Advanced BioFuels USA

by Robert Kozak* (Advanced Biofuels USA) Editors Note: We usually don’t write about election results, but today’s mainstream media coverage of the Super Tuesday primaries seemed to call for some analysis. In some ways it’s very similar to trying to tease out the reality of the US energy economy from the blizzard of company press releases, US agency reports, and actual production data.

I think after most people read the headlines and the hyped up prose about the results of the Super Tuesday Primaries (March 2^nd 2016) they were left with the impression that both Clinton and Trump (listed in alphabetical order) were leading juggernauts into the November General Election.

Having read the media coverage I decided to look at a map of the Super Tuesday results for both parties to see if this was the case. But, when I looked at the map, I asked myself a question. What did the victories mean for the General Election?

When I did, I saw some results that showed both Clinton and Trump should be more worried than triumphant about Super Tuesday.

What Democrats and Republicans Need to Win in November

For the past thirty or so years the indirect election of US Presidents through a 538 vote/ 270 votes win of the Electoral College has evolved (some say calcified) into a somewhat strange process where the two competing parties write off large parts of the country to each other while focusing on a small number of “toss-up” states. This results in some states seeing little or no campaigning in consecutive cycles while both Republicans and Democrats pour money and operatives into the few “toss-up” states to get out their voters while trying to suppress that of their opposition.

Published explanations for this situation fill a number of bookcases. Suffice to say, after the out-migration of the Midwest Rust Belt slowed to a trickle in the early 1990s, the constant state-to-state migration of Americans that was probably THE characteristic of the country pretty much stopped.

The result, almost like the end of musical chairs, was that most Democrats wound up living near other like minded Democrats and most Republicans lived near like minded Republicans. The ‘toss-up” states were probably a result of either Rust Belt migration stripping out a prior majority (Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio) or the in-migration musical chairs stopping before a new majority was achieved (Virginia).

The country, in party affiliation terms, ended up looking something like this.

21^st Century US State Presidential Election Trends

So, in keeping with the current political landscape of the US, did the Super Tuesday victories for Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump accomplish the basics needed to build a November election victory? Specifically:

One. Did you win in your party’s “Secured” states? 

Two. Did you win in the Toss-Up states?

Let’s look at the data.

2016 Super Tuesday Results in Terms of Electoral College Votes

In answer to both questions, the results for Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump were less than impressive. While Clinton won a series of victories in the south, they were essentially meaningless since she would not be competitive in those states in November. Trump’s victories in those states also were somewhat meaningless because they were not carried over in the key state of Texas. Overall, neither secured their base or were strong in a key toss-up state. Probably the most important results were:

Colorado:  Clinton lost decisively to Sanders, 40% to 59%. Obama’s close victory in this state was critical to his 2008 election. Without the support of Sanders’ “non-traditional Democrats” the state could easily go Republican. If she wins the nomination, Colorado will be a major headache for Clinton in the November campaign.

Texas: While Texas is strongly Republican, trouble could be brewing for Trump in this state that has 38 electoral votes (second most behind California). Cruz easily defeated him 44% to 27%. In addition, with Texas Republican leaders including former Governor Perry lining up with Senator Cruz, an independent candidacy or electoral college machinations may not be out of the question.

Minnesota: While Minnesota is generally Democratic, it has a historical independent and agricultural socialism tradition. Also, remember that Michelle Bachman (R) won fairly easily in her House of Representative campaigns. Clinton lost to Sanders 38% to 62%. Minnesota was the first of the Upper-Midwest states to have a primary. If Sanders were to remain strong in other primaries in the region, Clinton will have to be concerned that the “times are a changing” (in the words of a Minnesota native) and her “secured” base may not be that strong.

Virginia: Trump scored a close win over Rubio, 35% to 32%. Clinton won big, 64% to Sander’s 35%. Clinton may not have to worry much here, but Trump will. Northern Virginia has a large immigrant community and the Hampton Roads area is the home to much of the US Navy’s shipbuilding industries which want expanded expenditures.

What does all this mean? While Super Tuesday may have looked flashy, neither Clinton or Trump have shown that their primary victories mean much in terms of winning in November. Their showings in key “secured” and toss-up states leave questions to their ability to assemble 270 Electoral votes in November.

As additional primaries happen, keep one eye on the numbers, one on the Electoral College, and keep the chart on which party has “secured” the state in past Presidential elections nearby. Be ready to amaze your friends and colleagues with your analyses!

*Robert Kozak is the founder of Atlantic Biomass, LLC, and a co-founder of Advanced Biofuels USA. Having worked for about 40 years in the transportation, energy, environmental, and government relations industries and in enzyme development, he serves as a fuels/engines and policy expert for Advanced Biofuels USA.  Kozak ran for Congress for the 6th District of Maryland as a Green Party candidate in 2006. He can be reached at atlanticbiomass @ aol.com