Electoral College Education

The Democrat Socialists want to get rid of the Electoral College.

So do many Democrats. Of course, now they are almost one in the same.

Kamala Harris says we need to revisit the Electoral College. That means she is in favor of abolishing it.

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6005239-harris-suggests-electoral-college-revisit/

There seem to be many Americans who do not understand the logic behind the electoral college and the genius of our Founders in devising this system of electing our President.

I still recall my son coming home from school some 30 years ago with a homework assignment from his 6th grade teacher. She asked everyone in the class to write a letter to Congress asking that body to vote for a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college and replace it with a popular election vote. 

She had taken it upon herself to have the entire class take this project on as a way to "teach" them about the U.S. Constitution.

Needless to say, this was not teaching. It was her attempt to indoctrinate her students with her point of view. I was not pleased and I sent a note back to her telling her that my son would not participate in the assignment. 

In my view, the electoral college was just fine. After all, our country is called "The United States of America" for a reason.

It might be time for a little electoral college education for those not familiar with all the reasons why we don't use the popular vote for President/Vice President.

I was in Sydney, Australia earlier this year being driven to the airport by a Russian emigree. 

Upon finding out I was American he said he loved the United States but was confused about one thing--the electoral college. He asked me to explain why it was used.

I summarized a little bit of what follows for his education. 

Our founders had very good reasons to adopt the electoral system of electing our President/Vice President instead of by popular vote.

Article 2, Sec.1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the method of choosing electors.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Our founders were very distrustful of a full democracy. That is why they established the constitutional republic that we have.

The reason was simple. A democracy can be very susceptible to the whims and impulses of the general public. A democracy is also likely to run roughshod over minority rights. These concerns were at the heart of almost every decision made in writing our Constitution.

I have written about this previously, including one of my favorite blog posts of all time, "Improper and Wicked Projects". If you have not read it before, you should. It might actually shock you on how well our Founders understood human nature.  Power, politics, greed, fallibilities, bias, conflicting interests, oppression. There is nothing going on today that they did not anticipate.

Because of theses concerns it made sense to place an intermediary group of electors between the popular vote and the election of the President in order to protect against these risks. It was also important that this group of electors would be independent of any pre-established body like the legislature.

Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist Paper #68 that explained the reasoning behind "The Mode of Electing the President".

It seems a little ironic today with all the outpouring of love for Alexander Hamilton by the liberal left (largely based on the popular Broadway play), and its criticism of the electoral college process, that Hamilton was the chief defender of the electoral college in the Federalist Papers.

It is also ironic that Hamilton stated that the electoral college method laid out in the constitution was probably the least criticized section in the entire document as ratification was being discussed by the various states. This is how he began Federalist Paper #68.

THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. 

This is how Hamilton went on to explain the key points of the electoral college system.

First, he explained why it was important for the people to have a vote in the process even though that role would only be to delegate the final choice to an independent body free of conflicts. Note also that no elected official may serve as an elector. The electors were also expected to apply discernment and reason to their choice. This is the argument that the anti-Trump people used in trying to get Trump electors to vote for someone else and be so-called "Faithless Electors".

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

The electors would, as is the case in other aspects of our republican government, provide an additional level of discernment and investigation as well as insuring that the vote is not a pure popularity contest but one in which a majority of the union of states is supportive of. They wanted to insure that the President was elected by the United States, not just the people from several states with large populations.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. 

Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

Our founders were particularly concerned about the danger of the legislature being too beholden to one of their own and any possible corruption in the election of the President as well as possible influence in the election by foreign governments. This is another reason for the electoral college and the focus on the decentralization of the vote by each state's electors rather than by popular vote or by a vote in the legislative body as would be the case in a parliamentary system.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. 

The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

The concern was so great about the centralization of power and the risk of pressure being brought to bear on the electoral body that the Constitution even requires that the electors meet in their respective states rather than in one central location. There is little doubt that the Founders would be horrified of the attention and abuse the electors received from anti-Trump liberals leading up to the electoral vote leading to his first term. Everything they did was to prevent something like this as explained below.

Article 2, Sec. 1, Clause 3

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot...

Again, there was a rationale for this by the Founders as well. They believed that having the electors vote at one time and in one place for the President presented too much risk for turmoil.

And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

It is clear that one of the reasons that the Founders preferred the electoral college was that they were concerned that the people of the 18th century would not have a good sense of the character and qualifications of the candidates for President. Most would never see or hear the candidates in person. They could not truly judge their suitability in an age with no radio, television or internet. That is why it made sense to have the added comfort of electors who might know the candidates better to insure that the President is up to the job.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. 

