Now is the time to invest in green energy

The following post was published in the July 17, 2020 edition of the Rochester Business Journal

The pandemic has knocked a surging economy flat on its back.  Predictions on its recovery range from the V-shaped curve we’d all like to see to the forecast by the Congressional Budget Office that implies it will take a decade to return to our former glory.  Many, including Wall Street Journal columnist John Stoll suggest we put our green dreams on hold saying, “businesses that were trying to save the world are now simply trying to save themselves.”  It’s a fair point.  But it ignores some fundamental principles of how we should analyze our businesses at the bottom of the cycle and make strategic investment decisions.

Guiding a company out of distress into a stable and competitive future is no small task.  Survivors will have spent time reevaluating their companies with an eye toward eliminating unproductive activities and unprofitable products and services.  The outcome for those who succeed will no doubt be a leaner, more efficient enterprise.  A disciplined approach to restructuring balance sheets and operations will yield an opportunity to develop new strategies for the future.  And, those new strategies should include green energy and carbon neutrality.  

We all know the big picture.  Nicely summarized by the Trump administration’s National Climate Assessment, “Human-induced climate change means much more than just hotter weather… These changes… [will] affect human health, water supply, agriculture, transportation, energy… with increasingly adverse impacts on the American economy…”  The Boston Consulting Group has quantified the impact in a report titled “How to Change Course on Climate.” BCG projects a 30% decline in per capita GDP by mid-Century if we do nothing to address climate change.   Reversal of that decline calls for us – all of us, locally, nationally and globally – to eliminate carbon emissions by achieving carbon neutrality in our operations.  

Fortunately, we have reached a point where it is not only economically feasible but also advantageous to deploy green energy.  There are local businesses offering community solar power with no upfront investment at a cost lower than conventional energy.  Others will help you electrify your fleet.  The Greater Rochester Regional Economic Development website provides examples of local companies who have improved their businesses as well as their carbon footprint by deploying green energy. 

Resources are available and the table has been set.  The next step is to include green energy and carbon neutrality as critical strategies for your business.  Raising the consciousness of your management team, exploring green options and implementing those that place you on a more sustainable path will undoubtedly improve your results both in the near term and long term.  

No one solution applies to every business.  But there is a solution for your business.  

WHO WILL LEAD? 

An Earth Day, birthday “he said; she said”

Bob Inglis

I was briefly a conservative hero in a sea of liberals last week.  The occasion was an assembly convened by the Rochester People’s Climate Coalition and sponsored by both the Sierra Club and the Rochester Chamber of Commerce.  The guest speaker was Bob Inglis, a former South Carolina Republican Congressman whose awakening to the dangers of climate change got him primaried out of his seat after serving 12 years.

Inglis is evangelizing for a bipartisan bill called the Energy Innovation Carbon Dividends Act (EICDA). It’s a carbon tax that’s positioned as nota tax increase because all the proceeds will be rebated to taxpayers in a monthly check. Acting kind of like a universal basic dividend, it would also be redistributive.  If you’re a rich person who owns a limo, a Ferrari and a Gulfstream, you’ll pay a lot in carbon taxes but get the same amount as a minimum wage worker who takes the bus to work. 

Inglis started by polling the audience and I found myself as only one of three people holding up my hand. We three were right-leaning and believe we should do something about climate change.  And, so I was briefly a hero to the radical lefties in the room. I was thanked and congratulated and should have felt good about it.  But, instead, I found myself, in my pin-striped suit and tie, feeling like a prize pig at the county fair – emphasis on pig.

I was invited to the event by Abigail McHugh-Grifa, the interim director of the coalition.  She and I co-authored a piece in Sunday’s Democrat & Chronicle (D&C), using “he said; she said” style to portray a casual conversation between friends about climate change, the EICDA and the Inglis event. It was intended to be cute and I think it was.  Here’s an excerpt:

He: I’m sorry, Abby. But I’ve never had a good answer to this question: How are you going to pay for that? 

She: Although people won’t like the idea of rising costs, that’s the point of a carbon price, so we shouldn’t tiptoe around that. However, we should also consider that the cost of burning fossil fuels does not reflect their true cost to society in terms of public health and climate impacts. Polluters continue to pollute while taxpayers pick up the bill for disaster relief and increased healthcare costs.

It was not an in-depth debate. The D&C’s 475-word limit leaves scant space to explore one point of view much less two.  But it’s worth noting that there’s some Milton Freidman philosophy embedded in Abby’s response.  In the web series Freidman Fundamentals, he explains libertarian philosophy (1-minute video) and defines the point at which government must intervene as when “a company is imposing a cost on me for which I am not being compensated.”  And, indeed, to the extent that burning fossil fuels emits pollutants that affect my health or to the extent my taxes contribute to the healthcare system, I am not only not being compensated but also paying the socialized cost of damage created by others. 

Still, there are reasons to be skeptical.  A website called ‘New Scientist’ claims there is no link between CO2 increases and global warming.  Another ‘The Conversation’ questions the logic of the standards set by the Paris climate agreement.  But every scientist you talk with will qualify their comments by saying climatology is not their expertise.  Meanwhile, the climatologists on the International Panel on Climate Change say we have reached the “gold standard” of certainty that climate change is man-made, and we must do something about it. 

My background is not science; it’s economics.  So, my concern is focused on what we do, how we do it and what it will do to our economy. Disruption is expensive and the cost must be borne by someone.  In Germany, the push toward alternative energy coupled with a ban on nuclear has led to a 50% increase in energy costs to consumers.  That would be politically infeasible in the U.S. and would undermine the effort before its goals were achieved.

Many people support conversion to nuclear energy as France has done.  The most concise economic argument I’ve seen was made by the Wall Street Journal in a piece titled ‘The Nuclear Option is the Real Green Deal.’  But I worry what happens at scale.  How would we handle the amount of waste water created at 100% nuclear?

Many are concerned about solar at full scale too.  So, I asked a local solar installer how much land would be required to be 100% solar. “One eighteenth of North Dakota,” came the reply without hesitation.  That’s about one half of 1% of the U.S. land mass or slightly more than half what the federal government leases to the oil and gas industry.  He sent me a study to back it up.  

In the end, I come down in favor of the EICDA not because it offers a perfect solution but rather because it doesn’t create a government mandated plan.  It simply disincentivizes burning fossil fuels by raising the cost of doing so, leaving free enterprise to innovate solutions.  

As for Inglis’ presentation… Well, he exhorted our left leaning audience to approach those on the right with language more likely to lead to constructive dialog.  “Innovation not regulation” was his catch-phrase.  That’s a good place to start, in my view.  As for the event itself, it failed to move the needle primarily because Inglis was preaching to the choir.  The better audience would have been made up of politically moderate business leaders, perhaps convened by the Chamber of Commerce rather than the climate coalition.

WHO WILL LEAD?

PS my twins were born on Earth Day in 1973, hence the title of this post.  Happy Birthday, Peter and Dan!

Politics, hatred, utopia: I should have seen this coming

“I think he showed us how it’s done.”  My lunch companion was a 30-year-old Yale grad, an up-by-his-bootstraps denizen of Rochester’s inner city with political aspirations.  He was talking about Donald Trump and how the left would defeat him. I confess I am not very glib. That’s why I write this blog.  It may take me a dozen drafts over 4 or 5 days to concisely express my opinion.  So, my response to this young progressive was… wait for it… nothing!  I was dumbstruck. 

I’ve always thought that society’s reaction to our boorish, prevaricating president would be a return to civility.  But my young friend was spot on as last year’s elections proved.  Using the Twitterverse as a platform, the AOC contingent (if I may call it that) became ascendant.  And, their success has brought outrageous ideas (70% marginal tax rates, Green New Deal) into mainstream media discussion.  Like Trump, AOC has become the “brand” of her party according to Peggy Noonan.  Her essay (Congress’s Mean Girls Are Trump’s Offspring) in the Wall Street Journal asserts, “[t]hey believe that to be enraged is to demonstrate seriousness. It is to show that you understand the urgency of the moment, even if others don’t.”

Still I wonder where the line of acceptable behavior is drawn.  I guess it’s somewhere on the spectrum of nasty women who make their living by being, well, nasty.  Samantha Bee is okay, but Kathy Griffin is not.  There’s a line between them somewhere, right?

Following President Trump’s election, I was astounded at the public reaction of those who supported his opponent and thought she had it in the bag.  His outrageous behavior, boorish manners and policy lunacy was outmatched by street protests, hate-filled messages and the media’s obsession with him.  “He’ll be reelected because liberals will overplay their hand,” I would tell anyone who would listen.  Not many did. And, now, I am not so sure I was right. 

