OT: Predictions for 2016 Presidential Election

User Forum Topic
Submitted by svelte on December 11, 2015 - 7:41am

I apologize in advance for bringing up the topic (it is sure to be over-discussed next year!), but now is a good time to make predictions.

The primaries start in just a few weeks and bring clarity to who will be the final candidates.

So now is the opportune time to make predictions: who will be the final, post-convention candidate selections for US President of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and any other party you which to mention?

Bonus points for specifying who their running mate will be!

Submitted by bearishgurl on March 4, 2016 - 5:28pm.

Trump and Cruz are going to have to eventually "make nice" and "pool their resources and support" if they're going to successfully stave off a "brokered convention" attempt from the "old guard." Cruz was obviously heavily favored in the heart of the bible belt for the Republican nominee and that was no small feat.

Texas is a BIG state and its votes and delegates are nothing to scoff at.

Submitted by bearishgurl on March 4, 2016 - 6:24pm.

I was studying results from the 2012 general election in CA on Sunday night. I noticed that only about 55% of eligible voters in the state voted at that time and CA's 58 counties were split 29 Red (for Romney) and 29 Blue (for Obama). But .... most of the counties who voted R were rural or semi-rural and a significant amount of counties who voted D had huge populations (LA county being the largest with nearly 2.6M votes cast [~69% Dem]). Overall, 59.3% of CA votes were for Obama, 38.3% of the votes were for Romney and 2.4% of the votes were for "other" candidates (American Independent, Green Party, Libertarian and Peace & Freedom parties).

The wild card this year will be to see how many people (esp newly aged-in millenials) register to vote for the first time or finally decide to cast their vote after having not participated in elections in recent years as well as those who decide to re-register to change their party affiliation. This will be especially telling if there are little to no "protest candidates" on the ballot running for president to choose from.

I think 2016 is going to be a banner year for voter turnout. It's going to be very interesting t see what will happen with the approx 10M people in CA who did not vote in the general election in 2012 but were otherwise eligible to register and/or vote.

ALL of the candidates would do well to plan tours stumping on the "CA public university campus circuit" this spring enabling them to energize hundreds of thousands of unregistered millenials in time to register to vote in the CA primary.

Submitted by svelte on March 6, 2016 - 12:08am.

TRUMP. Make America hate again.

Submitted by no_such_reality on March 6, 2016 - 7:03am.

bearishgurl wrote:

If Trump should get elected, I predict he will find a cabinet post for every . single . one of his Republican opponents ... yeah, even "little Marco."

True, he plays political back scratch game very well to get his projects approved.

What you described is old boys money club, and wow would his followers get sold down the river.

As for California, it's still frankly irrelevant in the general election. Our electoral votes are awarded via overall popular vote outcome, winner take all. Not in county by county matchup.

Submitted by harvey on March 6, 2016 - 9:07am.

Trump's two top opponents are senators.

Those seats will become very precious if Trump, or any Republican, wins the presidency.

Submitted by zk on March 6, 2016 - 9:21am.

I was wondering how Cruz, a senator, was considered an outsider, so I googled it. It looks like, if he's an outsider at all, he's an outsider mainly because nobody in the establishment likes him.

Outsider. Pariah. Whatever.

Interesting article in Slate, with the headline:

"Harvard-Educated Lawyer Who’s Worked for Every Branch of Government Runs for President as Outsider"

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...

CBS news ran this article, with the hard-hitting headline:

"Ted Cruz, Washington outsider and proud"

The first two paragraphs:

Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz is glad he isn't a part of the nation's political elite.

"You may have heard I'm not exactly the most popular person with congressional leadership," the cheerful Texas senator said Friday to a group of conservative business leaders.

The third paragraph explains why (he claims) he's not well-liked. Turns out he's an obstructionist douchebag:

Cruz, the first major Republican to officially declare his candidacy for the White House, said that because of his role in the 2013 government shutdown over Obamacare he wasn't well-liked among the party's heads. And as a result, campaign donations dried up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-was...

It appears the republicans now have two gigantic assholes from which to choose. One who's basically a fascist, and one who wants to take his ball and go home when he doesn't like the way the game is going. At least Trump would almost certainly lose in November. Cruz apparently has a real shot at winning the general election:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...

We live in very scary times.