Of course, in the media age of today this no longer is the issue it was in the 18th century. Candidates are in the public eye and are subject to constant media scrutiny. Voters do not have the same reason to not know who they are voting for. This is where the argument for the anti-Trump forces that wanted to cite Hamilton in encouraging "Faithless Electors" falls apart.

If this was the only reason for the electoral college there would be a good argument to disband it and move to a popular vote.

However, the bigger reason for the electoral college involves the issue of decentralization and the importance of state rights in our governance. After all, as I told my son's teacher 20 years ago, we are The United States of America for a reason.

We are hearing a lot today that the electoral college is unfair because it diminishes the large states like California and New York and provides advantages to smaller states. However, this was also the case in 1787 as it is today. In fact, small states actually had bigger advantages at the beginning of our nation than they do today.

For example, California and New York (per the 2020 census on which current electoral votes are determined by) have a population of 60  million. That is 18.1% of the total population and provides 84 electoral votes out of 538 electors (15.6%). However, Wyoming and the District of Columbia have just over 1.2  million in population between them (4/10 of 1% of total U.S. population) but they each get 3 electoral votes (1.1% of the total for their combined 6 electoral votes out of the 538 total).

However, in the first U.S. census (1790) after the Constitution was ratified, the two largest states in the union, Virginia and Pennsylvania had about 33% of the population and had 36 of 132 electoral votes (27%) in the Presidential election of George Washington in 1792 . On the other hand, Rhode Island and Delaware similarly only had 3/10th of 1% of the total U.S population at that time but their electoral votes were equal to about 5% of total electoral votes.

It should be noted that one of the reasons that Virginia was hurt in its allocation of electoral votes was because the Founders penalized states that had slaves. States with a slave population (the only state with no slaves counted in the 1790 census was Massachusetts. New York had 21,000 slaves, almost as many as Georgia's 29,000) were only given credit for 3/5 of this population for purposes of seats in the House of Representatives and the electoral college.

You get a real sense of why the Founders designed the Constitution the way they did when you see the 2016 election results presented in a different perspective.

One or two large states can make a big, big difference in the popular vote results.

That was true in 1790 just as it is true today.

The Founders clearly did not want any one state to have an outsized influence on the election of the President.

Trump actually won the popular vote in 2016 if the 49 states other than California are considered.

His popular vote margin would have been 4 million votes if New York was also excluded.

           2016 Popular Vote                                                  2016 Popular Vote excluding California

Or consider this county by county graphic. Trump won 2,626 counties. Clinton won 487.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

2020 looked like this between Trump and Biden. Trump won 2,558 counties and Biden won 551.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

This is a map of 2024. Trump won 2,661 counties. Kamala Harris won 451.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election

The Founders wanted a President of the United States of America. 

Not of two or three large states. Or a dozen big cities.

The electoral college makes sure that this happens.

If it were not for the electoral college every candidate would just campaign in the big cities in the states  with the largest number of voters.

Every action in office would also be influenced to a large degree by huge urban populations.

The Founders understood this when the Constitution was formulated and saw that a President elected by popular vote would be detrimental to our union of states.

In 2026 we are still seeing the wisdom of what our Founders were thinking in 1787. 

Again, there was almost nothing they did not anticipate.

Those that are educated about why the electoral college was adopted understand its importance.

However, you can be sure that the Democrats are going to push very hard to convince people that it is not democratic.

Why?

They can see the shifts in population from blue states to red states that are taking place.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/28/2030-electoral-college-projections-00750488

Ten or more electoral votes could shift from blue states to red states for the 2032 election.

Democrats do not want to abolish the electoral college based on some deeply held principle.

They believe they need to do it for their political survival.

Everyone should understand the underlying motivation of those who oppose the electoral college as well as being better educated of why our Founders designed the system the way they did.

Guns or Butter?

It is popular for liberal Democrats like Bernie Sanders, AOC, Zohran Mamdani, Abdul El-Sayed and others to say this.

Why do we always have money to fund wars but we never have enough for the public good?

Has the United States been ignoring the public good in favor of national security and defense?

Let's look at a chronology of spending priorities of the federal government from 1945 to 2025 in 10 year increments.

You can view the entire sequence of years from 1940 to 2025 at this link.

In 1945, as the United States was finishing World War II, Defense spending accounted for almost 90% of federal government expenditures.

Social programs did not even account for 1% of total spending.

In 1955, even though the U.S. was beyond World War II and Korea, Defense still consumed 62% of federal spending due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

Income Security (welfare) was 7.4% and Social Security was 6.5% of total federal spending.

By 1965 National Defense had declined to 42.8% despite spending on the Vietnam War and the space program.

Social Security had risen to 15% of the budget and Income Security was 8%.

Social spending was destined to dramatically increase from this point forward with the passage of Medicare, Medicaid, food stamp and other social programs during the Lyndon Johnson administration.

 g

National Defense declined to 26% of federal spending in 1975 after the end of the Vietnam War.

Social Security was up to 20% and Income Security had increased to 15%.

Medicare and Medicaid were still well down the list of spending items.

Ronald Reagan arrested the slide in Defense Spending but the additional spending just kept the percent spent on Defense at the same level in 1985 as it was a decade earlier.

Medicare broke into the top 5 spending categories for the first time.

Social Security, Income Security and Medicare consumed 40% of all federal spending compared to 27% for Defense.

Social Security had overtaken Defense as the largest category of federal spending in 1995.

Over twice as much was being spent on social programs as was spent on National Defense.

In 2005, despite being involved in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11, Defense was down to 20% of federal spending.

The United States was spending more on both Social Security and Health Care (Medicare and Medicaid) than it was on Defense.

2015 saw Defense spending decline to 16% of federal spending.

Social Security and Medicare were taking up 40% of the federal budget as Baby Boomers started to retire.

Income Security and Medicaid for the poor was taking up another 27%.

That brings us to about where we are today.

Defense is down to 16% of federal spending and has almost dropped out of the Top 5 spending categories.

We are actually spending more on interest on the federal debt than on Defense.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Income Security consumed over half of the federal budget.

Income Security took another 9%.

60%+ spent on these social programs compared to just 13% on Defense.

t

How can anyone honestly say that if was not for "wars" and national security that we would be able to properly fund social programs?

When I look at these numbers you wonder how anyone survived without the trillions of dollars that we are now spending on social programs.

However, somehow people did.

For decades there has been a debate about the appropriate tradeoff between "guns and butter".

What is the appropriate level of spending between defense and social programs?

Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gunsandbutter.asp

There is little doubt that liberals will continue to argue that not enough is being spent on social programs no matter what the real numbers are.

Guns or butter?

The reality is that butter won the political argument a long time ago.

85 years of federal spending proves that.

A more detailed breakdown of spending for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026 is below.

Credit: https://x.com/Geiger_Capital/status/2113654691959656928

Baseball Is Striking Out

The World Series is being played right now between the Milwaukee Brewers and Tampa Bay Rays but baseball has a major league problem.

In the just completed season there were more strikeouts recorded than hits.

This is the ninth consecutive season this has occurred.

It did not occur one time in the previous 141 years before it first happened in the 2018 season. (MLB play began in 1876).

I cannot imagine there are many fans who want to watch a team strikeout 7, 8 or 9 times a game.

The Tampa Bay Rays had the lowest average number of strikeouts this season---7.07 per game.

The Los Angeles Angels had the most---nearly 10 times per game.

2026 MLB Average Team Strikeouts Per Game
Source: https://www.teamrankings.com/mlb/stat/strikeouts-per-game

For context, the 1927 New York Yankees averaged 3 strikeouts per game.

30 years ago the Yankees won the World Series averaging 5.6 strikeouts per game in the 1996 season.

In 2026, the Yankees averaged 9.2 strikeouts per game.

Colson Montgomery of the Chicago White Sox struck out a record 227 times this year.

This graphic was posted when he broke the previous MLB season record of 224,

Montgomery hit .197 over 638 plate appearances.

By comparison, Nellie Fox played in the majors for 19 years between 1947 and 1965.

Nellie Fox Topps Baseball Card- 1960

14 of those seasons were with the White Sox.

Fox struck out just 216 times in those 19 years with over 10,000 plate appearances and had a career batting average of .288.

Think about that.

Nellie Fox struck out fewer times in 19 seasons than Colson Montgomery did in just one season.

Here are the average hits per game by team in 2026.

Is it just a coincidence that the two teams that are on the top of this list are playing in the World Series?

2026 MLB Average Team Hits Per Game
Source: https://www.teamrankings.com/mlb/stat/hits-per-game

Seeing more strikeouts than hits in baseball is clearly a function of dominant pitching overwhelming the ability of batters.

At one time it was rare that a MLB pitcher could throw a 96 MPH fastball.

Today that type of velocity has become almost necessary to gain a spot on a MLB roster.

Mix that together with very few pitchers who throw more than 100 pitches in a game, and fresh arms being brought into the game in relief, means that hitters are at a distinct disadvantage.

That is also reflected in batting averages.

The 2026 regular season only saw 7 batters in the major leagues with at least a .300 batting average.

By contrast, there were 38 players that hit at least .300 in 2006.

Do you think the following stats may have had something to do with the decreased numbers of .300 hitters over the last 20 years.

