbon emissions is anything but non-controversial. This pope, like most socialists, favors heavy handed government coercion, much like how the government operates in Argentina, despite the fact that it has never succeeded. Purely by accident, the U.S. was one of the only countries to meet the Kyoto protocol (which we never signed), because of the fracking revolution, which traded coal for far more clean burning natural gas.

I doubt very seriously that any GOP-leaning youth would be swayed to the Democrats because of the pope. If anything, all he's doing is alienating himself with other Christian leaders in the U.S. You were also certain that the Democrats would retain the Senate in 2014. Don't hide behind your mea culpa. The fact of the matter is that your judgment on political matters is clouded by what you want to happen. You see the world through blue-tinted glasses because the Democrats are closer to your worldview.

The reality is that neither party is particularly good. The Democrats are beholden to the public sector unions and powerful billionaires like Carlos Slim (largest shareholder of the New York Times) and George Soros. For all their rhetoric about civil liberties "progressive" Democrats are some of the fiercest opponents of free speech. From "trigger warnings" to boycotts over commencement speakers, to Jerry Seinfeld's comments about how it's impossible to appear before a college audience because of the political correctness, they are doing their best, and a darn good job of killing off what remains of academic freedom.

Trump is actually a Clinton supporter and donated to the Clintons in the past. You are right that some on the right fear he could be another Ross Perot. However, he is not as effective as you think. The Apprentice has been off the air for years. Sean Hannity gives him a voice on Fox, but his influence there is waning. Trump's protectionist views are closer to that of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. I doubt they will resonate with the audience.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, now that Bernie Sanders is polling decently enough in New Hampshire the Democrats may feel compelled to at least pretend to hold a debate, which puts Hillary in a bad spot. She knows this. She wouldn't be out there on the campaign trail this early if she weren't worried. Money is not an issue for her. She doesn't "need" to be a candidate yet. The fact that she's pandering to the hard left on just about every issue (she decided she was against the trade pact despite having negotiated the original framework as Secretary of State) tells me she really wants to quash any primary threat as quickly as possible, no matter how remote. She knows a long campaign is her worst enemy as she's lost one before.

[Catriona]

The other fact that people proclaiming the "permanent" Democratic majority neglect is just how badly damaged the Democrats are at the state levels. They now control the fewest governorships and state legislatures in 8 decades. That's where most future national leaders come from.

For the purpose of argument, say Hillary Clinton's candidacy implodes because of a genuine scandal or a health issue. Who, exactly, do they have left who is electable? Elizabeth Warren? Seriously? Andrew Cuomo? Maybe after they find those escaped murderers. Martin O'Malley? After deep-blue Maryland elected a Republican governor over his hand-picked successor? The biggest structural issue the Democrats have is that even when the public agrees with their positions, they don't really trust the Democrats to run government.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

(just quickly, gotta run...) yeah. If Hillary has a health episode and her campaign crumbles, there is nobody. Sanders loses to Bush or Walker or Christie or even Huckabee. The rest of their dwarfs don't even register. Yeah, if Hillary stumbles (also a scandal is technically plausible although that won't happen, she's calculated this move before she pushed Bill to run for Governor in Arkansas haha and Hillary wears the pants in that family, she has the spine so there are no skeletons). But yeah her health is the only big 'if' to this coronation. I said so already in October.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Per "wertigon" Ekström]

@Catriona: One of the best contributions to the global warming issue would be to invest research money into flatbed reactors for thorium (Yes, it *is* a fission reactor, but it also generates an order of magnitude less waste, only problem - you can't build nukes from the waste). Set the goal that by 2025, a fully operational Thorium reactor will be connected to the grid, with more to come. (ideal would be fusion of course but that's still 50 years off)

Also, invest research money into better batteries, and start ramping up construction of electronic cars and/or hybrids. Invest money to "meat-free monday" campaigns, maybe even give all restaurants a discount (lower VAT perhaps?) in serving vegetarian meals.

That would take care of three of the biggest contributors (cars, coal/oil plants, and meat production) to greenhouse gases, and the costs won't be *that* much bigger. Especially since the reduction in meat consumption would contribute to increasing health among the population => better workers => larger GDP.

[Winter]

@Catriona
"@Tomi, the SOLUTION to the issue of carbon emissions is anything but non-controversial."

But this exposes the lie behind the "Climate Skeptics": Their denials are all lies and insincerity.

They do not admit it is happening because they do not want to talk about a solution at all. The whole point is that their refusal to talk about solving the problem will drive away the young people who know they will be there to clean up the mess after the "skeptics" have enjoyed the spoils.

