## Ted Cruz Should Bargain Kasich Out of the Winner-Take-All Primaries

Ted Cruz Should Bargain Kasich Out of the Winner-Take-All Primaries

Donald Trump has a clear and easy path to the nomination through the winner-take-all (WTA) primaries, even after the Indiana primary on May 3. Just like Cruz claimed to have bargained Gov. Kasich out of campaigning in Indiana, which is a WTA state, he needs to do that in California and New Jersey, in order to have an open convention.

To start with, Trump is 40 delegates closer, now that election website thegreenpapers.com has awarded this many of Pennsylvania’s uncommitted 54 delegates to him in the uncommitted column. 4 also went to Cruz and 4 to Kasich, leaving only 6 truly uncommitted. Trump also got Pennsylvania’s 17 WTA at large delegates giving him 57 of the states’ 71 delegates. This gives Trump 80% of the states’ delegates, even though he won the state with 56.7%, and Cruz got 21.6%, just edging out Kasich with 19.4%.

Using thegreenpapers.com totals, Trump now has 998, and with 1,237 needed to win, he is only short 239 delegates.

The Indiana primary, where Kasich has agreed not to compete, has 57 delegates.

On June 7, there are four WTA primaries, with 279 delegates: California with 172, Montana with 27, New Jersey with 51 and South Dakota with 29. California and New Jersey, together with 223 WTA delegates, can alone almost fulfill Trumps needed 239.

The total of all WTA delegates left is 336.

Cruz has already recruited Californian Carly Fiorina for Vice President. She won the Republican primary for Senator in California in 2010, and knows the primary landscape there. Getting Kasich out of the race will give him the best shot there.

Gov. Kasich has nothing to lose by not campaigning in the WTA states, since splitting with Cruz will guarantee that Trump will win them and proceed to the nomination. I think that Kasich is really concentrating on passing Sen. Marco Rubio for third place at the convention. Rubio still has 173 delegates, since he has only suspended his campaign. Kasich is behind, but close, with 158 delegates. He needs 16 to go ahead and become third. He can’t get these in WTA states. He will get more in other states if Cruz does not compete there. Kasich’s strategy is to help Cruz bring about an open convention. Then, if the “establishment” doesn’t like Trump or Cruz, they may look to number three, who has stuck out the campaign, and is Governor of the swing state of Ohio, which he won.

Besides the WTA primaries, there are:

May 10; Nebraska with 36 and West Virginia with 34;

May 17; Oregon with 28;

May 24; Washington with 44 as winner-take-most; and

June 7; New Mexico with 24.

The total of these other primaries yields 166 delegates.  The total of the WTA and other primaries is 502.  The 336 delegates in WTA are two thirds of the remaining delegates.

Cruz has 565 delegates, with only 528 soft available, so he cannot win the nomination. His only hope is to stop Trump. Despite today’s flap of Cruz claiming that there was no agreement on Indiana, and Kasich’s aide calling Cruz a liar, they need to work together for their mutual benefit.

## The California Coast and its Local Climate Denial Representatives

The California Coast and its Local Climate Denial Representatives

I have covered the climate denier presidential candidates that come from Florida, namely beach hotel owner Donald Trump, ex-Governor Jeb Bush, and Senator Marco Rubio. I covered the climate denier Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz and the Texas coastline. It is time to turn attention to my own California coastline and its politics.

California has the largest congressional delegation, starting with two Democratic Senators, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. We have 53 House Representatives, 39 of which are Democrats, and 14 of which are Republicans. That is 74% Democrats, or almost 3 to 1.

I have counted that there are 14 coastal districts. Of these, 12 are represented by Democrats, which I assume are largely climate science acceptors. The most amazing of these is district 2 which is represented by Democrat Jared Huffman. It covers the entire coast North of San Francisco to the Oregon border.

But two districts are represented by Republicans who are climate science deniers. Unfortunately, UCI and I are next to both of these districts.

The CA 48th district, which covers Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Laguna Beach, is represented by climate change denier Dana Rohrabacher. I often walk in Laguna Beach and Balboa Island, and recently post photos of the plants there on my flickr account.

The CA 49th district, which covers Dana Point, San Clemente, Oceanside, Carlsbad, and Encinitas, is represented by Republican and climate change denier Darrell Issa.

Lets look at Rohrabacker’s committee assignments. He is a senior member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and serves as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats, very impressive assignments. However, he is also on the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment. Not a great assignment for a climate change denier. In 1994 he became Chairman of the Science Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. He increased funding for solar and oceans research. He also cut the 1996 budget of wasteful spending on the Department of Energy, NOAA, and the EPA, brags his website.

Rohrabacher encourages all US energy resources, except coal, which is outlawed in California.

But he calls climate change science “emotional junk science”. He also says “constituents may be interested to learn of the growing scientific consensus that global warming is not manmade, if it is in fact even occurring”. His website links to a dozen climate denial websites, but really dates back to the fight against the Kyoto treaty in 2001.

Rohrabacher has championed aerospace companies in Huntington Beach. They are full of scientists and engineers that could have enlightened him about the consensus on climate science. He is only a few minutes from UC Irvine, with our highly rated Earth System Science Department, and the Beckman Center of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering. Any of the UCI faculty and Beckman visitors would be happy at any time to come to his office and give him or his staff lectures on climate science.

His local conservative newspaper, the Orange County Register, now has weekly articles on climate science and the dangers to the local coast from sea level rise.  That might be of concern to him since his office is right across coast highway from Huntington Beach.

Balboa Island, the Newport Peninsula, and Huntington Beach, among other cities, are preparing for sea level rise through this century. They are increasing sea wall heights, and on Balboa Island, new houses have to have a solid base for about 2.5 feet above street level. They have to prepare for super storms at high tide where both storm surge and inflow through the bay from heavy rains produce the perfect flood.

There also is a new issue where the very educated and experienced executive director of the Coastal Commission, Charles Lester, has been fired, presumably in the interest of allowing more coastal development.  This has been commented on in a letter to the Huntington Beach Independent  by Tom Osborne.

Many coastal cities have also been affected by the four year long drought, which we are just starting to recover from.

Orange County Coastkeeper at Coastkeepers.org is concerned with water conservation and fighting unneeded and expensive desalination plants.

Surfriders Foundation at www.surfrider.org has a five year goal of protecting the entire U.S. Coast.

Protecting the Oceans is the goal of the Ocean Conservancy at Oceanconservancy.org.
Republican Darrell Issa is the wealthiest member of Congress, worth $255 million. He made his fortune manufacturing car alarms and theft deterrent systems, which sounds like a high tech industry with many scientists and engineers who could tell him his devices would not work but for science. He served in the US army and rose to the rank of Captain. Being on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he investigated “the politicization of science at the EPA”. As former Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, he led an investigation into Benghazi (now you know who I mean). He is the source of the quote that the FBI “would like to indict both Huma and Hillary Clinton” for conducting sensitive government business on an insecure, private email server. He must have felt undermined when his fellow Republicans admitted that his hearings were for political purposes only. Issa’s climate science position is to claim that the science community is not in agreement on the problem. He then contradicts that by saying that they have not pointed out when it is truly catastrophic. George W. Bush had the same attitude: tell me when we reach criticality, and I will turn off all fossil fuels, as if that wouldn’t then collapse the country. Rep. Issa’s district is nearby the highly ranked UC San Diego, and the Scripps Institute. They have many experts that could brief him or his staff on climate science, and the local problems to his beach communities that will be caused by climate change ## Clinton Increases Lead in Northeast Primaries Clinton Almost Sweeps Northeast, or Clinton gains 58 more delegates edge You get your choice of the blaring TV headline, or the actual slow delegate growth of the proportional Democratic primaries. I take the latter, and will bore you with the numbers. We look at the delegates, which is what counts to get the nomination. Yes, Clinton won 4 of the 5 April 26 primaries. Here are the delegate counts of the five states, with Clinton’s first: Connecticut…..27…..25 Delaware……….12…….9 Maryland……….59…..32 Pennsylvania….95..…67 Rhode Island….11……13. ……………………………………. Total…………….204….146 Yes, Sanders won Rhode Island, but only got a two delegate lead. This is because unless a district with 6 delegates has a 16.6% lead for the leading candidate, it is a wash at 3-3 delegate split. Odd 5 or 7 delegate districts automatically split 3-2 or 4-3 even with a minuscule lead. Go figure (probably a dated phrase). Clinton won Connecticut, but only got a two delegate lead (Yawn). Clinton won Delaware, but only got a 3 delegate lead (Would have preferred a t-shirt). One big lead of 28 came in Pennsylvania, where the Democratic result is immediately clear and above board, as opposed to the Republican mishegas of an enigma wrapped in a Philly cheesesteak, smothered in onions. The other big lead of 27 came in Maryland. Her total lead gained 58. We should remember that last week she also gained 31 in her Northeast home of New York. With 2383 needed for the Democratic nomination, Clinton now has 1650 pledged plus 519 Superdelegates for a total of 2169 delegates. She is only 214 delegates short, or has 91% of the needed delegates. Sanders now has 1348 pledged plus 39 Superdelegates for a total of 1387 delegates. He is 996 short, or has 58% of the needed delegates. Posted in 2016 Primaries, Politics | Leave a comment ## Trump Sweeps the Northeast Primary Table Trump Sweeps the Northeast Primary Table Trump has swept the five Northeast primaries with percentages from 54% to 64%, much better than usual. Cruz’s best was 22%, in Pennsylvania, and Kasich’s best was 28%, in Connecticut. In counting the winner-take-all (WTA) delegates, there were 71 available in 3 states. Delaware had 16, all of which went to Trump. Pennsylvania had 17 at large, which all went to Trump. Maryland had 38 WTA delegates, 14 at large and 24 district, and all 38 went to Trump. Of the 71 WTA delegates today, Trump has all 71! In the other states, all 28 of Connecticut’s winner-take-most primary went to Trump. Rhode Island’s 19 split 11 to Trump, 5 to Kasich, and 3 to Cruz. So from today’s Northeast primaries, Trump has gained 110 delegates, Kasich only 5, and Cruz only 3. This adds to the N. Y. Results, where Trump won 89 and Kasich 4, and Cruz none. It appears that Bos-Wash values are similar to New York values, which are Not-Cruz values. So the speed-up of the WTA Republican primaries has worked here, but it is less effective when the winner already has near 60% of the vote. We look at the speed-up of the remaining WTA primaries, which occur on two more dates: May 3, Indiana with 57 delegates, which we discussed under the Cruz-Kasich Gambit; and June 7, 252 delegates, from California with 172, New Jersey with 51, and South Dakota with 29. So there are 57 + 252 = 309 WTA delegates left. The following is an early projection, without today’s final delegate count. With 1,237 needed, and Trump for sure having 957, he needs 280 more delegates. These, and more, could now be covered by the remaining 309 WTA delegates left. If Trump loses South Dakota, there are 309 – 29 = 280 left, with 280 needed, so he would still be covered by WTA states. If Trump loses South Dakota and Indiana, there are only California and New Jersey WTA left, but with 172 + 51 = 223 delegates. With 280 needed, he would have to pick up 57 elsewhere. The networks were very misleading tonight by calling all 54 of Pennsylvania’s district delegates as “uncommitted”. As we showed earlier, most delegate candidates are now committed to Trump, Cruz, or the winner of their district. Trump won Pennsylvania by 57% to Cruz’s 22% and Kasich’s 19%. When the district delegates are announced, most of them will be voting for Trump on the first ballot. That already is a large part of Trump’s needed 57 delegates in the above case. According to a count by Nate Cohn, Trump leads in 29 of these delegates, another 13 are pledged to their district winner, and Not-Trump or Cruz delegates had 9. That accounts for 51 of the 54 of the formally uncommitted delegates. It’s wonderful how human dealing and ingenuity can bypass an undemocratic rule to give a democratic, representative result. As of April 27, Trump has 957 delegates, Cruz has 562, Rubio has 173, and Kasich has 154. There are 582 listed as available, but that includes the 54 supposedly uncommitted delegates of Pennsylvania. In looking forward to WTA primaries, We noticed New Jersey’s Governor Chris Christy standing beside but behind Trump in his victory speech tonight. We also speculate that Sen. Cruz will announce Carly Fiorina as a Vice Presidential running mate, in a few hours. She is well known in California as a groundbreaking businesswoman and past CEO of California’s Hewlett-Packard company. She ran as the Republican candidate for Senator from California in 2010. She also stands for religious freedom laws, as in Indiana. She was a very favorable debater earlier in the campaign. On the popular Republican primary votes of 25.4 million, Trump has 39.6%, Cruz 27.0%, Kasich 14.5%, and others have 18.9%. Posted in 2016 Primaries, Politics | Leave a comment ## The Cruz-Kasich Gambit in the Never-Trump Game The Cruz-Kasich Gambit in the Never-Trump Game In previous articles I have emphasized that Trump can win the nomination on the first ballot if he wins most of the remaining winner-take-all states. In the Indiana winner-take-all primary on May 3, Trump is on the polling road to winning most of its 57 delegates. Rather than Cruz and Kasich splitting the remaining vote and letting Trump winner-take-all with about 43%, Kasich has agreed not to campaign in Indiana, which brings Cruz almost up to Trump in the latest poll. Kasich has little to lose since it is a winner-take-all state. In return, Kasich has a Cruz-free crack at Oregon with 28 delegates, and New Mexico with 24, for a total of 52 delegates. Kasich is said to be low on funds. The Never-Trump donors were hesitating to waste more money unless they took effective action. These are proportional states, so they won’t pay off as much in delegates as the winner-take-all state of Indiana. Kasich may have done better in Indiana since it is nearby Gov. Kasich’s home state of Ohio. However, Kasich needed to win or do well in another state than Ohio, and to stop Trump. They should have read Trumps’ book on how to make a deal, since soon after the deal was announced, Cruz said that Kasich has withdrawn from the Indiana primary, but Kasich said it was okay to vote for himself in Indiana. Now Cruz has come out and said that it is okay to vote for Cruz in Oregon. And he also said to vote for Cruz and not Kasich because only Cruz can beat Clinton. Oregon has mail only ballots, and they come out soon. The primary date is May 17. Kasich also came out and said we really needed to go to an open convention, as if that was the most desirable kind. What is the point of the last year of letting Republicans vote on their candidates state by state, if ignoring Republican voters and going back to the old method of selecting the candidate by party insiders is better? Posted in 2016 Primaries, Politics | Leave a comment ## Pennsylvania’s Delegates Are Not Really Uncommitted Pennsylvania Delegates Are Not Really Uncommitted Pennsylvania has 17 at large delegates that are winner-take-all. It also has 54 delegates, three from each of 18 congressional districts, which, on the ballot, have no stated commitment. They can vote for whomever they want at the convention, on any round of voting. politicspa.com has delegate slates for both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Apparently, Trump and Cruz have been getting their supporters to run to become delegates since January. Remember, a fully prepared candidate would have three supporters running in 18 districts, or 54 supporters running. Of the 18 districts, Ted Cruz has 28 candidates in 14 districts, for an average of two per district in which he has any, and missing 4 districts. He only has three delegates in three districts. One district has 5 delegates for him, which is not only overkill, but will split votes and maybe lead to a Trump win there. Trump has 41 candidates in 15 districts, which is 2.7 per district where he has candidates. He has no delegates in three districts, only one delegate in one district, only two delegates in two districts. Trump appears well ahead in recruitment. If either Cruz or Trump is favored in a district, they can take all three delegates in the district, or Cruz can take two plus one committed to vote for the leader on the first ballot. So each candidate can get all three, making it the same as a winner-take-all district. So Pennsylvania goes from an uncommitted delegate state to a largely winner-take-all state. Where is Kasich? On April 10, his campaign sent out an erroneous statement that Pennsylvania”s districts awarded delegates proportionately. How far this mistake is imbedded in his campaign is unknown. Newsworks called all delegates, and found out that, of those responding, only 1% would vote for Kasich. However, many delegates are local office holders who may well get elected based on their popularity, or even lack of a committment to one delegate, but only to the winner of their district. However, only a few are running uncommitted. The Philadelphia Enquirer has a list of the candidates in five districts in and around Philadelphia. Some districts have one candidate for Trump and one for Cruz. Most are listed as supporting the district winner on the first ballot. One is listed supporting the state winner on the first ballot. A voter can vote for three in the district that they are in, since three delegates will be elected for each district. The Morning Call, a Tribune paper for Lehigh Valley news, called all 162 candidates for delegates. Many did not answer. They printed the preferences or decisions for those that did. Among those that did, 49 will vote for the district leading vote getter, which is about a third of the candidates. 30 are committed to Trump. 22 are committed to Cruz. Several districts have many candidates for Trump or Cruz or both. 21 are uncommitted. A few are going to vote for the statewide winner. That sums to 122 plus candidates. Maybe the rest will call back later. Those candidates committed to the district winner may be splitting such votes if there are several in the district, and if they are not well known. Knowing what combination election mailings are like, since there are primary races in other state and congressional offices, the mailers for Trump, Cruz, or Kasich may include the list of the district delegate candidates that support them, and thus concentrate the vote to get them elected as delegates. Cruz and Trump each have a statewide slate of candidates. I strongly suspect that most of the uncommitted delegates will be effectively committed after the voting on April 26, and that their breakdown will look something like the state popular vote. Pennsylvania has added an odd twist. They are not going to announce the district vote Presidential results for a week, so we won’t know the delegate total preferences until then. Philadelphia has wonderful tourist sites, including Independence Hall, where the Constitution was signed, the Liberty Bell, nearby streets of Colonial buildings in the Historic District, the Ben. Franklin Museum, and many others. I am waiting to see if any candidate is fit enough to jog up the 72 steps to the Philadelphia Museum of Art in boxing gloves, like Rocky Balboa did. It could be a triumphant moment. Posted in 2016 Primaries, Politics | Leave a comment ## Trump Sweeps New York, and His Road to the Nomination Trump Sweeps New York and His Road to the Nomination Entrepreneur, Real Estate Mogul and TV Celebrity Donald Trump has swept his home and business state primary of New York. With his vote of 60%, he exceeded the 50% needed to convert the proportional primary to a winner-take-all primary in the 14 at-large delegates and in most of the districts, with 3 delegates each. He has been awarded 89 delegates of the 95 for the state of New York. 3 are still available. Gov. John Kasich, governor of Ohio, and tripping all over himself trying to pose as a New Yorker, received 25% of the vote and 3 delegates, according to the greenpapers.com . Senator Ted Cruz of Texas finally found out what New York values are: Not-Cruz. He received 14.7% of the vote and no delegates. It turns out that some districts had almost no Republican voters, such as Harlem. Yet they still got 3 delegates, unlike the Democratic allocations, which reflect the number of Democratic voters in the district. Yet another breach in fair representation. Since Trump got 60%, the winner-take-all of most of the delegates left only about 40% of the voters unrepresented by earned delegates. While Trump complains about losing a few delegates to Cruz in Colorado and Wyoming, where popular votes were not taken, Trump’s road to the nomination is from the gain in delegates from winner-take-all states. In Colorado, as I understand it, they could not hold a presidential preference primary, since the RNC rules were that they would be bound by that primary. As of April 25 update, Trump now has 847 soft delegates, Cruz still has 559, Kasich has 149, and Rubio has 173. To get the nomination, Trump needs 1237, leaving him to gain 390. There are still 380 winner-take-all delegates available on three dates. If he takes all of these, he only needs 10 more delegates. The winner-take-all primaries remaining are: (I made a type mistake on Maryland delegates, and miscorrected it. Should have it right now.) April 26: Total…..71 Maryland…………..38 Pennsylvania……..17, with 54 others uncommitted Delaware……………16 May 3: Total……57 Indiana……………….57 June 7: Total….252 California…………..172 New Jersey………….51 South Dakota………29 Even if Trump looses the winner-take-all states of Indiana and South Dakota, he is short by 57 + 29 = 86 plus the 10 he’d need from other states, or 96 delegates. 700 delegates are still available. Subtracting the 380 winner-take-all delegates left leaves 320, out of which Trump needs 96 in this scenario, or 96/320 = 30%. Very achievable for him. If he does not get the winner-take-all of California though, it will be very tough. ## The New York Democratic Primary Moves Clinton Forward New York Democratic Primary The New York Democratic primary on April 19, 2016, will yield 291 delegates, of which 247 are pledged. Here is the c of the delegates. 163 district delegates from 27 districts, for an average of 6.04 delegates per district, which are determined by a proportional split at each district. 54 at-large delegates and 30 pledged PLEOs, or Party Leaders and Elected Officials, which are pledged proportionately from the state-wide vote These add up to 247 pledged delegates. There are also 44 unpledged Superdelegates including Bill Clinton, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, Democratic Senators Kirstin Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, Governor Andrew Cuomo, 18 Democratic Representatives out of the states’ 27 districts, and 21 DNC members. It looks like New Yorkers prefer current New Yorkers by about 60% to 40%, regardless of party. The Democratic split is 57.95% for Clinton, to 42.05% for Sanders. That gives Clinton 139 pledged delegates, and Sanders 108 pledged delegates, making up the 247. This increased Clinton’s lead by 31 pledged delegates. Of the 44 Superdelegates, 39 endorsed Clinton, and 5 are available. 1.8 million people voted in the primary. The districts with 6 delegates split 3-3 until the difference equals 16.6%. With this large an overall split of 15%, some of the 6 delegate districts may pass the threshold to split delegates 4-2. Some 7 delegate districts may reach the 64.3% to 35.7% split to make a 4-3 split into a 5-2 split. She may also convert a district with 5 delegates from 3-2 to 4-1 if she reaches 70% in that district. The results are that 11 of the 6 delegate districts went 4-2, often with 2-1 vote ratios. One of those went 4-2 for Sanders. 7 of the 6 delegate districts went 3-3. All of the 5 delegate districts split 3-2, never 4-1. All of the 7 delegate districts went 4-3, never 5-2. Despite all of the district splitting mishegas (this is New York), the pledged delegate split ended up 56.28% to 43.72%, within about 2% of the actual vote split. The soft delegate split is now 1,924 for Clinton, and 1,245 for Sanders, including the unpledged delegates. There are 1,595 delegates available. 2,383 votes are needed for the nomination. Clinton is now only 461 votes short of the nomination. That is, she has 80.7% of the votes needed for the nomination. Sanders has only 52.2% of the votes needed for the nomination. Clinton only needs 29% of the remaining votes to clinch the nomination. As many have called for, it is time to start healing the party, and focusing on the Republican opposition. Posted in 2016 Primaries, Politics | Leave a comment ## Climate Denier Ted Cruz of Texas and Houston Record Flooding Previously I wrote about Republican Candidate Climate Deniers , and the danger that their properties (Trump) or States faced from climate change. I have to update this today with the record flooding in Houston, where Senator Ted Cruz of Texas lives. There was a record rainfall of 20 inches, as much as in a year. More than 1,000 homes have been flooded. Five people have died. There were calls for more than 1,500 flooding emergencies. At peak, 123,000 people were without power. Seven bayous had overflowed their banks, and two dams were at risk. 650 flights were canceled, and more than 1,100 delayed, according to NBC News. Schools were canceled. Can you blame an individual flood on global warming? No. But it is worth noting that the last six months have had record global temperatures for those months. Senator Ted Cruz was elected by the people of Texas to protect them from things such as floods and sea level rise. Wouldn’t the Conservative approach be to consider that 95% of climate scientists might be right about there being global warming, and that it is caused by fossil fuel burning? Wouldn’t the Conservative approach be to consider that their prediction of three feet of sea level rise by 2100, which would have serious effects on the Texas coast, might be right enough that it should be prevented or protected against? The Houston-Galveston flooding shows that these cities are not even protected from serious damage with the current record storms. There is a Texas commission to get scientists to create a plan to protect Houston, but over the two years it existed, it only met twice, and gave no funding to scientists. On proposed plan would cost$8 billion.  This reminds me of New York just funding a plan to study sea level rise and flooding, shortly before Sandy hit.