Submitted by Coronita on March 6, 2016 - 9:20am.

svelte wrote:
TRUMP. Make America hate again.

TRUMP, flipping flopping to make America great again...

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-tr...

"'I'm changing': Donald Trump casually announces policy flip-flop at debate"

Submitted by Coronita on March 6, 2016 - 9:24am.

zk wrote:
I was wondering how Cruz, a senator, was considered an outsider, so I googled it. It looks like, if he's an outsider at all, he's an outsider mainly because nobody in the establishment likes him.

Outsider. Pariah. Whatever.

Interesting article in Slate, with the headline:

"Harvard-Educated Lawyer Who’s Worked for Every Branch of Government Runs for President as Outsider"

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...

CBS news ran this article, with the hard-hitting headline:

"Ted Cruz, Washington outsider and proud"

The first two paragraphs:

Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz is glad he isn't a part of the nation's political elite.

"You may have heard I'm not exactly the most popular person with congressional leadership," the cheerful Texas senator said Friday to a group of conservative business leaders.

The third paragraph explains why (he claims) he's not well-liked. Turns out he's an obstructionist douchebag:

Cruz, the first major Republican to officially declare his candidacy for the White House, said that because of his role in the 2013 government shutdown over Obamacare he wasn't well-liked among the party's heads. And as a result, campaign donations dried up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-was...

It appears the republicans now have two gigantic assholes from which to choose. One who's basically a fascist, and one who wants to take his ball and go home when he doesn't like the way the game is going. At least Trump would almost certainly lose in November. Cruz apparently has a real shot at winning the general election:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...

We live in very scary times.

I smell a Trump/Cruz ticket or Cruz/Trump ticket. Then we're really screwed.

Submitted by zk on March 6, 2016 - 10:50am.

flu wrote:

I smell a Trump/Cruz ticket or Cruz/Trump ticket. Then we're really screwed.

Yikes.

Great quote from Louis C.K.:

"If you are a true conservative. Don’t vote for Trump. He is not one of you. He is one of him."

And Cruz: Too obstructionist even for the "party of no." Ouch.

Hillary is too much in Wall Street's pocket, and she's too focus-group driven, and her vision for the country seems somewhat fuzzy. Her honesty takes more hits than it should, in my opinion. She doesn't seem any less honest than your average politician. Which is to say, pretty dishonest. And the right-wing attacks on her regarding the Benghazi situation are nonsense. She's tough, brilliant, and has tons of stamina. Would she be a great president? Probably not. A good one? I'd say there's a good chance of that. A disaster? Probably not.

Trump would be a disaster, it seems to me.

And Cruz would be a huge step backward. I predict that by as soon as 2020, and 2024 at the latest, profoundly conservative politicians like Cruz will be dinosaurs. Especially if Cruz wins in 2016 and the younger Americans get energized by their disgust for him and what he stands for.

Submitted by Coronita on March 6, 2016 - 12:07pm.

zk wrote:
flu wrote:

I smell a Trump/Cruz ticket or Cruz/Trump ticket. Then we're really screwed.

Yikes.

Great quote from Louis C.K.:

"If you are a true conservative. Don’t vote for Trump. He is not one of you. He is one of him."

And Cruz: Too obstructionist even for the "party of no." Ouch.

Hillary is too much in Wall Street's pocket, and she's too focus-group driven, and her vision for the country seems somewhat fuzzy. Her honesty takes more hits than it should, in my opinion. She doesn't seem any less honest than your average politician. Which is to say, pretty dishonest. And the right-wing attacks on her regarding the Benghazi situation are nonsense. She's tough, brilliant, and has tons of stamina. Would she be a great president? Probably not. A good one? I'd say there's a good chance of that. A disaster? Probably not.

Trump would be a disaster, it seems to me.

And Cruz would be a huge step backward. I predict that by as soon as 2020, and 2024 at the latest, profoundly conservative politicians like Cruz will be dinosaurs. Especially if Cruz wins in 2016 and the younger Americans get energized by their disgust for him and what he stands for.

I never thought I'd agree with you ever on politics. But I agree with you.

My concern at this point isn't so much about the white house next term. My concern is the GOP loses not only the white house, but the Senate too. I don't like our government when one party dominates, and it concerns me more that with Hillary at the helm, and with the justice appointments (I'd settle for moderates), we need some sort of checks and balances in Congress.