@Per "wertigon" Ekström
"@Catriona: One of the best contributions to the global warming issue would be to invest research money into flatbed reactors for thorium (Yes, it *is* a fission reactor, but it also generates an order of magnitude less waste, only problem - you can't build nukes from the waste)."

This is not the place to discuss this, but solar energy can solve most of our energy woes. You can find the numbers here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-graham-richard/can-we-power-the-whole-wo_b_104355.html

[Crun Kykd]

Ekström - yes on thorium reactors. Fixes a mistake we made when we choose uranium.

Catriona - "leftist's pipe dreams such as solar and wind farms"? Renewables accounted for 51% of all new power brought online. CA is 25% clean now on its way to 33%. Solar employs more people than fossil fuel. Fossil are the past, there's newer stuff now.

The stone age didn't end because we ran out of rocks.

[Catriona]

@Crun Kyd, renewables are propped up by tax credits that far exceed (in percentage terms) what is available for oil and gas. There is a place for them, but they are nowhere near able to provide enough power based on current technology. And they are not without their own environmental issues. Both are probably at least 2 decades away from true commercial viability. In the meantime, natural gas reduces carbon consumption significantly vs. coal and the infrastructure is already there.

[Winter]

"@Crun Kyd, renewables are propped up by tax credits that far exceed (in percentage terms) what is available for oil and gas."

Fossil fuel subsedies amount to over $500B
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/

We can go solar, it is both technologically possible as economically feasible.

Bit that is completely unrelated to whether or not burning fossil fuels causes climate change.

[Per "wertigon" Ekström]

@Winter:

Yes, we can get the *energy* to power the entire world in a few locations, no problems. However, you fail to account for two things, namely, power transportation (transporting power over long distances means large energy losses).

The second is that of centralization; as long as we have nation states, I'm really not comfortable with a few nations having control of all the energy. Each nation needs to be able to sustain itself on electricity.

The only country large enough to be able to pull it off, is Russia, but since most of Russia is so far to the north, solar panels aren't as useful as they could be (especially during winter).

Solar is a great secondary energy source to offload the grid, but our primary source needs to be based on something consistent, like hydro-, wave-, tidal-, fusion- or fission power. Of those, the most efficient and closest to reality is Thorium reactors.

But yeah, back to the topic now :)

[Wayne Borean]

Oh shit. I really wish people would think before they post. I'm going backwards, top to bottom with my comments:

Per Ekstrom,

Russia isn't the only country capable of 'pulling it off'. Canada produces all it's own power, and exports a lot to the USA.

Solar panels are actually more effective in winter. Why? Well, why don't you look up exactly what solar panels are made of.

Solar works fine as a primary source, as long as you have storage capabilities. The same is true of wind (and in certain places, like where I live we have wind 365 days per year).

What you and everyone else is ignoring is COSTS. Assume you want to add 500 Kilowatts to your grid. No problem, just drop in some wind turbines. Small variations are more easily handled by solar/wind/mini-hydro, then they are by fission/fusion/fossil/tidal/wave power.

In fact if you get rid of the subsidies on fission/fossil, wind power is less expensive with our current technology. The technology we will have in ten years will be even better.

Decentralize your grid.

Catriona,

Tell you what. You get rid of the nuclear/fossil credits. Make it an even playing field, and see who will win. There was a recent article about South Africa (which I can't find right now) where the South African government said that Wind and Solar are already less expensive than nuclear/fossil if all subsidies are removed.

Crun Kyd,

Going uranium was not a mistake. It was a deliberate choice so that there would be lots of fissionable material for weapons.

A deliberate choice.

Everyone:

Going Thorium would be stupid. Huge R&D costs, and we are talking plants like Pickering, Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl (final two mentioned because those are the plants outside Canada I can remember, not because of the technical problems they had).

Decentralize. Go heavy on wind. If one part of the grid dies, the other part is still fine (remember the blackout which put most of Eastern Canada and the Eastern USA offline about ten years back - you stop stuff like that by decentralizing).

Yes, wind (and solar) can be improved, however most people don't know how good they already are. They are ready for prime time, and a 40 acre wind farm is cheaper than a 40 acre fission/fossil plant, and the cleanup issues are far smaller.

Tomi,

To understand American politics, you have to understand American religion. American religion is different. Yes, there are Catholics, and Anglicans (Episcopalians), Lutherans, etc. There are also some Calvinist churches which don't appear to have equivalents anywhere other than Africa (missionary work).

