Florida Waking Up to Climate Change is Bad News for Trump

July 8, 2016

Climate change hard to deny when it’s sloshing up around your ankles.
Problem for climate deniers like Donald Trump in the key electoral state of Florida.  There is effectively no path to the White House for Republicans that does not include a win in this state.

Guardian:

Miami Beach is one of the world’s most vulnerable cities to sea floods, but much of Florida’s coastline is facing similar problems. The Everglades wetlands is at risk from invading seawater and the Florida Keys are regularly flooded at extreme high tides.

Nasa is facing floods from Atlantic storms at the Kennedy Space Centre and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on the Florida coast. But the most urgent threat is to drinking water as saltwater, and the pollution it flushes out, invades underground, and is now moving close to drinking water supplies for 6 million residents.

So it’s no surprise that 81% of people in Florida polled recently said they believe that climate change is happening now – an increase on the 63% in 2012. And yet climate change has been drowned out in the US presidential primary elections – apart from political debates in Miami.

New York Times:

If demographics are destiny, Donald Trump’s political fate could very well be sealed in Florida.

The big demographic threat to the Republican Party isn’t a “blue” Texas or Arizona or Georgia, but the possibility that Florida will follow Nevada and New Mexico to the left. It’s extremely hard for a Republican to win the presidency without Florida’s 29 electoral votes.

The polls suggest that Hillary Clinton might capitalize on huge demographic shifts to an extent that Barack Obama never did. She might even lead by the same margin in Florida that she does nationally — about five percentage points — even though the state has been more Republican than the country in every presidential election since 1976.

Washington Post:

Start here: Eighteen states plus the District of Columbia have voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every election between 1992 and 2012. Add them up, and you get 242 electoral votes.

By contrast, 13 states have voted for the Republican presidential nominee in each of the past six elections. Total them up and you get 102 electoral votes.

There are two important takeaways from these facts: The generic Democratic nominee starts with an electoral vote lead of 140, and the Democratic nominee needs to find only 28 votes beyond that reliable base to win the presidency.

What that means in practical terms is that if Clinton wins the 19 states that every Democratic nominee dating to her husband has won and she wins Florida (29 electoral votes), she wins the White House. It’s that simple.

It’s well known that the Trump campaign is not doing so well among Latinos, a demographic critical in Florida, as well as other key states like Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Ohio, (maybe because they don’t like being falsely characterized as rapist drug dealers? I’m no expert, just guessing here..)

But it turns out that Latinos are the demographic most concerned and activated about climate change.

New York Times:

Alfredo Padilla grew up in Texas as a migrant farmworker who followed the harvest with his parents to pick sugar beets in Minnesota each summer. He has not forgotten the aches of labor or how much the weather — too little rain, or too much — affected the family livelihood.

Now an insurance lawyer in Carrizo Springs, Tex., he said he was concerned about global warming.

“It’s obviously happening, the flooding, the record droughts,” said Mr. Padilla, who agrees with the science that human activities are the leading cause of climate change. “And all this affects poor people harder. The jobs are more based on weather. And when there are hurricanes, when there is flooding, who gets hit the worst? The people on the poor side of town.”

Mr. Padilla’s concern is echoed by other Hispanics across the country, according to a poll conducted last month by The New York Times,Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research groupResources for the Future. The survey, in which Mr. Padilla was a respondent, found that Hispanics are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to view global warming as a problem that affects them personally. It also found that they are more likely to support policies, such as taxes and regulations on greenhouse gas pollution, aimed at curbing it.

The findings in the poll could have significant implications for the 2016 presidential campaign as both parties seek to win votes from Hispanics, particularly in states like Florida and Colorado that will be influential in determining the outcome of the election. The poll also shows the challenge for the potential Republican presidential candidates — including two Hispanics — many of whom question or deny the scientific basis for the finding that humans caused global warming.

Among Hispanic respondents to the poll, 54 percent rated global warming as extremely or very important to them personally, compared with 37 percent of whites. Sixty-seven percent of Hispanics said they would be hurt personally to a significant degree if nothing was done to reduce global warming, compared with half of whites.

And 63 percent of Hispanics said the federal government should act broadly to address global warming, compared with 49 percent of whites.

