Communities Dominate Brands

Forecast Update Time: How is my Presidential Election forecast given a year ago, looking for the 2016 US election? Darn good in fact...

Time to do an update to a forecast. This is from the side of US politics. Last year, in October 2014, more than two years before the actual election of 2016 and even before the mid-term elections of that year, I gave my comprehensive Presidential election preview and forecast for 2016. Before any of the candidates had even announced. And I said not only that Hillary Clinton would win (the more prevailing position then and now, than that a Republican rival could win and thus not really that remarkable...) but also that Hillary would get a landslide victory of double-digits. I predicted her margin of victory would be at least 12 points regardless of who is the Republican nominee. And this was more than half a year before we heard that Donald Trump would run. Today there are yes, increasingly opinions that a Trump (or Dr Ben Carson or Ted Cruz) ticket could lose by landslide. But last year, and against ANYONE running from Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio to Rand Paul and Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina, I said Hillary will win at a minimum of 12 points. Note that in Barack Obama's bigger victory of 2008 (vs his lesser victory in 2012) Obama only beat John McCain by 7 points. I believe no other published pundit had written in 2014 seriously suggesting that Hillary will have a landslide victory two years later. It wasn't even known if Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren etc would run against Hillary to challenge her for the Democratic ticket, at the time when I wrote the blog. Indeed, not one candidate had yet announced that they would run. Yet I called it that Hillary will win.. by landslide. The biggest drubbing in US Presidential elections since literally Ronald Reagan beat Walter Mondale in 1984. Totally crushing victory. 

But it was a forecast. And as my forecasts tend to be (obviously mostly in tech and mobile) it was very deeply based on analysis and facts and numbers and I gave all my assumptions etc that went into that bold and brave forecast. I wrote my second longest blog posting on this blog's 10 year history that went through literally every single aspect that matters in US Presidential elections. It has absolutely everything from the candidates to the issues to the fundraising to the endorsements and surrogates and conventions and debates to even such matters as ISIS and Vladimir Putin and the very technical details such as the counting system for US Presidential elections which is called the Electoral College and the issue of 'battleground states'. That blog is the truly comprehensive preview for the 2016 election. It has every aspect covered. And as I was preparing the blog over a year ago, I ended writing this:

There has never been an election where one side held all the advantages. In elections with far lesser advantages, first-time (ie non-incumbent) Presidents have managed to win in landslides like Reagan and Obama. Hillary is destined to win by landslide even if all the luck goes against her. The only possible thing that could derail her is a major health issue like a heart attack and even that would not necessarily end her chances. Pay attention to the 2016 election, it will be historic.

The Republicans are doomed for 2016. Hillary will win by at least 12 points (56% to 44% in the popular vote) which would not just be a landslide, it would be the biggest winning margin in 32 years and the biggest first-election (non re-election) margin since the second world war.

I was - and still today am - dead-serious about all that. The 2016 election seems to be headed to a modern day record blowout. And in my 29,000 word essay (as long as 3 chapters in my hardcover books) I tackled over 50 separate items that have an impact to who wins, from the Tea Party to Citizens United and SuperPACs to global warming. And I arrived at the conclusion that yes, indeed, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic ticket holds an unprecedented 'straight flush' of unbeatable cards with an advantage in every single aspect of the race. Never before has one side in US Presidential elections held all the cards. And because of that, I said a year ago that Hillary will win by landslide. Then, as I am prone to do with my forecasts, I promised I will come back and revisit the forecast as we get nearer to the election. So here we are. It is now 11 months to the election of 2016 so about a year to go. Lets do an overview-review of the main points I made and see if there is evidence of that actually happening or not to evaluate how likely is my forecast of actually coming true. I will not bother you with all over 50 separate items. I will select some that seem most significant today.

NO TRUMP, NO CARSON

So first off, I did talk about Donald Trump in mocking fashion in that blog but like most who were looking af the possible field of 2016 Republican candidates, I did not see Donald Trump actually entering the race. (Also I didn't even mention Dr Ben Carson). As they eventually did join, we have had this year become even more bizarre of a 'clown car' than the 2012 Republican race and so far, the most ludicrous positions ever yet taken by front-runners in US elections with 'issues' of astonishing level of denial like that Egyptian Pyramids were used to store grain or that 'thousands and thousands' in New Jersey were cheering when the World Trade Center towers were brought down by terrorists on September 11 in 2001. Or that Mexicans coming to the USA are rapists and murderers. Or that Muslims are not qualified to be elected President... So this is an even more wild and - for the whole Republican party - even worse cycle than I had predicted. But that was not foreseeable. Those issues do NOT make it easier for Trump or Carson or any other Republican candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton next November. These matters will serve to only make the election even worse. They help to SECURE my forecast, not argue against them. But they were obviously not even mentioned. I could not imagine that something like the Constiutionally protected right that people born in the USA might not one day be considered citizens anymore. I mean, isn't every single Republican's fave Bruce Springsteen song 'Born in the USA'? How silly can it get. But lets get to my actual forecast.