Ex-MLB and Cincinnati Reds great Joey Votto suggests we should not expect many batters above the .300 average any more.

Votto says it is just not just exceptional pitching that combines increased velocity and spin rates that have brought down batting averages.

He points to the fact that there is much more emphasis on team defense that has turned former hits into outs.

More batters are also focused on hitting the long ball than being contact hitters,

As a result, the .300 hitter of 20 years ago is now hitting .240 or .250.

Votto calls it the new normal.

The nostalgic memories of the .300 hitter with 30 home runs has been replaced by a .240 hitter with 40 home runs.

Link: https://x.com/MLBNow/status/2102845958862062019

MLB has to decide if it can prosper with a product where we see more strikeouts than hits.

It has shown a willingness to make changes the last few years.

Banning the defensive shift in the infield, the pitch clock, larger bags to promote more steals and the new ABS system that allows challenges to ball and strike calls have all been positives in my view.

What can it do to give batters a better chance to get more hits and fewer strikeouts?

Should the height of the pitching mound be lowered again?

It already was done once before beginning in the 1969 season when the height of the mound was lowered from 15 inches to 10 inches.  The average ERA for pitchers went from 2.98 to 3.61 in one season due to this change.

Should the pitching mound be moved back from the traditional 60'6"?

Should the ABS strike zone be tightened to force more pitches to the center of the plate?

Should a requirement be made to require that the starting pitcher complete a minimum number of innings (eg. 5 or 6 as long as 100 pitches have not been completed) before being replaced? 

Should the definition of a checked swing counting as a strike be changed?

Most of these ideas have been experimented with in the minor leagues with mixed results.

For example, moving the mound back 12 inches did increase hard hit balls and pull rates on fast balls.

However, breaking balls have more room to break at that distance.

I don't know what needs to be done.

However, it seems something has to be done.

I am not interested in watching a game full of more strikeouts than hits.

It also promises to get worse if we see more pitchers like Jacob Misiorowski of the Milwaukee Brewers.

Misiorowski started and was the winning pitcher in last night's game 1 of the World Seried for the Brewers.

It was the 12th straight game the Brewers have won when Misiorowski started since August 9. 

Misiorowski's first pitch last night was 103.5 mph.

How do you hit that?

It seems not many of the best hitters in the world have proven that they can.

Therein lies the problem for baseball going forward.

The Midterms, History and Trump

We are under two weeks until the midterm elections will be decided.

Every day I am asked by someone about what I think the results will be in this election.

Will we see a blue wave in the midterm elections with scores of Democrats being swept into office based on voter dissatisfaction with Donald Trump?

Or will we see a red wall of Republicans and Independents turn out to defend the Trump agenda in November?

The media, many political pundits and most polls suggest that the Democrats have the numbers and energy to put Trump on the defensive.

I have been closely following politics for a long time and I have never seen an election cycle that is more difficult to handicap.

Polling seems to have become increasingly unreliable as more voters (particularly Republicans) do not want to participate in political surveys.

Since the betting markets have come on the scene I also question the extent to which some polls are being used to manipulate the betting odds. 

When money is in play you can be assured that someone is motivated to fix the game.

Early voting has also changed the game.

Polls are similar to making a bet before the game. 

Early votes are akin to actually getting a glimpse of the score of the game on your phone in the first quarter of play.

We may know who those early votes were for but in many states we know their political affiliation, age, race or other indicators.

I am following the early voting closely in a number of states but even then I see analysts who come to two different conclusions based on the same data.

It makes predicting anything very confusing and risky.

This causes me to take a step back and just look at the history involved in midterm elections.

Midterm elections are traditionally challenging for the incumbent President's party.

In the last 22 midterm elections (dating back to 1938) there have only been two times that the incumbent party gained House seats (1998 and 2002). 

The average loss of House seats in a midterm election is 26 since World War II.

Both times the President's party gained seats in the House were when the President (Clinton in 1998 and George W. Bush in 2002) had approval ratings of over 60%.

Donald Trump's approval rating is far short of that.

The average loss of seats in the Senate for the incumbent President's party over midterm election cycles has been 4.

History suggests that it will be difficult for Republicans to avoid losses in the midterm elections. If these historical averages are to hold in 2026, the GOP would find themselves in the minority in both the House and Senate. Donald Trump would also find himself even more under siege in Washington, D.C.

Why do midterms present such a problem for the incumbent President's party?

I believe it is a result of several factors.

National Presidential elections have higher voter turnout and bring out more casual voters and independents.

Midterm elections are more partisan. You tend to get more voters by party affiliation. They are more hard core in their politics.

Voters are also more partisan when their person is not in The White House. Those in the party that is out of power are more motivated to send a message to the guy in The White House. 

