Global warming and 2008

Look what Roger Pielke Jr found.


A correlation between per capita carbon dioxide emissions and votes for George W Bush in 2004. The numbers:

Red State

Mean (state): 31.7
Median (state): 24.4

Blue State

Mean (state): 15.2
Median (state): 14.4

Wow! Next, Pielke Jr notes that swing states--"the states in which the difference between Republican and Democrat in 2004 was less than 5%"--mostly have lower than average CO2 emissions. Since regulations will cost high CO2 emitting states more than low-emitting states, the low emitters are more likely to vote for candidates that favor CO2 regulation. Finally he states that Al Gore has an enormous leg up in 2008 even though he's not officially running (yet). If he keeps this issue at the forefront for a while (by effectively using the Oscars, the Nobel Prize nomination, rock concerts, etc.) and then enters the race late, he could take the nomination because:

The "will he or won't he" story will overshadow his competition. And on the major campaign issue of the Iraq War he is exceedingly well positioned.

Hillary Clinton cannot compete with Mr. Gore on climate change (and she has an Iraq vote to explain, plus other issues), and is probably weaker on this issue than John McCain, and not much different than other Republicans who might gain the nomination, especially those who still have time to articulate an aggressive position of climate change. ... For John Edwards and Barak Obama, climate change is just not their gig. If Al Gore can win his party’s nomination, which is certainly not guaranteed, the general election would be his to lose.

Ever wondered why every Democratic Presidential hopeful is making global warming an issue? Al Gore!

Why is McCain making this an issue? The two top polling Republicans thus far are McCain and Giuliani. In low-emitting blue states where a sizeable portion of Republican voters are moderate, McCain is likely to lose against Giuliani in the East and win against him in the West in the primaries regardless of his stance on global warming. Regional identification is likely stronger in these states than global warming policy positions. On the other hand, many Republican primary voters in high-emitting red states with large conservative constituencies are likely not going to vote for Giuliani anyway so for McCain in those states the race will be between him and a social conservative like Brownback. "Swing states" that have low CO2 emissions and where McCain could conceivably win over Giuliani in the primaries are NV, CO, OH, IA and NM. And in the CO2 "outlier" states with low CO2 emissions he might do well against Giuliani in ID, AZ, and maybe FL. So as for the Republlican primaries if the frontrunners remain McCain vs Giuliani, global warming might not be as much of an issue as one might initially suspect.

For the November '08 Presidential election on the other hand, the McCain campaign is likely banking on Hillary Clinton winning the nomination on the Democratic side and a McCain vs Clinton presidential race. In that case Clinton's waffling on Iraq will be viewed by voters in the general election with about as much enthusiasm as McCain's love of the surge with all the pro-war votes going to McCain. As a result, CO2 will be a more salient issue for voters and McCain can show he's a man of action compared to Clinton who has thus far not proposed anything in Congress. With that in mind, the CO2 "outlier" states of FL, AZ, and VA with lots of electoral votes might turn towards McCain while CO2 "swing" states NV, CO, OH and IA might also vote for McCain.

So that's my best guess right now.