FUNDAMENTALS TILT FOR DEMS

So first off. I said that for 2016 the fundamentals, demographics etc tilt the start of the race to the Democrats. And this is how I wrote it: "All this spells a very deep hole for the Republican party going into 2016, before we consider the candidate, the political machine, the message and the campaign. For year 2016 even a ‘generic’ candidate for Democrats beats the generic Republican by something like 2 to 4 points, just because of these demographic trends." That is not big revellation but it is a very significant hole that the Republican candidate, whoever he or she ends up being - starts off at. Mitt Romney lost to Obama by 5 points. The actual candidate next year from the Republicans is starting with an in-built deficit that is already half that. Or so I said. Do we have any proof? We have the head-to-head polling of the lead candidates, Hillary or Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side vs any one of the leading Republicans like Trump, Carson, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush etc. And what do we find. Today, still more than half a year before the actual general election race starts, and still two months from the first votes cast in the NOMINATION races, what do the polls say. A solid Democratic lead on almost every pairing that comes to about 3 or 4 points on average (according to latest Real Clear Polling averages obviously) where the only leading candidate from Republicans that can tie the Democratic rival is Marco Rubio vs Hillary Clinton. Across the field, yes, there seems to be now a systematic bias against the 'generic Republican' that is worth about 3 or 4 points. My forecast from 2014 is perfectly on track on this one aspect.

HILLARY IS EVEN BETTER FOR 2016

I wrote that Hillary is one of the best campaigners to run for President who only very narrowly lost to the best in our living memory, Obama. I wrote that Hillary is thus in the same class as the two other great campaigners in recent history, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Note, I am not saying she's a great human being or would be a great President. I am saying CAMPAIGNER. She took the best campaigner in US Presidential history, Obama, all the way to the wire in 2008. She was already in 2008 far better than John McCain (who himself was better than and beat Mitt Romney handily, who then struggled time and again in his futile run of 2012). And then the critical forecast I made. I said Hillary would improve to this season. I wrote "single biggest change is that optimism and cheerfullness which we now are witnessing. Its what Reagan had. Its what Bill Clinton had. Its what Obama exudes. And what Hillary had trouble exhibiting in 2008. But what Hillary now is showing in spades."  And many who have debated these political issues with me on this blog had issues with that statement. I mean, a candidate can be too old and lose the edge, just look at Mike Huckabee now (he also ran previously back in 2008 and like Hillary, skipped 2012). But the Benghazi hearings proved it beyond any doubt. Where Donald Trump, of roughly same age as Hillary, is complaining if 3 hours in debate is too long - where he only speaks once every 10 questions with 9 other rivals on stage - and Hillary had to answer a barrage of questions, alone - Hillary took it for 11 hours and was smiling at the end. Trump finds even 2 hour debates too hard and clearly tunes out parts of the second hour. There is no doubt, if you remember Hillary's run in 2008 vs Obama that the new Hillary is the happy warrior who is enjoying herself, throwing jokes and is far more pleasant and likable. I am not saying she's any less cunning and plotting and that this isn't an act, obviosly it is an act. But she HAS IMPROVED as a CANDIDATE. As I predicted. And that means she is HEAD AND SHOULDERS above the Republican field of this year. There is no Ronald Reagan in that field.

TEA PARTY POISONS GOP FIELD

So then on those rivals. We didn't know who would run. I predicted the field might be as big as 16. Not many were saying that in October of 2014. It ended up peaking at 17 before the weakest started to drop off the race now like Rick Perry, Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal. Not a bad call haha. But of those candidates. Look what I wrote about their positions: "The current environment in the GOP is driven by the reality-denial wing, the Tea Party, and right-wing celebrities like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. So mainstream moderate Republicans are now in hiding and won’t run in 2016." And again, we are seeing that moderate Republicans are either bitching and moaning on the sidelines about how extreme the field has gotten, or else some remaining moderates in the race bitch and moan that the party is pandering to the Tea Party, like for example John Kasich and Lindsay Graham have been saying as their support is minimal in the process or what Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal bitched about as they withdrew from the race. And as we've seen, Ted Cruz is not even the most extreme candidate running. Even moderates like Jeb Bush take extreme positions and others like Marco Rubio abandon previous centrist positions as his immigration plans. Again, good call on the forecast and very relevant to this year.

GENDER GAP

Oh my gosh this is so enormous and like any actual tsunami wave, the real power remains mostly unseen until it truly hits. But the signs are ominous. So this is how I wrote it: "So if you thought the 2012 gender gap was bad, it will now be worse simply because the Republicans have made it worse (even before we consider Hillary on the ticket). No matter how much they hate the term ‘war on women’ that is what the Republican party has been waging on issues that really should have been decided decades ago (abortion, contraception) or should have no place in the 21st century like equal pay. This all before we consider how much more women will show up to vote in 2016 because there is a woman on the top of the ticket. And yes, Hillary’s run will bring the most ardent, feminist fighters up to the fore in the 2016 battle to hammer home the full record of the Republican war on women. Men don’t like to hear that, especially grumpy old white rich men." And have the Republicans done anything to help themselves in this matter? No, they demonize Planned Parenthood with shrill Carly Fiorina peddling her imagined video delusions of 'harvesting baby parts' to the degree we have that deranged domestic terrorist who was quoting baby parts in his reasoning for the killing. It goes on and on. Ted Cruz talks about condoms as if that is the main point with female contraception. It is... ahem... the main point for MALE contraception only highlighting Ted's astonishing ignorance on this matter. What about women in the military? Just yesterday Republicans complain about letting women do all the jobs in the military. And all that is before we consider Goofy McHair talking about Megyn Kelly's mentrual cycle. The Republicans lost the gender gap by 10 points with Romney. Since then they have made matters WORSE. My prediction is that Hillary will get 20 point gender gap. Even if she gets a 5 point gender gap but the female vote experiences a historic surge because for the first time a woman is on the top of the ticket, Hillary is unstoppable. A 20 point gender gap means its a landslide win. And just now Republican leaders are warning that the gender issues are dangerous to arouse an energetic female vote for 2016 and Hillary. I told you so...