Advertisements

12 Responses to “Florida Waking Up to Climate Change is Bad News for Trump”


  1. […] via Florida Waking Up to Climate Change is Bad News for Trump — Climate Denial Crock of the Week […]

  2. Tom Bates Says:

    The algae have zero to do with climate change and 100 percent to do with water management or lack thereof by Florida. Every drop of water in Florida comes from wells which drain the surface water flow towards the ocean. When people poop and farmers fertilize all the water flows from the source towards the ocean and when it arrives the algae go hurray and reproduce like mad. If you want less algae you have to do something about the poop and farmers fertilizer to remove the nutrients.


    • The recharge rate of the superficial Florida aquifer is approx. 40 years depending on location.

      Florida is a limestone karst. In the 1980 or so Miami started doing deep water injection of it’s untreated sewage…. the argument being that there was a confining layer… many argued that this was BS and that the sewage would appear again in the superficial aquifers and springs in the not so distance future. This is coming home to roost….

      The Florida DEP is a joke…. best environment agency money can buy…

      They (city of Miami) currently have 21 deep injections wells (2500 ft) where they are disposing their untreated sewage…. And there are many other municipalities doing the same thing..


    • What did you do, pull this out of a dark hole? This story didn’t even mention algae. But on that topic, how do you know it has nothing to do with climate change? Did you perform studies? I’m guessing that since the people studying it don’t know all the factors causing the bloom, YOU don’t either.


  3. Tommy poo,

    In an earlier comment thread here at climatecrocks.com, you made this claim.

    …and only shows warming after that when they plug 66 percent of the data with estimates which are higher than the actual temperatures they replace.

    I proved you wrong by showing that the NASA warming trend can easily be replicated with raw data (no adjustments/estimates/etc.) Link here: https://climatecrocks.com/2016/05/26/exxonknew-and-chose-to-lie/#comment-84594

    When you continued to post here without either retracting that completely false claim, I followed up here: https://climatecrocks.com/2016/05/28/bill-maher-on-trump-energy-policy/#comment-84709

    You ignored that and subsequent requests for you to retract that wrong and libelous claim.

    Every time you show up here, I will repost this request for you to man-up and do what you should have done several weeks ago.

    Of course, I don’t really expect to do that — the real purpose of my requests to you is to demonstrate to lurkers how unwilling/unable you are to retract even your most blatant, transparent lies.


  4. Corrected sentences (I really shouldn’t copy/paste in haste):

    When you continued to post here without retracting that completely false claim…

    Of course, I don’t really expect **you** to do that — ….

  5. Andy Lee Robinson Says:

    Trump.
    The onomatopoeic name of the noise made when the hole the GOP dug implodes.

    • skeptictmac57 Says:

      That’s a nice visual/audio Andy. 🙂

      I sincerely hope that you are correct. This election season has been surprising and revealing so far. I was never a Hillary hater, and I took most of the bad press about her as politics as usual, but she really has made some unforced errors, and I see why people have doubts about her, and she has to take some of that responsibility.
      Having said that, how in the hell could any non-delusional human look at what Trump has said and done throughout his life, and conclude that “Yeah! That’s our future leader of the free world!”?
      It is beyond rationality, Clinton’s shortcomings not withstanding.

      Either Trump is a narcissistic, rich, eighth grade level moron who by dint of timing, just happened to line up his ambitions with the confluence of the rise of Fox News and it’s reality challenged GOP voters, or he just plays one on TV.
      Neither of those dichotomous possibilities makes any difference as to the answer to our Hobson’s choice…never Trump!

  6. webej Says:

    I thought in 2000 with the Gush Bore chads that the Americans would finally do something about the crazy electoral system where the votes in two or three counties determine the entire election, thanks to completely ignoring the popular vote and pretending states endorse some candidate unanimously (“winner take all”). Essentially this meant that the electoral rules for a different age have been declared sacred and eternal. Forget about any change to the two-party football game.

    Now we are reading about the subtler dynamics of an election in which Americans are being forced to choose between two candidates who the majority already disapproves of. Since 2000, money has gained an ever more prominent role in rigging the election. As it is, only about 20% of Americans actually cast a vote for the winning candidate. As a foreigner I stand afhast at the site of a run-off between someone who wants to stoke the fires of climate hell even hotter and another one who may well lead the world to thermo-nuclear confrontation about whether America alone is the boss of the world.

    Good thing there’s a democratic choice!


  7. […] I pointed out months ago that climate impacts in Florida could have an impact in swinging Republican climate deniers around – because any pathway to the Presidency becomes difficult, if not impossible, for GOP with out Florida. […]


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: