Posted on 11/10/2016 10:54:43 AM PST by Uncle Miltie
Global Warming elected Trump.
How? By moving the coal-producing PA and OH states from D to R.
Coal is a key product of PA and OH (1, 2)
0bama planned to shut down the coal industry without Congress' approval (3).
Clinton agreed: "Hillary Clinton Promise: 'We’re Going to Put a Lot of Coal Miners and Coal Companies Out of Business'"(4).
In 2012, 0bama won OH by about 100K votes (5), and PA by about 290K (6).
In 2016, Trump won OH by about 454K votes (7), and PA by about 66K votes (8).
That means OH switched about 554K votes (~2%) and PA switched about 356K votes (~0.5%).
When a key industry in your state is under direct political attack, how many people will vote their economic interests? 1% or 2%? Sure. The Democrats' War On Coal is entirely likely to account for the whole change in voting.
Now as to the total count of Electoral Votes (EVs), current reckoning is that Trump will end at 306 versus Clinton at 232. OH has 18 EVs and PA 20 for a total of 38. Had those two states remained Democrat, Trump would have had 306 - 38 = 268 versus Clinton at 232 + 38 = 270.
CLINTON WOULD HAVE WON, EXCEPT FOR THE WAR ON COAL.
GLOBAL WARMING DEFEATED CLINTON!
(2) http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/13/news/economy/hillary-clinton-ohio-coal/index.html
(3) http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2014/02/06/obamas-plan-to-bankrupt-coal-continues-without-congress/
(4) http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2014/02/06/obamas-plan-to-bankrupt-coal-continues-without-congress/
(5) http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/ohio/
(6) http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/pennsylvania/
(7) http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/ohio/
(8) http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/pennsylvania/
I count this as sweet justice for the anti-scientific gaia religion of global warming. :-)
Whew ... finally something tangible...
Good job!
From the sole perspective of protecting our ability to produce fuels while cut off from the rest of the world, coal to liquids technology should not only be encouraged but developed via purchasing contracts for the military and GSA.
Yes there would be a premium paid but if the contracts are executed as competitive bids, then that premium could be kept to a minimum.
Nicely researched and annotated!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.