HISPANICS

After Romney's loss in 2012 the Republican party issued an 'autopsy' of what went wrong in that loss, and how to avoid those mistakes in 2016. Vital was the change to women and ... to narrow the voting gap with Hispanic voters. Romney lost the Hispanic vote by 45 points !!! He lost Hispanics 72 to 27 to Obama. And the Republicans calculated that for a Presidential election, they need to narrow that gap to 20 points, ie 60-40, for the Republican candidate to have a chance to win, because the Hispanic population is the fastest-growing demographic in the USA so their relevance to elections keeps growing. And what I write: "The Republicans can be relied on utterly silly actions and comments about anything relating to ‘Mexicans’ etc..."  (or as how Trump likes to put it eight months after I wrote that - Mexicans are rapists and murderers). I continued writing "And where is sensible Republican leadership on this issue? In hiding. Afraid of the Tea Party lunatic fringe." How incredibly accurate (and obviously devastating for the Republican ticket). So here is your reality check. Quinnipiac poll this week posted the head-to-heads against Hillary. (Q is a right-leading pollster who often finds a bias in favor or Republicans so this cannot be said to be somehow favoring Hillary). The best candidate among Hispanic voters was Marco Rubio. Makes sense, he is a Hispanic himself. So if the Latino voters of the USA get the chance to vote for the first-ever fellow-Latino for President, Marco Rubio, or a white woman Hillary Clinton, you'd be forgiven to think thats a clear victory for the Republicans wouldn't you. Marco HAS to win this race. But Quinnipiac found that the Hispanic voters say no. By how much? HILLARY BEATS RUBIO BY 51 POINTS !!! Hillary crushes Rubio more than how much Obama beat Romney. Hillary gets 69% vs 18% for Rubio. This is the best case for Republicans. Trump is of course the worst, he would only get 13% of the Hispanic vote against Hillary. The Republican autopsy after Romney's loss said they have to shrink the Hispanic voting gap to 20 points so that their candidate HAS A CHANCE. Instead, the gap has GROWN. EVEN if the Republican candidate IS A HISPANIC and the Democratic candidate is not. This trend, combined with the female vote surge means its a landslide and there is no way the Republicans can win, no way to win, Hillary wins by landslide. If before the national campaign has even started, a well-known Hispanic like Marco Rubio loses to a non-Hispanic Hillary Clinton by 51 points. Note - I also predicted that Hillary will pick the most popular Hispanic politician currently as her Vice President, which is of course Julian Castro from Texas (who has an also highly-beloved twin brother in Congress). The Republicans have poisoned the relations with Hispanics and keep making matters worse with all the talk of building the fence and deporting 11 million aliens and gosh, REPEALING the Obama humanitarian gesture executive action on not deporting the 'Dreamers'. The Republicans face an epic loss simply because of this demographic catastrophy of their own making.

ECONOMY

If the economy is still growing next year then this issue is automatically a positive for the Democrats. But if the economy turns into a recession and downturn, the Republicans are remarkably vulnerable, because they have in recent past wrecked the economy with irresponsible governing and its been the Democrats for the past three decades who have then had to fix the damage. This is the reality. That is undeniable economic history. But the reputation has been with the Republicans that they are the fiscally sensible ones and the Democrats like to 'tax and spend' like there was no tomorrow. And obviously there is good historical precedent for that sentiment. But it has no longer been true the past three decades. So how will the economic debate go in 2016? I wrote: "The best politician ever to argue the politics of the economy is... Bill Clinton. The facts are clearly on the side of the Democrats, during Reagan the budget deficits exploded. Bill Clinton’s administration brought them back to balance. Then in came Bush the Lesser who again wrecked the budget and produced record deficits and national debt. And what happened in the next Democratic administration, Obama has reduced that deficit to the lowest level its been for a long time. The facts very clearly show, that over the past 3 decades, the party that wrecks the economy is the Republicans. The party that is fiscally responsible and fixes those damages is.. the Democrats."  I then wrote that in 2012, the 'economy' election against Romney, Obama did not (dare to) use Bill Clinton as a surrogate. But now... for 2016, what did I write about Hillary and her hubby: "Bill Clinton is the master at this song. He loves this story as it helps build his growing reputation for his legacy (that his Presidency was more than Monica Lewinsky and his time was a good time in America). Obama rarely used Bill Clinton in the economy-election of 2012. Hillary will happily use her husband Bill everywhere. And he’ll always hammer that message."  Some said Bill might be tired (he clearly isn't and he wants to be on the campaign trail). Some said Hillary will keep him away, she clearly isn't doing that. If the economy continues to be good, then Bill will tell that story. But if the economy goes into a recession, Bill - a highly trusted and by now greatly beloved ex-President - and by far the best to elaborate the ECONOMIC argument of any recent politician - will explain all next year that it was the Republicans who created the big mess to begin with and you don't want to now let them come back and wreck it again. And lastly - every SINGLE one of the Republican budgets by their candidates has by now been scored - and they all would utterly devastate any fiscal responsiblity, ballooning debt to hideous degrees. Tax cuts to millionaires and new ships for the navy.. yeah. Exactly like Bush-Cheney or indeed Voodoo economics of Ronald Reagan.

FUNDRAISING

Candidates are one thing. Issues are another thing. But in US elections, money matters. Often it is money that decides. A massive part of winning US elections is collecting the money in particular for the expensive TV ads on the campaign season that for President runs nearly a year (when primaries are included). Note that in most other democracies the election process is only measured in weeks and TV appearances are often free. But the US system is what it is and most inclumbent politicians in Washington spend a significant part of their time to collect the money for their next election. Fundraising ability is vital for viability. Jeb Bush would have quit the race by now, along with Rick Perry, Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal except for the fact that the Bush family can collect heaps of money. He is the best-funded Repulican even as his latest polling numbers from CNN/Orc today give him a paltry 3% support. And what did I write about this aspect of the campaign: I said this would be the costliest election ever (not in any way a bold prediction, almost every cycle it gets more expensive). I explained how in 2008 the best-ever Democratic traditional fund-raising machine, the 'Clinton machine' went against the radical new online and grassroots based fund-raising of the 'Obama machine' and the Obama way won. Then Obama went to win two general elections as the most-funded candidate ever in US politics. Then I said the two powerhouses would now be merged. I write: "So now we get the full Clinton ‘New York’ money machine merged with the Obama online-grassroots fund-raising machine. She will definitely set a new record for fund-raising. Hillary will be so wash with cash, she won’t know what to do with it. And as she faces essentially no serious primary challenge, all the fund-raising power can be concentrated for the general election. Meanwhile the Republican field is wide, spreading the primary donations very broadly, depleting some of the funds that are available for the GOP. So the Republican donor base will be asked to spread their money to probably the widest field there ever was, into probably one of the longest, and most definitely the costliest nomination fight (thanks to Citizens United) ever." Again, all of the above is coming true. The first fund-raising reports were released in October and yes, Jeb Bush was the best-funded of the Republcian candidates but Bernie Sanders outraised Jeb. And the queen of cash? Hillary stood on top of the fund-raising pile. Good call and again, bodes very well for Hillary's landslide next year. But I also wrote this warning about what happens when one side is seen as inevitable winner by the megadonors. They are smart and they don't want to throw money at a losing cause. "Some rich people will calculate that they will then give most of the ‘intended’ money directly to the DEMs rather than splitting it, because its so obvious Hillary will win. Why waste the money on the losers and you want to buy access and favors from the new President and her team. Hillary will get even more money above the huge record-breaking lead she already would have built." This concept has ALREADY been floated in the opinions of Republican megadonors in an article in the Hill, relating to a possible Trump candidacy. Consider how early this panic is setting in. I thought we wouldn't see this until next summer but the Trump catastropy has made the pending doom even worse. But as to the forecast, gosh, I am so on the money on this one too.

FOREIGN POLICY

I said that while the economy usually rules in US politics, this 2016 election will be the more rare foreign policy election like Carter-Reagan of 1980 or Bush 2-Kerry of 2004. I said terrorism, China, Iran and Putin will be on the agenda. So far three of the four have been major elements and terrorism right now is only gaining ground. I discussed these issues plenty in the blog but then in the part about the main Republican voting blocks like Tea Party and Evangelical religious voters (neither of whom will defect to Hillary) I also discussed the military-wing of the GOP. I wrote: "Republicans are strong on defense and national defense is the government’s first priority. The military vote is strong in such states as Virginia, Florida, Texas and Arizona. This will be where ‘Hillary Republicans’ will be found. The current field of Republican candidates (excluding the extremely dark horses like Lindsey Graham) has nobody with any foreign policy credentials or actually served in the miliatry before getting into politics. They are domestic Governors or else Senators or members of the Congress none of whom have served abroad as Ambassador or Secretary of Defence or State or the National Security Advisor or in any such capacity. So if you are a conservative and find national security the overriding reason to vote, and you find Hillary was Secretary of State and then the Republican field has no competence in that area - this is a danger sign. It is a VERY serious danger sign. So they reluctantly go vote for Hillary in 2016 even though recognizing on many social issues, they disagree with her. I would guess the exit polls in 2016 will show that women voters who are registered Republicans and who think national defense or foreign policy is the top issue - such women voters will break for Hillary, yes, she’ll take the majority of that slice of Republicans. The men who hold those views will give a minority slice also to Hillary. She can steal as much as 12% to 15% of total registered Republican vote to be ‘Hillary Republicans’ this way. Because there is no John McCain in the running this time, someone who also has solid foreign policy credentials on that side. That is yet another 3 points in the general election that Hillary steals from the registered Republican voters, into her column." And obviously on the facts, that is exactly true today. Hillary is by far the most competent candidate on foreign policy. Marco Rubio actually said that if it comes to a contest of competence, Hillary is better than the whole Republican field (really dumb thing to say and if Marco is on the eventual GOP ticket, this will be on endless loops on Hillary's ads). But how is the electorate taking it? The Washington Post/ABC News poll two weeks ago that tested this issue (asking who is most competent to deal with terrorism) had Hillary towering over all her Republican rivals on this issue. Duh. But I told you so... And mark my words, this will be a foreign policy election. I said Putin will do his gambit next year, in the Autumn, while Obama 'the weakling' is still in office. It will be even more foreign policy hysteria then. And ISIS? What is the obvious response when they are being cornered and losing on all battlefronts - to strike out at the defenseless. Expect more ISIS (and Al Quada) violence in coming months too. This only plays to HIllary's strongest suit.