Hatred has transformative power.  It can make the innocuous into the menacing. And, menace provides moral empowerment, which in turn leads to totalitarianism.  In a conventional society, laws are designed to protect people and their property.  In a totalitarian society, laws are designed to move society toward utopia.  Successful extremists can always define utopia. One extreme would have us erect barriers to free trade and reject immigrants while the other would open our borders and exercise government control over private enterprise.  The reaction by each cohort is to accuse their opponents of either being Nazis (Hitler) or socialists (Lenin).  Those who gain political power by conjuring hatred can and will do whatever is necessary to achieve their goals (as both Hitler and Lenin showed us).  

America desperately needs leadership that stands for sanity and moderation, not demagoguery.  Those whose political fortunes rely upon judging, lecturing and disdaining may resonate with a segment of the public but not with the “Exhausted Majority.” Despite the best efforts of the media, most people do not follow politics with rapt attention.  They are more concerned about paying their rent and the rising cost of healthcare and sending their kids to college.  

The question now is how to get the genie back in the bottle.

WHO WILL LEAD?

What I’m reading

Economist Brian Beaulieu says we’re in the third phase (Caution!) of the economic cycle. We may be on the precipice of recession – or maybe not….  In a 1 minute 43 second video, the Hoover Institute provides an alternative to a carbon tax called "Low Carbon Pollution Standards"….  David Brooks of the NY Times tells us that the media have become scandal mongers (once the province only of tabloids).  

#justanoldwhiteguy

It’s old news now but I’ve been thinking about the mob that semi-attacked Tucker Carlson’s home last fall. If so-called progressives want to be the anti-Trump, shouldn’t they stop behaving like the anti-Christ?

Bartender, apologies for everyone

When people ask me about this blog, I tell them it's intended to piss off two kinds of people-- Republicans and Democrats.  Lately, I've been thinking that's too narrow. It's really intended to piss off two kinds of people -- men and women.

Last week's attempt to piss off women may have backfired (How to insult women). All of the comments and messages I received were from women and all were positive. Allowing for the possibility that I didn't hear from those were offended (a non-respondent bias in statistical terms), I would like to apologize for implying that women should differentiate between a few joking references to their gender and the rape culture that seems to permeate college campuses. (I was pleased that 30% of readers clicked to watch the included video.)

While I'm in an apologetic mood, I would also like to apologize to gun rights advocates for suggesting that we amend the Constitution following the Sandy Hook shooting (The US Constitution was designed to be amended) and for providing a legal brief to undermine the claim that individual gun rights are supported by the Second Amendment (The Right to Bear Arms: anAmerican Evolution).

Sorry to all of you who are “Feelin’ the Bern” for my assertion that, were Sen. Sanders proposals adopted, the US economy would be flushed down the toilet and for further suggesting that those who don't know that are either “ignorant or stupid”. (Let’s Understand Just What Socialism Means to Us) By the way, if you're disappointed Bernie won't be in the White House next year, you could always move to Venezuela. I suggest you pack a lunch.

To those who think we should build a wall along the Mexican border, I apologize for suggesting the opposite (Open the Border! Wait, It's Already Open!)

To all you Pro-lifers, I am sorry for exposing the unconstitutional and unaccountable practices of lawmakers and police who deprive women not only of their reproductive rights but also their freedom (Orphan Black, Margaret Atwood and a Woman’s Right to Choose).  And, while I am on the subject, I should also apologize for calling out Republicans for the hypocrisy of advocating that government stay out of our lives while supporting the agenda of the Religious Right (Strange Bedfellows: Conservatives and the Religious Right).

So long as I am talking to you, I should also apologize for suggesting that the subject of gay marriage is not about your religion.  It's about love.  (It's Not Religion... It's Not Politics... It's Personal)

To all you liberal New Yorkers, I would like to say I'm sorry for dissing our governor whose policies that purport to promote business are actually driving businesses to leave the state (The Hunger Games: not everyone is a winner). His ban on fracking doesn't help (Fracking, New YorkTaxes and Twitter).

 

To you climate change deniers, I offer my apology for saying that you haven't a leg to stand on (Kurt Vonnegut, Enrico Fermi and Climate Change).