That said, I think the GOP party as it stands is finished. It really needs to abandon some of the far right side lunatics and start taking a more moderate stance on social issues. Some of the far right side thinking is just, frankly, obsolete in the 21st century. As Lincoln once said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

I think a Trump/Cruz or a Cruz/Trump ticket is coming though. Trump + anyone else would alienate all the Cruz voters. And a Cruz+ anyone else would alienate all the trump voters. Cruz+Trump or Trump+Cruz, people would probably get behind. And trump and cruz is smart enough to realize this. The Democrats might really have a big problem at hand if this happens.

Contrast this with a Hillary/Bernie ticket. Bernie has some good ideas for the well being of people, BUT all his thinking is way to extreme for a leader of the U.S. It's best he serves in an advisory role, where some of his radical thinking can trickle through our system and get adopted piece-wise.

A Hillary/Bernie ticket would destroy the Democrat's chances, so that isn't going to happen. Hillary better pick someone else, preferably a no-name person. Which then begs the question... I wonder who Hillary's running mate will be?

Submitted by bearishgurl on March 6, 2016 - 1:01pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:

If Trump should get elected, I predict he will find a cabinet post for every . single . one of his Republican opponents ... yeah, even "little Marco."

True, he plays political back scratch game very well to get his projects approved.

What you described is old boys money club, and wow would his followers get sold down the river. . . .

I disagree about the "old boys money club" NSR. You forgot about Carly Fiorina and NM Gov Susana Martinez, for starters. Both of these accomplished women have skill sets which Trump will need for his agenda, and if elected, he will find posts for both of them.

I feel it would be in the best interest for the Grand Olde Party (but the "Old Guard" is too short-sighted to realize this .... yet) if Trump and Cruz "coupled up" BEFORE March 15 and campaigned together in populous FL ("Little Marco's" state). Cruz speaks "the King's" fluent Spanish (not quite the same Spanish we hear around here, lol) and so does Rubio. Trump will really need Cruz on his ticket as he heads west in the coming months.

Perhaps the two have already made a tentative "backroom deal" to pair up, contingent on the outcome of the primaries in MI, ID and MS and HI on Tuesday.

I haven't yet decided what the outcome of the general election will be (a R or D president) but I predict the R candidate will take all the "border counties" in the US (yeah, even SD and Imperial Counties). The Lincoln Club is very influential in this town and they will set a up a staged rally (with heavy security) for Trump/Cruz along the (urban) Int'l border just south of the Tijuana Estuary or the 905 fwy with all the bright lights on high beam (for TV "effect"). This will give Fmr Rep Duncan Hunter a platform to introduce Trump/Cruz to their many thousands of disgusted border-dwelling supporters. Trump will start off the rally by pointing to the exact location the high wall will be going up that he's planning on having MX pay for amid a full two-minute roar from the audience of "Trump, trump, trump ..." Cruz will manage to calm the crowd down and begin speaking Spanish to them. :=0

If Trump gets the nomination, the same as above will happen this summer/fall just east of the Juarez border entry gates just south of El Paso, TX and Gov Martinez will proudly introduce the pair to a HUGE crowd, again with all the lights on high beam and the crowd shouting over and over "Trump-Cruz!"

OK, you can pick yourself up off the floor now and stop laughing, people .... I know a thing or two about how all of this stuff works and can tell you that the "fat lady" has only begun singing her second number for the evening.

Submitted by bearishgurl on March 6, 2016 - 2:24pm.

Just ran across this e-mail poll from last summer/fall: Would you support a Trump-Cruz ticket?

Closeted "best buddies"

https://lockerdome.com/7060952575121473/...

edit: I just noticed that the above pic was taken in Trump's Manhattan office. The $64M question here is "When?" Was it taken before Trump and/or Cruz announced their candidacy for President? Could it have been taken a year ago or last spring? The date of the photo would be very telling.

Submitted by zk on March 6, 2016 - 4:14pm.

flu wrote:

I never thought I'd agree with you ever on politics. But I agree with you.