BENGHAZI

I said Benghazi is a forlorn hope for the delusional Republican fan-base but serious conservatives already knew that it was hopeless. I wrote that some Republicans will keep trying this tactic but to no avail: "The Republicans will still continue to try to pin a Libya Benghazi-gate on her and she’ll laugh that off." Yes, just recall the 11 hour grilling and who came out on top. Smiling. And then what will the eventual candidate do with this 'ammunition' I wrote: "The GOP candidate will try to keep away from any foreign policy discussions rather than try to beat Hillary on Benghazi." We see clear signs of that already. This was a desperate illusion by conservatives that somehow Hillary was vulnerable on the matter. She isn't. But ANY discussion on foreign policy or the Middle East or terrorism only feeds Hilllary's victory (see above).

TV ADS

And then the bombardment of voters by TV ads. I warned that the TV ad wars would be imbalanced because of Hillary's huge fundraising lead (as seems very likely but obviously we won't know until September and October of next year). But I warned that it would be the nastiest TV ad campaign season ever. That too remains to be seen, but I warned that the NOMINATION battle will see the ugliest TV ads in history. And in TV ads, the bar is truly set incredibly low from the anti-Barry Goldwater ads of nuke war, to the Willie Horton ads against Michael Dukakis to the Swiftboat ad lies by Bush2-Cheney against John Kerry. This is a particular slime pit with its own residence suite reserved in hell. On this election cycle TV ads I wrote: "Nonetheless, the GOP nomination fight will result in the winning candidate having plenty of nasty TV ads and various conservative commentary saying nasty things about him or her. That is inevitable. For Hillary there is nothing new anymore she is a totally known quantity. No shocking TV ads can be made now by the Democratic field and most will have so much self-preservation instinct, seeing how inevitable Hillary is, that they won’t even try to create really nasty ads about her and against her."  And we can see it already happening. On the Democratic side, even Bernie Sanders shook hands with Hillary that 'enough with our damned emails'. But on the Republican side? Oh my gosh, has Trump elevated the vitriol all the way to eleven. It is not unusual for a Republican to call a Democrat a 'socialist' or 'communist'. That is par for the course. Similarly Democrats have called Republicans Nazis or Fascists. But there has never been an election season where a Republican candidate actually running, calls another Republican candidate a fascist or Nazi. Wow. This has truly never happened before but look for example at the Kasich TV ads against Trump. They came for the socialists...  wow. Its not just the sound-bites that Hillary is collecting (but the Republican rival can't get on her). Its actual TV ads run by Republicans in this year's race. Inevitable because of the wide field and long race and unlimited funds of Citizens United. Like I forecasted.

CITIZENS UNITED

Talking about corroding effect of money, the Citizens United decision and unlimited funding. I said in 2012 we saw 7 Billionaires play Presidential Poker and predicted this year would see even more Billionaires join in but differing from 2012, they would not mostly go behind the one front-runner (Romney). I predicted even 10 Billionaires could support as many as 7 different candidates. Well. How's that forecast coming? Based on the latest fund-raising filings we find that 16 Billionaires have joined this Billionaire Bingo of Presidential Poker. How many different candidates have they already supported? Seven! (although two of those have since left he race and those billionaires are now considering new options). And then as a bonus this time, there is the self-funded Billionaire Trump also running so we could say its 17 funding and 8 candidates. But boy was that again a strong forecast and incredbly relevant that is now altering the very structure of the race. When so many megadonors are fuding DIFFERENT candidates, what does it mean? I told you last year in the blog. I wrote: "We might have 10 billionaires supporting 7 of the rivals who tend to be all stronger members of the field, meaning the fight will continue long and become ever more nasty, bitter, hostile and vicious." Yes. the nastiest nomination race in US history (but only on the Republican side). Remember, the GOP Autopsy of 2012 Romney loss said part of the loss was a nasty nomination fight that dragged on forever. This will be worse and longer and naster. All signs point to an epic race in that way (but only on the GOP side with loving cum-bay-yah on the Hillary wagon on the opposite side).