It is the Calvinistic world view which makes American politics often seem really weird. Take Todd 'Legitimate Rape' Akin - I strongly suspect that he really believed what he was saying. Many of the Calvinistic groups tend to believe that if someone suffers something bad, that it happened because they were guilty of something, like a woman who is raped was leading the man on. It's her FAULT. Or if it isn't her fault for leading a man on, it is God causing this to happen because she was a SINNER.

You'll see the same sort of response to victims of all sorts of crimes, i.e. when I used to wander around Washington DC after midnight, if I got robbed, it was either my fault, or I was a sinner. There's no doubt I was a sinner from their viewpoint. As to how I was asking for it, your guess is as good as mine.

Calvinism is also heavy on 'Predestination' i.e. everyone who was going to be saved was picked by God before the Earth was created. If you are a member of their church, you are one of the elect. If you aren't, you aren't.

So if you are poor, barely able to support your family, that's because God wants you to be poor. They have a belief that the Bible says that Grace alone saves souls, and that they are interfering with what God wants by giving money to the poor. If your family starves because you are in jail for stealing a loaf of bread, that's God's will.

There's also a really strange world view which comes from Biblical Literalism, which again, seems to be mostly an American specialty, i.e. that Genesis is an exact and literal true story.

So we end up with Kenn Hamm and the Creation Museum, which claims that people and dinosaurs co-existed before the flood. We end up with Rousas John Rushdoony, who came to the conclusion that the true believers are to take over the United States and make it into a Theocracy based on Biblical Law (stoning gays, lesbians, adulterers, etc.)

We have the Duggar family, who didn't teach their children ANYTHING about their bodies, which meant that when one of the kids started molesting the girls, the girls didn't even know how to describe what happened, and Josh himself didn't know how to describe what happened. Because they follow Rushdoony, and Rushdoony said not to teach the kids this sort of stuff, and they wouldn't fall into sins like premarital sex.

We have Rushdoony's disciples, who have come up with more and more restrictive teachings, like women should not have the vote. They don't care who disagrees with them, they fully intend to implement all of this - like in Bob Heinlein's novel 'If This Goes On' (written twenty years before Rushdoony published his first book).

There is also a belief that the words in the bible that says man has dominion over everything to meant that if man wants to pollute, that's fine. There is also a belief that Earth is God's greatest creation, and it is utter hubris to think that man could do anything to change it.

This is why you often see opposition to the EPA. It isn't needed, the Earth is perfect. This is why you see such a strong trend of Climate Change Denialism. Man can't change the climate! To think we can, is a sin before God.

To these people, Catholics are horrible freaks. So are Mormons. And just about everyone else. But...

Things at this point get complicated, because Evangelical and Calvinistic beliefs are getting mixed with Catholic, Episcopalian, Mormon, Lutheran, etc. beliefs. You have a couple of people working together, and they discuss religion in the lunchroom. Ideas pass from one religious group to another, so you end up with Episcopalians who are young Earth Creationists (which is NOT part of Episcopalian doctrine). You have Catholics who believe birth control is OK (no matter what the Pope says). You have Calvinists who believe in good works (despite what Calvin said).

So you end up with Rick Santorum making statements which seem totally opposed to Catholic beliefs. You end up with Michelle Bachman running for office, even most of those who follow the same belief system she follows believe that women shouldn't vote. You end up with Mitt Romney making statements which don't seem to square with Mormon beliefs, since Mormons believe strongly in good works as part of the path to salvation.

All of which makes the Clown Car really crowded. Really crowded.

[Winter]

@Per
"power transportation (transporting power over long distances means large energy losses)."

High Voltage Direct Current transmission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

@Per
Centralization(?)

The USA and China each have enougg desert to supply their continents with energy. For Europe, the question is how this is different from the current situation?

[Per "wertigon" Ekström]

@Wayne, @Winter:

The problem with solar power in winter, is that, well, they will only be operational for 8 hours a day or less, and those hours will be when the least energy is being used!

The only country where the Sun always shine is Russia, no other country spans 11 time zones. So Russia is the only sovereign country capable of supporting itself 100% with solar panels. All other countries must get their power someplace else during night hours.

And finally, transporting power over really long distances leads to power losses. You can try it yourself with a 2m cable, a 5V supply and two resistors of equal size. Connect the cable to the 5V supply, and then to the resistors in a series and back to ground, and then measure voltage between the resistors and ground. It should be 2.5V in theory, in practice it will be something like 2.3V or so. This problem only increases the longer the distance.

So we're talking transporting power atleast 3000 km (1 864 miles), the longest distances today are 250 km (155 miles) or so...

[Winter]

@Per
HVDC works with losses of 3.5% per 1000km.

And for storragw, search for pumped storrage. Also, elwctrical cars make for great storrage at night.

Also, the seasonality of sunlight is not large in the Sahara etc.

[Per "wertigon" Ekström]

@Winter:

"HVDC works with losses of 3.5% per 1000km."

So that would make it a loss of 11.5% to the cities farthest off. If not more. Not to mention the cost of building all that power infrastructure, and the fact that HVDC only exists in Europe right now.

"And for storragw, search for pumped storrage. Also, elwctrical cars make for great storrage at night."

Electrical cars will most probably charge at night when everyone is sleeping. Pumped storage also means energy losses.

"Also, the seasonality of sunlight is not large in the Sahara etc."

Yes, and for those places it makes more sense than say, Alaska. But not all countries are located near the equator.

I am sorry, but solar isn't the answer to our energy problems - there are simply too many problems. Maybe we could build giant space elevators with cables providing power down to Earth from a sattelite, that would work. Kinda. But by the time we do that fusion is probably already available, too.

[RottenApple]

@Per "wertigon" Exström:

"I am sorry, but solar isn't the answer to our energy problems - there are simply too many problems."

Some wise people said that problems are there to be solved. Just hiding your head in the sand and persistently say 'no' is never a good solution.

[Winter]

@Per
"So that would make it a loss of 11.5% to the cities farthest off. If not more."

The induatrial revolution took off with 30% transportation losses. 15% losses would not be prohibitive.

@Per
"Not to mention the cost of building all that power infrastructure,"

Economic growth requires infrastructure. It is not that plastering the planet with nuclear energy is cheap. Anyhow, electrifying the planet has to be done anyway.

@Per
"and the fact that HVDC only exists in Europe right now."

It is not an endemic plant that cannot be grown elsewhere. It might be true that the grid in the US is antiquated. But that can be remedied.

@Per
"Yes, and for those places it makes more sense than say, Alaska. But not all countries are located near the equator."

I do not think energy consumption in Alaska will be the real bottleneck. And I understood that New Mexico and Nevada would be entirely suitable for satisfying all the power needs of the USA.

@Per
"Electrical cars will most probably charge at night when everyone is sleeping. Pumped storage also means energy losses."

Not when you can get paid to deliver back to the grid. Economic incentives are easy to design. And pumped storage energy losses are manageable. You bow, sunlight is free.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi everybody

So two discussions. One is which form of energy is best. Another by one comment about role of Religion in the US politics. Nothing about the first big unprecedented change to US elections, this instantly-to-the-gutter race forced by Fox debate rules. Nothing (after Catriona's first comment) about the second point of Trump's incendiary impact. But all the debate related to the Pope's Encyclical (see, even old T-Dawgs learn new words every once in a while, obviously I am not a Catholic, I am a Lutheran protestant).

I would love to hear thoughts also on the first two points if any political junkies feel like hopping in.

On energy. Gosh, lovely discussion and Thorium? Seriously? Ok I am NOT a nuclear scientist or anywhere even remotely near that competence. Gotta reads me up a bit on that Thorium shit. But yeah.. good discussion.

So first, as a good Christian worried about the way humans are wrecking the planet, and stirred by the Pope's call to action (echoing what environmentalists have said for decades and even the United Nations for years) I think this is a good use of this blog and raising some more awareness of this issue, within our small circle here who joined in this discussion. Even if nothing else came from the Pope's Encyclical, then this is already a good little step. We can't solve a problem if we don't admit a problem exists. What is the exact solution, fine, that is the NEXT step but first off, we have to accept there is a problem that severe, it demands a solution.

I do love it that we have a global readership and even this very off-topic blog post about US elections, brings in viewpoints from around the world on what is going on in energy from Russia to South Africa haha..

Now, on the TOPIC of the blog posting, what is changing the US 2016 election cycle, we did get a bit side-tracked on what might be the best energy solution going forward. Thats a very valid debate yes and we are mostly tech geeks, some of our readers have a lot of insights into the TECH side of the energy issue. Now, will this impact the 2016 election cycle in the USA? Traditional oil and coal are seen strongly as a Republican issue (Sarah Palin: Drill Baby Drill gosh that line always made me think thats what she yells out when she is having sex..). And alternate or 'green' energy options seen as a Democratic issue championed by Al Gore. Nuclear sits somewhere in the middle.

So my take on the politics is, that first off, on the nation on the whole, the demographic shift is that saving the planet is the youth issue of their generation. Global issue. Everywhere. So 'Green parties' find youth support and various 'Green' candidates attract youth voters. This sits with the Obama-coalition both for those who were young when first voting for Obama in 2008 but still think Green today in their early adult lives, and the new youth who will vote for the first time next year. Because that part of the population who really cares about the health of the planet is growing simply on age pyramid shifts, this is a strong voting block. They would have been easily activated on this issue even without the Pope, but now the 'cool' Argentinian Pope will have a far bigger effect to generic youth worldwide but even more so in the USA, with this rather non-religious call to action. Even totally agnostic or atheistic youth can embrace this as a fair call by the religious leader - even if they totally reject any religious commands from the Pope or the Catholic religion (divorce, contraception, gays, women priests, abortion etc).

No other religious leader could have had this big an impact to US politics. Not any leader of any of the countless religious groups that Wayne so well wrote about, nor any televangelist, or any global leader of any other religious group like some Imam or Islamic religions or some Rabbi of some Jewish denomination etc. But the Pope is the most influential religious leader on the planet and now he inserted a non-religious but very important topic into the world debate of 2015, global warming. And that means there will be a LOT of discussion about it everywhere, in the news and media, among various religious leaders not just Catholics. And partly because it comes from a popular Pope and partly as the overall noise level is raised, it means many other loosely-related groups with an interest in nature, like the Boy Scouts or hunting groups or farmers or fishermen etc will have MORE debate and discussion about global warming. And most people are reasonably smart, most people will be convinced by overwhelming scientific evidence and the overwhelming scientific evidence IS INDEED that global warming is real, and it is caused at least in part by human behavior. And the USA and China are the biggest causes to this global phenomenon. And the problem is accelerating with its speed ie getting progressively worse.

Then we have the weird climate change impacts, that cause more severe weather whether its tropical storms or droughts or floods and unusual colder and hotter temperaturs. More extreme weather, less comfortable weather. So there will be ever more acceptance that this is real, it has true measurable economic impacts (we need more air conditioning in the summer, more heating in the winter, this is costly) and the disasters have huge costs especially rising ocean levels.

We all know this, we deal with facts. But back to the political system in the USA, I am sure that 90% of Republicans in Washtington personally believe global warming is real and something has to be done. But they are partly tied to the past positions of the party that denied the facts, and partly now beholden to the Koch Brothers and various polluters like the oil industry to uphold the status quo and delay any improvements. So the policicians, in particular in a Republican primary season, will be torn on what they know (most of them know) is the reality and that delusional position of base Republicans about climate change that it doesn't exist or its a hoax. This means they box themselves into corners that are untenable in the general election. Again, made worse by the early Fox debate phenomenon where each candidate has to adopt extreme positions this early and partly ignited by Donald Trump pushing his pet issues and bringing them to the topic-du-jour.

This in turn will lock out a generation of young voters (I would say a large minority, perhaps even a majority of youth voters, for whom saving the planet is a threshold-issue, you either are with the facts or they can't vote for you). This will be a lost generation of young voters who will now align with Democrats because of this ONE issue. They already admired Al Gore and watched his movie when they were years away from being allowed to vote. Now they come in and they will take their revenge against the polluters.

Again, I return to my thesis in the blog. If all on Fox News and radio talk like Rush Limbaugh and all the main pundits and all the main Republican politicians 'towed the line' on climate change one more cycle, this would be a relatively modest issue only up in the main election next year. The Pope changed all that. It will now be a 'hot' issue for months in the primary season. Where Hillary and all her dwarf rivals in their debates can laugh at the Republicans about being climate-deniers, and meanwhile the Republican field is doing the contortionist moves like Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum already were forced to do about what the Pope is saying. And the more we hear 'climate change is real' from Republican leaders, the more the illusion crumbles and the truth is exposed. This was not in the schedule to be part of the 'pain' of the primary season for the GOP. Now it is. Can't hide from it. Who navigates this the smartest will have a long career in the Republican party some will stumble with this very badly (I am looking at Texas gooks like Rick Perry and Ted Cruz).

(Wayne, I'll return to the religious topic next)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Winter]

@Tomi
I think the "climate deniers" are like Fox news: They do not tell us what they know to be true, but what the want to be true. That is, it is pure propaganda.

Fox news had no problems demonizing the pope when he called for de-comercializing christmas.

Your main point is on target. The GOP candidates must pander to the tastes of Fox News' audience. And they do not want to be confronted with reality. They rather die than change their convictiins.

But these people do not represent the voters that might vote in a GOP president. So these potential GOP voters will have to go elsewhere to get their whishes addressed. And Hilary will be glad to address their wishes.

Exit GOP presidential dreams.