I don't think we're as far apart as you think, flu. Because I'm passionate about my disgust with the religious right's social agenda (and about the religious right's place in politics in general) and passionate about my amazement (o.k., anger) that the right-wing noise machine has snowed as many people as it has, I probably come across as a flaming liberal. Just because I think the right-wing noise machine is shamelessly and viciously manipulating people using their emotions doesn't mean I disagree with all conservative viewpoints. My positions are spread across the spectrum, depending on the particular issue. If you add them all up and average them, I'm fairly middle-of-the-road. Or maybe middle-of-the-road as it was defined before the right wing lurched even further right. Although the financial crisis of '08 has moved me towards the left on banking regulation issues.

flu wrote:

My concern at this point isn't so much about the white house next term. My concern is the GOP loses not only the white house, but the Senate too. I don't like our government when one party dominates, and it concerns me more that with Hillary at the helm, and with the justice appointments (I'd settle for moderates), we need some sort of checks and balances in Congress.

Then again, maybe we're not that close, as one of my bigger concerns about a Cruz presidency is the prospect of super-conservative supreme court appointments. I'd be ecstatic with moderates if he were president, but I don't think we'd get anything close to that.

While I agree that it's a bit dangerous to have one party dominate (either one), I think that some cooperation (a lot more than the republicans have shown over the last 7 years) would be better than just saying no.

flu wrote:

I think a Trump/Cruz or a Cruz/Trump ticket is coming though. Trump + anyone else would alienate all the Cruz voters. And a Cruz+ anyone else would alienate all the trump voters. Cruz+Trump or Trump+Cruz, people would probably get behind. And trump and cruz is smart enough to realize this. The Democrats might really have a big problem at hand if this happens.

I don't think Trump/Cruz would win. I think Cruz/Trump might have a shot, but I think Cruz/somebody reasonable would be the republicans' best shot. We'll see.

flu wrote:

Contrast this with a Hillary/Bernie ticket. Bernie has some good ideas for the well being of people, BUT all his thinking is way to extreme for a leader of the U.S. It's best he serves in an advisory role, where some of his radical thinking can trickle through our system and get adopted piece-wise.

I agree that Bernie's stuff can't get done right now. Maybe in 10 or 20 years. I understand that younger people have always leaned more left than older people, but I think that's more prevalent now than ever. Kids these days have pretty radically left ideas, especially on social issues.

flu wrote:

A Hillary/Bernie ticket would destroy the Democrat's chances, so that isn't going to happen. Hillary better pick someone else, preferably a no-name person. Which then begs the question... I wonder who Hillary's running mate will be?

I think you're right; she won't pick Bernie, and it will be very interesting to see who she picks. I'm thinking it will be the safest possible person. A white man, for sure. Someone experienced. Someone who doesn't make a lot of gaffes. Sort of a democrat version of Mitt Romney.

Submitted by zk on March 6, 2016 - 9:39pm.

Maybe an Evan Bayh type. He's "president-shaped," as Stephen Colbert hilariously called Mitt Romney.

That's my guess.

My wish would be Elizabeth Warren.

Submitted by bearishgurl on March 6, 2016 - 6:25pm.

I finally had a chance to research when the photo of Trump and Cruz was taken at Trump Tower. It was on July 15, 2015, after they both had announced their candidacy. It's very possible that each realized they were "outcasts" at the time and thus saw each other as their only viable competition for votes (from a crowded field at the time). They met primarily to to strategize over Plan A, B, C and D, for their respective campaigns, in that order, since neither man's candidacy would be looked upon very kindly by the "old guard."

....Then Cruz made a quick stop to visit and old friend in town: Donald Trump.

The two 2016 Republican presidential candidates met at Trump Tower around 5:00 p.m. local time, where they discussed a wide variety of topics in a “very friendly” meeting, according to Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler.

Cruz said Wednesday that he had met with Trump several times before they entered the race and that he’s friends with many of his 2016 rivals. Despite Trump’s entrance sucking away support from the senator in poll, Cruz has defended the mogul’s controversial comments about Mexican immigrants and praises him for drawing attention to illegal immigration. ....

(Emphasis mine)

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2...

"...summit in Manhattan" is a fitting description of their meeting, IMO.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...

In spite of all their wrangling of late and Trump deliberately playing the go-nowhere "birther card" against Cruz as a distraction and Cruz playing into some of his games and bouncing insults back, I think the joke is on the American people who are watching all of these shenanigans unfold. H@ll, even one or more of the networks who aired the debates might even be in on it!

After all, why team up too early and give the "old guard" too much ammunition? This will only incite them to caucus at midnight with pizza in a dark conference room in attempt to put their collective heads together to figure out how to successfully bust the "Trump/Cruz" ticket. Why not drag it out until the 11th hour and get as much voter support as possible (individually and severally) before making it "public" that they will be running mates? By then, it might be too late for the "old guard" to attempt to do anything about it without looking like flaming idiots to the American people thereby causing their waning voter base to revolt to the dems (or any Independent candidates who might be on the ballot).

Trump may be a lot of things but the one attribute he has which no one can take away from him is that he has had a LOT of practice as a master at the chessboard of life. Cruz will follow along, all the while knowing or believing he will eventually have a better job than he currently has regardless of the outcome of the election. (Cruz and his family are actually enrolled in Obamacare thru the Senate's Federal Employee exchange offerings), lol ...:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/24/politics/t...

Submitted by svelte on March 6, 2016 - 7:35pm.

Well. Since I was surprised to see Cruz win a couple of primaries this weekend, decided to find a site that predicts outcomes of upcoming primaries.

This is a pretty good site:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/elec...

Its surprising to see that Rubio isn't predicted to win Florida, his home state. That will be an interesting one to watch.

Submitted by Coronita on March 6, 2016 - 8:54pm.

Quote:

Then again, maybe we're not that close, as one of my bigger concerns about a Cruz presidency is the prospect of super-conservative supreme court appointments. I'd be ecstatic with moderates if he were president, but I don't think we'd get anything close to that.

Yeah, that's terrifying as well. We need more moderates in our government. This extremism really has to stop, on both sides.

Submitted by zk on March 6, 2016 - 9:41pm.

flu wrote:
We need more moderates in our government. This extremism really has to stop, on both sides.

Concur.

Submitted by zk on March 6, 2016 - 9:41pm.

dup

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 6, 2016 - 11:13pm.

zk wrote:
flu wrote:
We need more moderates in our government. This extremism really has to stop, on both sides.

Concur.

Extremism is not symmetrical.

Take climate change. Denial is kookoo. Trying to do something about it is reasonable, if only to stretch out the earth's carbon fuel reserves over a longer period of time.

Submitted by svelte on March 7, 2016 - 7:36am.

FlyerInHi wrote:

Extremism is not symmetrical.

Pretty much it is.

FlyerInHi wrote:

Take climate change. Denial is kookoo.

And now I see why you say that.

It's kookoo for folks to use the terms "climate change" and "man-made environmental change" interchangeably.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 7, 2016 - 11:37am.

Why is trying to conserve carbon fuels and reduce pollution an extremist position?

Wanting to drill baby drill and use everything we can take out of the ground without conserving for the future is reckless.

Wanting to save money while people toil in poverty and go without seems reasonable, right? That because money is limited. But, in reality, money is a human invention. We can create it and manage it however we want.

But conserving the earth fuel resources (for whatever reason) is extremist? In reality , humans can't create anymore oil once we use it all. Seems reasonable to conserve our God given bounty.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on March 7, 2016 - 11:53am.

svelte wrote:
Well. Since I was surprised to see Cruz win a couple of primaries this weekend, decided to find a site that predicts outcomes of upcoming primaries.

This is a pretty good site:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/elec...

Its surprising to see that Rubio isn't predicted to win Florida, his home state. That will be an interesting one to watch.

The fact Rubio has struggled in Florida has been a pretty good indicator both of his struggles and Trump's strength. Compare it to Ohio, where John Kasich, who has struggled in most of the country, actually has a lead in his home state.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 7, 2016 - 12:18pm.

Rubio was the establishment's second choice after Jeb! It's not turning out well at all.

You get what you sow. There, the results are objective measures of assymetric extremism.

Submitted by livinincali on March 7, 2016 - 2:32pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Why is trying to conserve carbon fuels and reduce pollution an extremist position?

Wanting to drill baby drill and use everything we can take out of the ground without conserving for the future is reckless.

Wanting to save money while people toil in poverty and go without seems reasonable, right? That because money is limited. But, in reality, money is a human invention. We can create it and manage it however we want.

But conserving the earth fuel resources (for whatever reason) is extremist? In reality , humans can't create anymore oil once we use it all. Seems reasonable to conserve our God given bounty.

It's not extremist to want to preserve fossil fuels but some of the purposed solutions could be considered fairly extremist and devastating to an economy that relies on inexpensive energy. This idea that we can just replace our power grid with wind and solar so simply ignores the complexities of how a power grid works and dynamics of supply and demand (i.e. peak power demand does not coincide with peak solar and wind generation). Carbon credits which rewards the currently existing companies at the expense of new companies starting up is certainly going to stifle innovation.

In addition it's becoming clear that we don't have this whole global warming thing figured out as well as we thought. Most of the climate models built years ago are not working out as predicted. Obviously the climate has a lot of complexity and numerous factors that we don't control and probably don't understand. Unfortunately we don't really understand man's influence on the climate. Is it a lot, a little, negligible. Are we going to go back to living like we did in the 1800's because we figure out we need to cut emissions by 80% to restore the climate. Do we know that restoring the climate to what it was in the 1800's is better for the planet or worse?

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 7, 2016 - 3:10pm.

Nobody is talking about restoring the planet to the 1800s.

But would banning large engine cars (not work trucks), says anything larger than 2 liter be extreme?

Submitted by zk on March 7, 2016 - 4:47pm.

livinincali wrote:
Unfortunately we don't really understand man's influence on the climate. Is it a lot, a little, negligible.

I saw this chart the other day:
I can't figure out how to load the chart. It's the one on this page:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carb...

The one that shows CO2 levels fluctuating between 180 and 300 ppm for the past 400,000 years before spiking to 380 over the last 65 years. When I saw it, I wondered how climate change deniers explained it, but I didn't think I knew any. livinincali, are you saying that "we" aren't sure that man caused this spike, or that that spike didn't cause climate change, or that there is no climate change, or something else?

Submitted by utcsox on March 7, 2016 - 8:58pm.

svelte wrote:
I apologize in advance for bringing up the topic (it is sure to be over-discussed next year!), but now is a good time to make predictions.

The primaries start in just a few weeks and bring clarity to who will be the final candidates.

So now is the opportune time to make predictions: who will be the final, post-convention candidate selections for US President of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and any other party you which to mention?

Bonus points for specifying who their running mate will be!


http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/07/politics/m...

I think Rubio is on fume now. CNN released this extremely damaging report late this afternoon that his advisers are recommending him to drop out before 3/15 so he won't get embarrassed at his home state. We will see what happen tomorrow. I think his campaign is about to collapse.

Submitted by paramount on March 8, 2016 - 1:31am.

It's interesting in that all the PC garbage that's been forced on us by is now backfiring.

Go Trump!

Submitted by livinincali on March 8, 2016 - 7:35am.

zk wrote:

The one that shows CO2 levels fluctuating between 180 and 300 ppm for the past 400,000 years before spiking to 380 over the last 65 years. When I saw it, I wondered how climate change deniers explained it, but I didn't think I knew any. livinincali, are you saying that "we" aren't sure that man caused this spike, or that that spike didn't cause climate change, or that there is no climate change, or something else?

There's certainly more CO2 in the air caused by man but it's effects on the climate are not completely understood. Yeah sure we know what happens when you pump CO2 into a box and those climate models probably used that as a model, but those models haven't accurately predicted the warming that would occur. Something more complex is happening that the scientists haven't figured out yet. CO2 in the atmosphere is a trace gas. 300 parts per million is 0.03%. Maybe changing that to 0.04% isn't going to have that big of an impact on the climate after all. Of course every time it's a little hotter than usual or a hurricane hits New York we can blame it on climate change. Then hopefully we can get the people to support a new tax or a new ban on something.

To go back to what it was in the previous millions of years would require us to pretty much completely stop using fossil fuels. So you have a choice, reduce fossil fuel usage significantly and lower the standard of living for all of us. Or replace it with a different technology and understand that you aren't going to be able to do it with wind and solar. We could probably do it with fast breeder Thorium nuclear reactors. The dream would be solving the mysteries of recovering net positive energy from fusion. Wind and solar might have a place where it makes sense but it's never going to be more than 10-20% of total power generation without some sort of storage technology break through

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.