UNBELIEVABLE COAT TAILS

And there is much more in the blog, all of it is coming true. I wasn't going to mention this last part but just yesterday Karl Rove wrote about this danger. So I will add the part about the coat-tails. "All the fundamental factors will favor Hillary over the GOP candidate. All of them. This has never happened before. The stars are truly perfectly aligned. So first, Hillary won’t need to break a sweat to win. Secondly, she has an unprecedented ad budget and unprecedentely strong surrogate team starting with Bill Clinton and Obama. There will be an incredible abundance of support that the ‘top of the ticket’ can give ‘downticket’ candidates. Hillary herself and the two Presidents will go help any Senators, Members of Congress and Governors in any tough races to go win their contests. The rival side has no money to waste on this and no superstar Presidents to spare for this kind of extravagance. There will be a Hillary wave so strong it will break through the gerrymandered Republican House of Representative seats in Congress, which the Republicans now feel are invulnerable. Only a total massive Democratic tsunami-wave could dislodge those tea-party leaning super-safe gerrymandered GOP seats in red states. But those often very extremist conservative politicians have been voting for all the silliness that Hillary - and a huge chorus of Democrats and massive TV ad support - will now be campaigning against. As she wins the general election, her views will also support the replacement of many - by no means all - but enough of the Congress to bring in a Democratic House of Representatives, like Obama last had in 2008-2010 with Nancy Pelosi.And the Senate? Same thing but far more pronounced as Senate seats cannot be gerrymandered very much. So the Democrats will sweep into the Senate and very likely have a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats or more. Plus many Governors, and local state-wide offices will be flipped from Republican to Democrat." This is EXACTLY what Karl Rove just warned about, yesterday except that I saw it a year earlier. That there is a distinct danger that this year Hillary will have such strong coat-tails that she will flip the Senate, and even flip the gerrymandered house. He did not say this will happen but that it is a distinct possibility. I said it will happen. All the signs - every single one of them - suggest Hillary is headed for a landslide and never in US Presidential elecitions, has one side held all the advantages. So brace yourself and enjoy the ride. This will be the election we will be talking about for decades to come. Oh, and first woman to be US President too (about time yes, in Finland we've been there done that of course). But yes, nice.

If you want to read the best analysis of the 2016 election, that has been spot-on, on all aspects of it, and is the most comprehensive view of all the aspects of that race, read (or re-read) the 2016 Election Preview I wrote last year. It is some of my very best work on this blog.

Global Warming Paris Conference: Our Take? If the planet serves you lemons? Make lemonaid of course. Or in other words: time to move to Finland!

So while everybody else is moping and griping about how the climate is changing and the temperature is getting hotter and the sea-levels are rising and pollution is ruining our air and water. I say if they serve you lemons, don't cry; make lemonaid. Use the opportunity. Global warming is a real thing and of course this blog fully supports the immense initiatives out of Paris. But this blog is also about the future and helping those who have a smart nose about the future. So yes, global warming is clearly happenin'. So whats the smart money gonna do about it? Lets see.

ARE RISING TEMPERATURES A HASSLE? - SOLUTION? MOVE TO FINLAND

So yeah. The global temperature is rising at an alarming rate. Nasty nasty thing. Soon parts of the Middle East will become too hot to live and areas that were seen as pleasant for holidays like say the Riviera in France and Italy, or the Caribbean, will become too hot to be comfortable. So what is the solution? Its easy actually. The COLDEST parts of the planet will get ... warmer too. So what was previously unbearably bleak and nasty and cold and chilly and miserable. Think of say Winnipeg in a very bad year - or typical Finland winters - will become warm and comfy instead. This is simple science and very very obvious. Look at the recent winters in Finland. Last year they had almost no snow in Helsinki the capital, in the south. Helsinki winters NOW are about as 'nasty' as those of New York City or Berlin, in a decade or two, snow in Helsinki winter will be as rare as snow in Houston or Johannesburg (I've actually seen both happen..). So yeah. You could, if you were so inclined, an 'intellectual' and 'geography nerd' pick up a map and look for what is the Northernmost country but you don't need to. Your friendly consultant and friend of Finland is here to bring you the good news. The Northernmost country (when measured by the geographic mid-point of the nation, not its Northernmost point obviously) is... FINLAND.

Just how far to the North is Finland? Well, the Americans like to think that Canada is 'way up North' and most Canadian cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver etc are actually not that far to the North. But Toronto is at the 43rd Parallel (those lines on the planet that go horizontally, ie do not touch the North Pole or South Pole). Montreal is at 45th Parallel and Vanvouver is at 49th Parallel. Fine. But compare Europe. Europe is far more to the North than that. Toronto is at same latitude as Florence Italy! Montreal is aligned with Venice in Italy. Vancouver is just slightly more to the North than Paris. So Europe has whole COUNTRIES further North than those famous 'cold' Canadian cities. So Belgium is to the North of Paris. Netherlands to the North of Belgium. Denmark is to the North of Netherlands and where Belgium ends, is not even 'North Enough' for where Finland STARTS. Brussels the capital of Belgium is at 50th Parallel (incidentially that is the same as Winnipeg the most godforsaken hole in Canada's coldest parts, this side of Moose Jaw obviously). London, Amsterdam, Berlin come in around 51st and 52nd Parallel. Copenhagen the capital city of Denmark comes in at 55th Parallel aligned with Edinborough of Scotland and Moscow in Russia. Oslo and Stockholm are far more to the North of that (Norway and Sweden capitals respectively) at 59th parallel. Helsinki clocks in at 60th Parallel. And its our SOUTHERNMOST city. Our cities then 'go all the way to eleven'. If Helsinki is too warm for you try Jyvaskyla or Kuopio or Oulu or Tornio or Rovaniemi or Ivalo...