To Europeans, who are whistling in the dark when it comes to dealing with Russian aggression, I apologize for comparing you to Chamberlain, the great appeaser (What’s Russia Really Up To?).

To those of you who think America is in decline, I apologize for espousing the view that America should be celebrated for its freedoms, including its model of economic freedom (The American Dream is Alive and Well).  What has failed us is the Blue State model of high taxes and overregulation.  Oops!  Sorry again!

While I am on the subject, I suppose I should apologize for the sacrilege of my claim that raising the minimum wage and expanding 60’s era anti-poverty programs are a waste of effort (Obama, SNAP and Conservative Americans).  Sacrilegious though it may be, I still struggle to understand how the programs that have led to more poverty in the 20^th Century will do any better in the 21^st.   Sorry.

 

And I am sorry for pointing out to labor union liberals that your model hasn't worked since the 1950's and it won’t work now (The Disunion of ‘dis Union).  Ditto to those married to our outlandishly expensive and closed-minded university system (When Will the University Bubble Burst?).

If you're among those who think that capitalism is evil, I am sorry for asserting that the only economic system that can generate the money needed to address society’s ills is free market capitalism (Time Travel and Our Social Welfare). Further, I should apologize for suggesting you have the luxury of complaining about our system because the system has improved your lives (otherwise you’d be too busy working to have the time to complain).

Now, if you detect a note of sarcasm in all these words of contrition, you're right on.

However, there is one group to which I offer my most sincere apology -- the 73,138 of you who have taken the time to visit my website, read, click and comment. 

Why am I apologizing to you?

Because...        I...         Am...    Done!

WHO WILL LEAD?

Kurt Vonnegut, Enrico Fermi and Climate Change

In college, I read lots of books by Kurt Vonnegut.  He had a unique ability to paint a surreal picture in novels like Slaughterhouse Five, Cat’s Cradle and Breakfast of Champions.  His capacity to turn logic and our belief systems on their heads is evident in this quote (speaking of the human race):

"We're terrible animals. I think that the Earth's immune system is trying to get rid of us, as well it should."

As surreal as that might be, its sentiment echoes Enrico Fermi.  The brilliant Italian physicist once asked a casual question that has led to a half century of metaphysical inquiry about the nature of civilizations on this and other planets.  Known as the Fermi Paradox, it is a question with no answer.

Every star in the Milky Way has planets.  With over 300 Million stars, Fermi speculates that there must be some other civilizations out there.  In the absence of evidence of their existence, should we assume that they never existed or that they have existed but become extinct?  I might put it another way.  Are civilizations sustainable?

Have we Earthlings, like others before us, hit the sustainability wall?

As we know, burning fossil fuels creates toxic by-products.  And, what of the alternatives?

Scientists at the Max Planck Institute have determined that deploying wind turbines on a massive scale would have environmental consequences…. 

Producing bio-fuels on a large scale requires vast plots of land and quantities of water…. 

Extracting hydrogen from natural gas emits green house gases (carbon dioxide)…

And so it goes….

John Englander, author of “High Tide on Main Street: RisingSea Level and the Coming Coastal Crisis”, doesn’t trouble himself with metaphysical questions. A former CEO of the Cousteau Society, John believes that we have passed the tipping point ofglobal climate change.  There is no looking back.  We must focus on how to adapt to Sea Level Rise (SLR).

John tracked me down to make sure I got the message.  In my last post, I expressed some doubt about the conclusions of the IPCC report.  “My reading of the definitive report by the UN sponsored International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lends some doubt on those projections as the IPCC uses the adjective “likely” or “very likely” when describing their projections.  Science is never certain,” I said.

John doesn’t dispute my reading comprehension.  He simply points out the IPCC drew conclusions least subject to attack by political factions inimical to their findings.  So, their findings present the most optimistic case.  The range ofpossibilities is much worse than the IPCC lets on.

John eschews the politics of climate change.  “Ice turns to water at 32°,” he says.  “It doesn’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican.”

He makes a compelling case.  Sea level has been rising and falling hundreds of feet for each ice age cycle of 100,000 years.  The one and a half degree change in ocean temperatures over the last 100 years guarantees that the ice will melt for centuries, raising sea levels.  Done deal.

Speaking at the TEDx Conference in Boca Raton, Florida last year, he advocated that we stop debating where we are and how we got here.  Let’s focus on what to do next.

In his book, Englander lays out the options for several cities.  Solutions vary depending upon the geology of each city.  New York, for example, sits on granite.  So, the system of dykes planned by the Bloomberg administration may work to counter the impact.

Miami, sitting on a bed of limestone, may not survive.

The effects can already be seen in Miami Beach where the city has begun a $15 Million project to install pumps to keep the streets dry during regular high tides that flood them.  Counter-intuitively, the city has also approved construction ofmulti-million dollar condos so they can raise enough real estate taxes to pay for the project. 

Are they just whistling in the dark?  Englander might say so.

 

High tide comes up through storm drains in Miami Beach

A foot of SLR will move the shoreline inland 300 feet, globally averaged. In low-lying coastal areas, like Miami Beach, the average will be exceeded. The IPCC estimate of minimum SLR this Century is 2 feet.  You do the math!

As for the predictability of the study, John points out that the Antarctic ice ledge poised to break off into the ocean will add 10 feet to SLR in a very short timeframe.  We don’t know if that will happen this Century or next.  But, it will happen.

There are no answers to Fermi’s Paradox because there is no time limit to the question.  It’s possible that civilizations throughout the Universe have always hit the wall of sustainability.  We may be next.

Perhaps we should just leave an epitaph, again quoting the quotable Mr. Vonnegut: 

“We could have saved the Earth but we were too damned cheap.”

WHO WILL LEAD?

Perhaps I am reading too much... my 2014 brain dump

I have an app on my iPhone, iPad and computer called Pocket.  It allows you to save articles you would like to read later and have them show up on any of your devices.  As it turns out, the good folks at Pocket keep track of how much you read.  Last week, they sent me an email telling me that I have read over 929,000 words this year, the equivalent of 20 books.  Of course, that doesn’t include the other dozen books, newspapers or magazines that I read which might add another half mil or so.  Conservatively, let’s put the total at a million.

So, what have I learned from all this?  First, there are two kinds of birdbrains running our government in Washington:  Republicans and Democrats.  If you buy into the dogma of either party, you’re not getting any truth.  Second, the media can’t be counted on to help you figure things out.  They don’t report the truth.  They report what people say.  There’s a difference.

Maybe you already know that.  You didn’t need to read a million words to figure it out.  If that’s the case, you can stop reading right here and go play another game of Candy Crush or Game of War.

For the rest of you…

The economy

Presidents take too much credit for a good economy and get too much blame for bad ones.

The Bush tax cuts were intended to create economic growth; however, GDP growth during the Bush years equaled the growth in our national debt.  Net zero!

That said, the Bush tax cuts didn’t cause the financial crisis, the causes of which can be traced to the 60’s.  Presidents and Congresses of both parties as well as multiple Fed Chairmen precipitated the crisis.

The recent spurt in GDP growth has not been caused by the Obama stimulus or any other policies of his administration.  Virtually all the jobs created since 2009 were created by the energy boom as can easily be seen by reviewing this graph using data from the St. Louis Fed:

Absent the energy boom, the US economy would look much like Europe’s.  All of which adds perspective to the recent ban on fracking by the governor of my home state of New York, a state that has been losing jobs and population to the Sunbelt due to the blue state folly of overregulation, high taxes and debt.

Climate Change

The debate over global warming is fueled more by passion than science.  Reportedly 97% of climatologists have concluded that climate change will cause vast expanses of the civilized world will be covered by water within 100 years.  My reading of the definitive report by the UN sponsored International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lends some doubt on those projections as the IPCC uses the adjective “likely” or “very likely” when describing their projections.  Science is never certain.  My correspondence with scientists suggest that nothing as complex as the climate can be predicted with any degree of certainty 100 years in the future.

That said, the result of burning fossil fuels is toxic.  Efforts to convert to renewable energy are beginning to bear fruit and are cost effective. Government investments (like venture capital investments) have resulted in some high profile business failures.  However, subsidies for renewable energy have had the desired result.  And, the EPA state-by-state plan for conversion to renewables by 2030 is well considered and appears to be economically viable.  The first phase of this plan involves a substantial conversion of coal-fueled power plants to natural gas by 2020.  (See fracking above.)

To get from here to there, we need to understand that we will continue to burn fossil fuels for decades.  Converting to lower emission energy sources (such as coal to natural gas) will diminish the damage during the transition.  There is a web of hundreds of pipelines transporting oil and natural gas around the US and Canada.  If we fail to support the addition of new pipelines, not only are we adding an economic burden but also we are forcing producers to transport the stuff less safely by rail.