Those with their guy in power are more complacent. You also typically see some disillusionment by voters two years into a President's term. The results have not matched the promises. This disenchantment causes loss of support for the President's agenda even among those who voted him into office.

One of the interesting facts about the Presidency of Barack Obama was that he won two elections comfortably but he suffered devastating losses in both of his midterm elections.

Democrats lost 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats in 2010.

Democrats lost another 16 House seats and 9 additional Senate seats in 2014.

Barack Obama assumed the Presidency with overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate in 2009. GOP majorities were in place in both Houses when he left.

Obama was not able to translate his own electoral victories to success for his party in the midterms.

A big reason for this was that a lot of Obama's voters came from casual voters of which large numbers are young voters. They voted for Obama. A lot of them did not bother to vote at all in the midterms. 

This chart shows how the percentage of voters age 18-29 surged in 2008 and 2012 but fell off dramatically in the midterms in 2010 and 2014.

On the other hand, those age 60+ typically vote in every election. This group has historically been more likely to vote Republican. You can see what this translates into in pure numbers in this chart that shows actual votes cast by those 18-29 compared to those age 60+ during the Obama years.

Similar patterns existed with African American voters. In 2008 and 2012 Obama got 16 million African American votes. In 2010 and 2014 only about 9 million African Americans bothered to vote at all in the midterms.

All of this is why I have written consistently in these pages over the years that turnout is everything in an election. If you can get your people to vote, you will win. If they stay home, you will lose.

We know there are a lot of motivated Democrats with Trump Derangement Syndrome that are sure to vote.

However, the biggest question for Democrats is whether that will include the young voters and Black voters they need in a midterm election?

For Republicans, the question is whether the Independent and Swing voters who came out for Trump in 2024 will come out and vote when he is not on the ballot?

It remains to be seen whether those Trump voters are necessarily GOP voters. Like Obama, Trump proved to have a unique appeal to certain voters. 

A lot of his votes did not come from traditional Republican voters. He appealed to a lot of Independents and he got many blue collar Democrat votes as well. Will these voters turn out to defend the Trump agenda in 2026?

The results two weeks from now will largely be determined by turnout.

How many are going to vote and who is more likely to vote?

Will it be more young and minority voters?

Or older and White voters?

For example, here is a breakdown of the early vote as of 10/20/26 in 14 states that report those votes by the ages of the voters.

Source: https://x.com/DanRadzikowski/status/2111936675764977686

Voters aged 18-29 make up only 3.3% of the total EV compared to 55.4% for those age 65+.

Yes, older voters are more likely to vote early.

However, those younger voters are really going to have to turn out in the next two weeks or the Democrats are likely to underperform expectations.

For context, 18-29 voters made up 14% of the electorate in 2024 and 12% in 2022.

That is a lot of room to make up.

Voters age 65+ made up 28% of the electorate in 2024 and 34% in 2022.

Will Independents stay with the GOP or has the Iran War and gas prices chased them away?

To what extent will the Democrat party embracing Democrat Socialism affect the votes of moderate voters?

The answers to those questions will determine who wins and loses in two weeks.

I don't like making political predictions.

It is too easy to be wrong.

However, I would much rather be a Democrat than a Republican right considering past history.

The unanswered question is whether we can trust history in an era in which Donald Trump is still a consequential and compelling political figure even though he is not on the ballot.

Reflections On Climate Change

The popular narrative is that the earth is warming due to climate change.

We are told that the climate change is due to man-made carbon emissions.

Some dispute whether the earth is even warming.

However, let's assume that there has been some warming.

That leaves open the possibility it could be natural climatic cycles or has been influenced by humans.

One of the more interesting blog posts I wrote in the last several years involved the work Dr. John Clauser has done on the question of climate change (see that blog post below).

Clauser won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics and raised the question of what effect clouds had on climate change.

Clauser was an avid sailor in his spare time and noticed that when he sailed on the ocean that there was a significant difference in temperatures when there were clouds in the sky versus when it was clear.

This led him to wonder what assumptions about cloud cover were used in the various models that claimed that global warming and climate change were a threat to humanity.

To his amazement, Clauser found that all of the climate models showing those future rising temperatures assumed a cloudless future. 

The models assumed there would be no clouds even though two-thirds of the earth is generally covered  by clouds on an average day.

The reason given was that the scientists did not understand the significance of cloud dynamics so they removed clouds from their climate models so as to not distort their results.

Clauser called this a massive error.

He stated "you can't have weather without clouds."

It all stands to reason that with no clouds there would be higher temperatures on earth with more sunny days.

Interestingly, a recent research paper was just released that seems to support the points Clauser was making about cloud dynamics and its effect on climate change.