ARE RISING SEAS BUGGING YA? - SOLUTION? MOVE TO FINLAND

So yeah. We know by now that it is not the Northern Polar ice that causes global oceans to rise. It is the ice stored on glaciers over land, in Antarctica and in land mass near the North Pole like Greenland, when that melts - due to global warming - it causes oceans to rise. Nice as long as you don't live near an ocean. Too bad for you living in say Florida or Holland or the Philippines. So whats the solution? Find a place to live that is RISING to counter the rising water, of course! Duh. You don't need to be a 'geology geek' to figure that one out. Now, there are two options. Pick a country that is rising due to volcanic activity like say new islands in Hawaii and in Iceland. Yeah, ok, but those islands tend to be unstable and hot and full of lava flows and you don't get good WiFi or even not a Starbucks. But the other option? Find landmass that is rising due to the planets geological maturing. FINLAND. Yes. Finland is where the last ice age ended, ten thousand years ago. And as the earth's mantle is made of rock (we knew this, right?) it takes a long time for it to settle. When that ice at 10 kilometers thick (6 miles) was growing upon Northern Europe including Finland, it pressed down and after the ice left, the mantle has been adjusting - UPWARDS. Yes I am not making this up, still today, Finland grows out of the sea at the speed of 1 cm per YEAR. We are rising out of the sea FASTER than the global oceans are rising... So if you want your cabin or villa by the sea, and not be swallowed by the sea, buy some sea-front land NOW. And trust me, Tornio, the Northernmost sea front of the Baltic sea, right there were Finland meets Sweden at the Gulf of Bothnia. In a century, Tornio will be the new Venice or Amsterdam where everybody wants to go visit, by the sea...  But kind of the anti-Venice as Venice slowly sinks into the sea, Tornio will be still rising from the sea haha...

SO IS DRINKING WATER A PROBLEM? - SOLUTION? MOVE TO FINLAND

So Paris and pollution and water? This is just too easy. If you want to ensure you will never suffer from droughts or scarcity of water, don't move to a desert. Move to the country who has the highest proportion of fresh water surface water out of its land area. And yeah, you don't need to be a hydrologist freak to know, Finland is the nation that has the highest proportion of lakes and rivers (freshwater) as proportion of its total landmass. Ten percent of total Finnish land area is WATER. Over 100,000 lakes, plus countless more ponds, plus dozens upon dozens of rivers and creeks. Water aplenty. And its all clean. Most - not quite all - but MOST of Finnish lakes are so clean, you can DRINK from the lake without danger. Try that in 'the lakes district' of Michigan haha. American rivers are known for being so polluted they often catch fire. Seriously the cleanest water, and the largest water area. There will never be a lack of fresh water in Finland. Fresh CLEAN water... Duh.

SO SMOG BOTHERIN YA?  - SOLUTION? MOVE TO FINLAND

Gosh clean air? Finns are absolutely anal about clean air (because Finnish industry is so clean, almost all of Finland's pollution comes from some of its - ahem - more polluting neighbors and I am not talking about Sweden or Norway haha, look more to the East and South...). They say forests are the lungs of the planet. Yes, Brazil has the largest rain forest, but Europe's largest pine forest is... in Finland. Actually 70% of Finnish surface area is TREES. Its more than the 'jungles' of Vietnam if you studied that war. You want the CLEANEST part of the planet, I say its generally the Nordic/Scandinavian area including Norway (ok, and including Sweden) but for the total package, you can't beat Finland! Not to mention, its the home of Santa Claus. And Angry Birds. And Moomins. Now, what can possibly be wrong in a country that did all that for us? And gave us the sauna. Ok I'll grant you that Antarctica the uninhabited continent will probably have more clean water and more clean air than Finland but there is no train to the airport. Or to be more precise on Antarctica there is no airport. There is a scientific base where there is some scheduled flights on military transport planes if that is your thing. For most other people.. take the Finland option instead.

WHERE ELSE WOULD YOU GO?

Imagine if your great grandparents had been smart enough to invest in San Francisco land at the sea, something like a century ago. It would be priceless property today. So yeah who doesn't love the USA? Great place. But look at it a bit more carefully. The East Coast, from Florida to Boston is always hit by Hurricanes, several per year. Always getting worse with global warming, bigger storms, more rain and rising sea levels (Finland doesn't get hurricanes but we had once an awesome rock band called the Hurriganes). So then what if you move inland. The midwest. Then you get those nasty tornadoes we always see in the news (no tornadoes in Finland). Ok, what about the West Coast? Ah, lovely California which gets mudslides and droughts and one day will be swallowed by an nasty earthquake that sinks half of the state into the Pacific ocean (that half which is by the sea, by the way -which will then FURTHER raise sea levels, obviously). Oh, we in Finland don't get mudslides. We also don't get earthquakes. Hey, how about that lovely South? Texas or Louisiana or Alabama. Well, apart from the rednecks (we don't have those either in Finland) they do get hurricanes AND tornadoes. And what with the oil industry fracking, they've even started to have earthquakes.

Ok, how about Dubai. Its a hot growing new city yes. Or its neighbors like Abu Dhabi or Kuwait or Qatar etc. Nice new glass tower glitzy cities. In the desert. Where you get sandstroms (We don't have sandstorms in Finland but a dance band called Darude from Finland had a global dance hit instrumental called Sandstorm some years ago). And those deserts where the heat can kill you at daytime and the cold can kill you at night. (We don't have deserts in Finland). Ok, what about Singapore and Indonesia and Malaysia. Well, you get typhoons which are a Frankenstein's monster up-sized version of the modest hurricanes that the Americans get (we dont' get typhoons in Finland). And you get the monsoons (or maybe not) with drenching rains and floods (We don't have monsoons in Finland, we don't get drenching rains and we don't get life-threatening floods either). And they get earthquakes and the lovely smog ruining vacations from the regular wildfires (we don't have earthquakes and haven't had wildfires in probably a century). And they get volcanoes. (We don't have volcanoes in Finland). And tsunamis (we dont' get tsunamis either).

How about the cool sexy cities of Asia like Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai and Bangkok? Yeah, squeeze 20 million people into a few square kilometers into concrete jungles and await the next bird flu or SARS or MERS or Ebola or whatever global pandemic illness hits the world next month. We don't do concrete jungles in Finland. Come see our most densely populated city, Helsinki - there are more forests and woodlands and parks and playgrounds and water - ponds and small lakes - than area allowed for housing. EVERYWHERE there is wooded area to be seen and experienced. Yes, its a city, but if you want a livable city, Helsinki regularly ranks among the best in the world and for land area use - we mix nature with housing. And then add to that the best healthcare system in the world and you have about the safeest city to live in, when the next health panics happen. Some tightly-packed Asian cities, I am not quite so sure about... (also we do get the typhoons and earthquakes and tsunamis also at most Asian coastal big cities). Africa? Latin America. Yeah. Even the local mosquitos can kill you with their bite (we do have mosquitos also in Finland, quite a lot in fact during the summer months, but none of the deadly kind like malaria or dengue fever or any other deadly insects - thanks E in comments for reminding me about the mosquitos).

Ah, you then say Australia! Ok, lovely people yes. But they do get their variant of the hurricane they call the cyclone, similarly deadly. They also have their natural dangers but the ones most perilous are the indigent flora and fauna. Anything alive in Australia can kill you. The snakes, the spiders, the sharks, gosh, I am pretty sure one day they will find that there is a killer species of Koala Bears. (We have no wild animals outside of the zoos that are any significant danger to humans, even our 'most deadly' snake has such a weak bite that it can only make you sick, and our most dangerous mushrooms won't kill you but can give you quite a nasty hallucination. I prefer drinking Single Malt scotch whiskies instead, much more controlled process of getting drunk). So you like Switerland then? Avalanches. (we don't have avalanches either in Finland). Canada? Avalances, and tornadoes. Oh, and with that tar sands oil they are now fracking for in Alberta, there are also an alarming amount of oil spills (no oil in Finland, no oil spills either). New Zealand? Apart from being miserably in the middle of nowhere, they have their hobbits (we don't have hobbits in Finland but we have a troll park (peikkometsa) and the Moomin park and of course the elves at Santa Claus park)

Finland is about the nicest, most serene and pleasant place on the planet (best education system too, for your kids) but for one nagging problem - it was too damn cold always, even summers were cool.  But now. With global warming also Finland is warming so what was too cold becomes nice, and as the rest of the world becomes positively uninhabitable, there will be a rush to get into Finland. A nice peaceful EU nation using the Euro? Whats not to like. Did I mention we have Starbucks too? Get in before the rush. Oh, and consider this. Most people 'only' get Christmas in December. We in Finland also get 'Little Christmas' ie Pikkujoulu. LIttle Christmas is obviously not a Christian religious custom, it is purely a Finnish invention as an excuse for drinking. Like our midsummer night bonfires. Most nations do not have national celebrations for midsummer night. In Finland we do, and it is.. and excuse for drinking. Like May Day. Some countries celebrate the day as the day for labor. In Finland we call it Vappu and its an excuse for drinking. New Year's? Excuse for drinking. Almost any holiday in Finland is created for the purpose of drinking. We do, after all, have very strong alcohol content in our beers and some very fine vodkas including the black sweet poison of Salmiakki Kossu (try it with moderation and warning). Now what kind of nation creates a whole series of holidays just to get drunk? Either a very happy nation or one that is morosely suicidal (oops, no, I didn't mean to mention our suicide rates).

So yeah, the language is a bit on the diffucult side, sure, but all Finns speak English anyway. Reliable electricity and wireless broadband everywhere. The prototype 'Information age' nation. McDonalds, Pizza Hut, WiFi. Even on TV all English-language programs are broadcast with the actors speaking English (with Finnish and Swedish subtitles underneath) so you can watch the Bond movie marathon and understand it, differing for example from several European nations like Germany and France where they dub the movies with local actors speaking in their languages (seriously? In this century? Are the Germans and French populations so weak at reading that they can't handle subtitles? Did I mention world's best education system). What more could you ask for. We also have the worlds' largest volume of library shelf-space per capita so if you want to read and learn, Finland's your country. So yeah. If Paris is on your agenda. If climate change is bugging you .If rising temperatures are boiling your brain, if clean water is the problem, if pollution is ruining your eyesight, if rising seas are spoiling your summer cottage investment - its time to move to Finland. Do it now, while nobody else has thought of it. Take a city home in Helsinki (good airport too) and then pick a nice cottage further up North. Raahe is a nice coastal town, or if you're really adventurous, go to Lapland. Utsjoki, Nuorgam. Thats the way out of climate problems for smart money. This blog provided to you courtesy of the Communities Dominate blog and your friendly Finland Tourism office, conveniently located in (warm) Hong Kong.