Institutions from Yale to MIT have analyzed the risks of fracking.  Most of the press reports linking fracking to damage to the water supply and earthquakes are erroneous.  But, the press is in the thrall of an unyielding environmental lobby.  So, the public believes that fracking is more dangerous than it really is.

Income inequality

French economist Thomas Piketty made a splash this year with an extensively researched book, Capital in the 21^st Century, which concluded that income inequality was the result of returns on capital exceeding return on labor.  So, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  This conclusion should surprise no one.  Why would anyone invest capital if they would not get a superior return?

Yet, the book fed the confirmation bias of liberals who think that government should redistribute income and that income inequality is a serious problem in the US.  A parallel study done at Cornell took a different view.  Piketty’s analysis failed to take into account the impact of government benefits.  When considering that impact, the bottom quintile of earners in the US experienced a 33% increase in income from 1979 to present rather than the 31% decrease reported by Piketty.

We could continue to increase those benefits and increase the minimum wage and we would still not make a dent in the real problem.  At the core of our social problems are inner city communities and families that are broken and dysfunctional.  The real fix – if there is one – is improved education.  In my hometown of Rochester, only 5% of high school graduates are ready for college or careers – last in the country.  School choice is the only answer.  I would ask why our high school options shouldn’t look like our college options.  Some public, some private…  some affordable, some not.  Ultimately parents play a large role in selecting a college for their children based upon income and other factors.  Why not the same for grammar school and high school?

Healthcare

The West achieved global leadership, in part, because of advances in healthcare during the 19^th Century.  Maintaining a healthy, working middle class is essential to our security and financial sustainability.  The Affordable Care Act does little to address an underlying cost structure that, combined with demographics, will continue to increase the share of GDP absorbed by healthcare.  In a recent article by Pascal Emmanuel Gobry titled “What Americans Won’t Learn About Healthcare”, the author suggests that Singapore’s system might serve as the best straw man for real reform in the US.

Looking forward

There is always a lot of hand-wringing and sniping during periods of economic malaise.  Perhaps we’ll catch a break from that starting next year.

I expect that we will see the beginning of wage increases that will affect the middle class positively and the hand-wringing will abate.  The demand for labor will be driven by the return of manufacturing to our shores.  The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) predicts that the US will become the least expensive place among industrialized nations to produce manufactured goods within a few years due to lower energy costs, more flexible labor laws and the world’s most efficient transportation system.  BCG projects that China’s costs will be 95% of the US – insufficient to motivate companies to locate new factories there. 

The hitch is that new factories will not employ low skilled labor in large numbers.  The modern factory is highly automated and those who work there will need to have the math skills to operate sophisticated machinery. 

Politics in DC

I tend to read more about policy than politics.  So, I am not confident about my insights into our electoral prospects.

The recent national election has pundits leaving Democrats for dead.  But, this has happened many times before.  In a brief blog post, Walter Russell Mead of the American Interest provides several examples of broad electoral victories that were reversed by a fickle public within 2 to 4 years and provides an interesting perspective on why we keep swinging from left to right and back again.

For my part, I see one very troubling element that undermines our national charter.

The Religious Right has been a key element of the Republican voting bloc since Ronald Reagan first shook hands with Ralph Reed.  In my view, their views are contrary to the libertarian philosophy otherwise espoused by the party.  Freedom is freedom.  A small minority of Americans shouldn’t be able to impose their moral values on the majority.  It is noteworthy that religious conservatives have not achieved their goals despite electing conservative presidents in 5 of the last 9 elections.

The country is becoming more urban and more liberal.  The US map shown to us by the media after each election with Republican counties colored in red and Democrats in blue presents a very red picture.  But, electoral votes aren’t allocated by acreage. Over 80% of voters now live in urban or suburban communities and those communities – including the big cities in conservative states like Georgia and Texas – overwhelming vote Democrat.

Social attitudes are becoming more liberal.  A majority supports both reproductive choice and same sex marriage.  If the Republican Party can’t find a way to nominate candidates who don’t pander to this element of the party, they will have a very difficult time winning the White House.

That’s it… it’s time to reformat the hard drive and start reading new stuff in 2015.

WHO WILL LEAD?