Source: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ae8a67/pdf

I asked Grok to summarize the technical conclusions of this scientific paper to make it understandable to lay persons.

Since satellites started watching in 1979, scientists have noticed Earth is reflecting less sunlight than before. The biggest reason is that there are fewer bright, reflective clouds than there used to be.

Weather patterns have shifted, so some of those shiny low clouds have shrunk or moved. A smaller part comes from melting snow and ice and other surface changes.Because less sunlight is bouncing away, more of it is absorbed by the planet. That adds extra heat and makes Earth’s “energy imbalance” (more energy coming in than going out) bigger.

The paper says this cloud change is responsible for most of the extra sunlight being absorbed in recent decades.The authors also point out that when skies are clearer, the brightness of the ground and oceans matters more. They suggest that in the future we might need to think about managing how reflective Earth’s surface is (for example, through land use choices), not just focusing on greenhouse gases

.In short: fewer shiny clouds → Earth absorbs more sunshine → extra warming → and surface brightness becomes a bigger deal.

In summary, think of the earth as a large mirror. A lot of the sun's energy is reflected back into space. Cloud dynamics are a factor in this as they act as a shutter in moderating heat. On the other hand, on earth, things such as dark wet soils, forests, oceans and lakes absorb more heat while dry sand deserts or snow capped mountains reflect more of the heat away from earth.

The authors of this article on cloud dynamics support Clauser's theory that we should be looking a lot closer at cloud dynamics when climate change is concerned.

They also suggest that more focus should be put on taking account of the earth's reflective surface as well. For example, it might make more sense to not reforest bare land as it becomes less reflective.

The reason for fewer lower level clouds is blamed in part on more heat in the atmosphere that in turn is blamed on carbon emissions. 

However, it is interesting that another factor cited in reduced lower level clouds is the decrease in aerosol emissions over the last 20 years. It is also argued that cleaner air has resulted in fewer clouds due to environmental regulations.

Clouds need moisture to form. That is why it is generally cloudier over the ocean than it is over land.

Tiny, light scattering particles in aerosols and carbon emissions act as "seeds" to assist in cloud formation.  Therefore, for example, if a ocean going ship is using cleaner fuel for power than it did in the past it will produce fewer "seeds" to help carry the moisture from the sea necessary to form clouds.

All of this is further reinforced by a trend that is referred to as "Global Brightening".

Link: https://x.com/Electroversenet/status/2090891691649560717

Since the 1980's it has been observed at weather stations around the world that more solar energy is reaching the ground than it did in the 1960's and 1970's which was considered a "dimming period" due to air pollution.

As air pollution decreased due to environmental concerns the atmosphere cleared and more sunlight reached the earth's surface. 

As more sunlight got through the clearer atmosphere more solar radiation were absorbed by the earth.

The increase in surface solar radiation is calculated to be 10 times larger than the forcing from CO2 over the same period. 

It all goes to show the delicate balance that drives our climate.

Carbon emissions are blamed for a warming planet but fewer carbon emissions may also mean less cloud cover that is contributing to a warming planet due to less relectivity.

Beginning in the late 1970's the focus on air pollution has been so effective that the amount of solar radiation reaching and warming the earth is measurable.

Is it possible that the warming planet is actually due to cleaner air, reduced carbon emissions and less cloud cover?

This theory is not suggested in any narrative that is being repeated on climate change.

How ironic would it be that everything causing global warming is the opposite of what we are told?

Is the earth warming not due to carbon emissions but to less air pollution, fewer clouds and  more solar radiation reaching the earth's surface?

All of this should make it clear that there is still a lot of "science" to be learned from something we have been told is "settled".

The only thing I know for sure is that we should be wary of any "simple" explanation or narrative when it comes to explaining a multi-faceted and complex topic like our climate.

My original blog post on Dr. Clauser and the very flawed climate models that have been used to create so much hysteria and trillions of dollars in spending. follows. 

A Cloudless Future

(originally published September 14, 2023)

Wouldn't we all like to know that our future lives would be cloudless?

Every day of our lives would be sun-filled.

We would have no cloudy days.

No rain would ever fall on anyone's parade.

We would have no cares and no problems to deal with.

It would be an ideal life in every way.

With respect to our weather and climate, if there were no cloudy and rainy days it is easy to see it would be a lot warmer.

I play a lot of golf in many types of weather during the year.

One thing that is very clear is that there is a big difference in temperatures when the sun is out compared to when it is behind some cloud cover.

In the summer, if the sun slips behind a cloud it makes it feel 5-10 degrees cooler immediately.

In the spring and fall, a cool day can become very comfortable when the sun is unhindered by any clouds.

However, if the sun disappears in cloud cover you better be prepared to put that jacket on as the chill is immediate.

Would it surprise you to know that all of the famous climate models that are being used to predict rising future temperatures assume that there will be no clouds in the future?

In other words, despite the fact that clouds have been a mainstay in our weather and climate since the beginning of time on earth, the models that are being used assume the future will be cloudless.

Is it any wonder you could show a global temperature increase of a couple degrees in a climate model if you assumed a cloudless future compared to a world in which clouds cover a portion of the earth every day?

For example, here is the first image of earth taken last year (May, 2022) by the  Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-T (GOES-T) (later renamed GOES18) weather satellite after it first became operational. This satellite is positioned 22,236 miles above earth to monitor weather patterns, storms, fog and wildfires in the Western Hemisphere.

Do you see any clouds?

Dr. John Clauser who won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics has recently questioned climate research quality and contends that U.S. climate policies are misguided because they are based on a flawed underlying assumption---a cloudless future.

Mr. Clauser said he believes he has identified a significant oversight in prevailing climate models.

"I believe I have the missing piece of the puzzle that has been left out in virtually all of these computer programs," he stated. "And that is the effect of clouds."

While many theories of anthropogenic climate change focus primarily on the impact of human-produced CO2, Mr. Clauser argues that these models overlook the significance of cloud dynamics.

He referenced the 2003 National Academy report, which, he said, "totally admitted" its lack of understanding about clouds, and made "a whole series of mistaken statements regarding the effects of clouds."

Drawing attention to Al Gore's film, "The Inconvenient Truth," Mr. Clauser noted, "[Mr. Gore] insists on talking about a cloud-free earth ... That's a totally artificial Earth." According to Mr. Clauser, this cloudless portrayal of the earth reflects the approach taken by many in the climate science community.

"That's a totally artificial Earth. It is a totally artificial case for using a model, and this is pretty much what the IPCC and others use—a cloud free earth."

Mr. Clauser pointed out that satellite images consistently show wide variances in cloud cover, which can span anywhere from five to 95 percent of the Earth's surface.

"The cloud cover fraction fluctuates quite dramatically on daily weekly timescales. We call this weather. You can't have weather without clouds.

This is not a small error.

These models are the basis by which it is claimed that climate change is an existential threat to humanity.

It is the argument for why all fossil fuels should be banned.

Joe Biden says that not even nuclear war is a greater threat to human existence than what those climate models show.

Source: https://twitter.com/business/status/1700926785611772341

Trillions of dollars of spending are being proposed to combat a problem that may only exist in the imagination of the climate modelers who have chosen to not consider the effects of cloud cover on the earth and its temperature.

Clauser sees it as a colossal misuse of resources and waste of time and money.

Mr. Clauser criticized U.S. government efforts to reduce CO2 and methane as a colossal misuse of resources better allocated for humanitarian endeavors. Such initiatives, he argues, "should be stopped immediately."

"[It's] a total waste of money and time and effort. It is strangling industry," he said.

But Mr. Clauser is not holding his breath.

"My suspicion is what I am saying here will be totally ignored because people don't like being told that they've made big mistakes of this magnitude," he said.

Another Nobel laureate and 1,600 other science professionals have recently signed a declaration with Clauser declaring that there is no "climate emergency" and that climate change science is not conclusive.

So much for the "consensus of scientists" narrative.

So much for Joe Biden calling those who disagree with the climate change narrative as "lying dog faced pony soldiers".

A couple Nobel laureates and 1,600 scientists are "lying dog-faced pony soldiers"?

Could it possibly be the reverse?

Does anyone believe that Biden has the slightest idea about how the models being used to support the climate change narrative have been developed?

In addition, there is no one on earth that can find the John Wayne movie that Biden refers to when he used the "lying dog faced pony solders" line.

This report contains research of those who have attempted to confirm Biden's explanation. They could not.

The president has used the alleged movie line "lying dog-faced pony soldier" multiple times in the past to indicate that someone is lying through their teeth or the person is dishonest. However, the quote has baffled many social media users as it doesn’t exist.

A cloudless future?

That is not going to occur. You can count on that.

However, Joe Biden's mind (and future in politics) gets cloudier with every passing day.

This and That---October 16, 2026

A few random observations, charts and factoids to provide some context on what is going on in the world.

Births Continue To Fall

Births in the United States continue to fall.

This graphic shows the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for each state for the first six months of 2026.

The United States is now at a 1.55 TFR overall.

2.1 children per woman is necessary to maintain a stable population.

South Dakota is the only state that is above 2.0.

The District of Columbia is at 1.02.

It is notable that liberal states such as Rhode Island (1.25), Massachusetts (1.30), Vermont (1.34), Oregon (1.35) and California (1.39) are among the states with the lowest birth rates.

California's TFR has cratered despite a large Hispanic population that has generally favored larger families.

California now has a lower TFR than Connecticut.

Conservative states like South Dakota (2.08), North Dakota (1.90), Idaho (1.87), Nebraska (1.87) and Oklahoma (1.79) have the most births. In fact, you generally see higher birth rates across the entirety of the U.S. heartland except for liberal states Colorado and Illinois.

Demography is destiny.

YouTube vs. Netflix

Netflix is losing big time to YouTube.

What is also interesting about this data is that it indicates that about one quarter of all tv viewing time is spent on one of these two platforms.

The Greatest Acquisitions of All Time

The graph above also explains why Google's acquisition of YouTube has proven to be one of the greatest acquisitions of all time.

Google paid $1.65 billion for YouTube in 2006 in an all stock deal.

YouTube is now worth over $160 billion on its own.

Source: https://x.com/QCompounding/status/2106807331799302253

In pure dollar terms, Google's acquisition of DoubleClick, an online advertising company, in 2008 has produced $183 billion in additional value.

However, it is hard to beat Facebook's return on investment on its acquisition of Instagram in 2012.

A $1 billion purchase is now a company worth over $175 billion.

Data Centers and the Economy 

Data centers have become a popular target in this political season.

What is not in dispute is the degree to which they have become indispensable to our economy.

Consider this graph that shows changes in construction spending in 2026.

Data center construction is responsible for an enormous number of blue collar and construction jobs right now.

Credit: https://x.com/StephenMoore/status/2108607669527588877

Attempting to curtail data center development today would be akin to trying to stop railroad development in the late 1800's, electrification in the early 1900's or the internet in the late 1900's.

It is unquestionably the engine for future economic growth.

Political Ads

If you think you have never seen too many political ads, you are not mistaken.

2026 midterm ad spending is on track to even eclipse ad spending in 2024.

Credit: https://brucemehlman.substack.com/p/six-chart-sunday-campaign-ads-in

It is projected that more will be spent on political advertising this year than on all Super Bowls ads COMBINED since 1967.

Credit: https://brucemehlman.substack.com/p/six-chart-sunday-campaign-ads-in

I cringe when I turn on the television in Ohio due to the number of political ads I know I will have to endure.

I have a hard time imagining what it is like in Maine.

$419 in political ads for every adult in the state?

Credit: https://brucemehlman.substack.com/p/six-chart-sunday-campaign-ads-in

November 3 cannot come soon enough.

Sharia In Our Future?

I have seen a lot of crazy polls lately.

Polls that either directly contradict documented facts or defy common sense.

A prime example is The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey in which respondents believe that we are living in the worst economy in the last 60 years.

Never mind the record stock market, record real household incomes, record low poverty rate, record low recent unemployment claims and everything else.

Yes, gas prices are higher than they were a year ago but it appears a lot of people have short memories.

That includes me as I had mostly forgotten about those oil prices during the Obama years before Trump made U.S. energy production a priority.

However, no poll or survey has astounded me more than a recent Rasmussen survey  that polled voters on their attitudes on sharia law.

43% of voters aged 18-24 in that poll stated they have a positive opinion of sharia law.

39% of voters age 25-29 say the same thing.

By comparison, only 16% of voters age 40+ have a positive view of sharia.

When asked which ideology posed a greater threat to America's future---sharia law or traditional Christianity---40% of 18-24 year old voters said it was Christianity as opposed to only 28% who said they were concerned about sharia law. 

The obvious question underlying all of this is do these young voters have any idea what their lives would be like under sharia law?

Here is a short summary of those actions under sharia law that are harshly enforced.

Perhaps we have a young generation that is fully committed to giving up all alcohol and drugs, sports gambling, engaging in pre-marital sex and adultery and banning homesexuality and the LBGTQ movement in total.

I have not seen much evidence of that. 

How do the 23% of 18-29 young adults who identify as LGBTQ+ think they would fare under sharia law?

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/702206/lgbtq-identification-holds.aspx

If the younger generation believes  traditional Christianity is a threat to America as they know it they have not seen anything yet.

It seems that there is disconnect somewhere in their thinking.

The woman below who lived in Iran explains what it was like living in Iran under sharia law.

It also bears repeating that more than half of the population of Iran is not Muslim.

However, sharia law is applied to everyone whether they like it or not.

Link: https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/2106855629877063895

Those young, liberal Democrat women who like to wear a keffiyeh to show solidarity with the Palestinians might want to take note.

Will these young people come to their senses?

Or are we looking at sharia law in our future?