Centers to study and prevent storm damage were founded at Texas A&M and Rice University, but never funded.

Senator Cruz’s rub in is that he is on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.  He is also Chairman, Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness,  where he has tried to get NASA out of the business of launching and using satellites to monitor the earth and advance climate science.  He is also a member on the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and the Coast Guard.  These are great power subcommittees for him to oppose any action related to the study and effects of climate change.

Here is a quote for the Texas Tribune, dated April 11:  “Houston is the fourth-largest city in the country.  It’s home to the nation’s largest refining and petrochemical complex, where billions of gallons of oil and dangerous chemicals are stored  And it’s a sitting duck for the next big hurricane.”

By the way, these plans are under the authority of Texas’ elected Land Commisioner, George P. Bush, son of Jeb Bush, grandson of President George H. W. Bush, and nephew of President George W. Bush.

It turns out that when similar flooding occured in New York and New Jersey with hurricane Sandy in 2012, the second costliest hurricane in US history, Senator Cruz voted against aid to these states.  As I type this, I am waiting for the results of the New York primary.  Do you think they will remember this?  Actually, 36 Senate Republicans voted against the \$50.5 billion relief package, which did pass the Senate.  Texans are going to have to ask the Federal government for funds for a solution to their problem.

We show projected Sea Level Rise up to 2100 for all scenarios of CO2 increases by 2100.  The IPCC projection is about 3 feet by 2100.  A new analysis of the mechanics of West Antarctica ice sheet melting shows that that might be low by 2 to 3 feet.

The main point with global warming predictions, is that they have only slightly set in yet.  By the next 50 or 100 years, the strength of the most dangerous storms are predicted to increase in strength.

The increase in very heavy precipitation in the last 50 years has been 21% on the Gulf Coast, and 15% in the rest of Texas.

It turns out that there is quite a record of extreme rainfall event increases in the US.

## In a Democratic Primary, a Tiny Vote Difference Can Give a Several Percent Delegate Difference

Let’s give an illustration of this where say Clinton is ahead of Sanders in every district by just a smidgen. How do the rules amplify this split. The districts with an even number of delegates erase the difference in giving an even split, but the odd number of delegate districts lean to Clinton by one delegate, like 5 gets split 3 for Clinton and 2 for Sanders.

In the California Primary, of the 53 districts, there is one 4, 22 6s, and 3 8s, for a total of 26 even splits. The odd number districts are 17 5s, 9 7s, and one 9 for a total of 27 districts that will give Clinton a total of 27 extra delegates over Sanders, where no excess should really be deserved. Thus of the 317 district delegates, 145 would go to Sanders, and 172 would go to Clinton. The 158 other pledged delegates would split evenly if the vote difference was only a smidgen. So of the 475 pledged delegates, 224 would go to Sanders and 251 would go to Clinton. Of course if Sanders led Clinton everywhere by a smidgen, the numbers would be reversed. Of the 475 delegates, the lead by 27 is 27/475 = 5.7%.

A similar analysis of the New York Democratic primary’s 27 districts has for odd numbers of delegates: 4 5s and 5 7s.  For even numbers of delegates it has 18 6s.  This leaves an excess of only 9 delegates from districts with 5 or 7 delegates, which out of 247 pledged delegates gives an smaller excess of 9/247 = 3.6%, but still significant if there were no differences in the district votes.

In order to spend campaign time and money most effectively, it makes no sense to invest in districts with 6 delegates which will end up with 3-3 delegate splits, unless the vote split is greater than 16.6%, as shown in the previous article.

It makes a lot of sense in districts with an odd number of delegates to fight hard, since any lead in votes yields an extra delegate over your opponent.

Since the average number of delegates per district is 6, the Democratic Party was effective in taking districts with more Democrats and giving them 7 delegates, making them more sensitive deciders of a states winner.  However, the party erred by taking districts with fewer Democrats and giving them 5 delegates, since they are now as effective in picking the state leader as the districts with more delegates.  They could have given districts with medium and larger number of Democratic voters 5 and 7 delegates, respectively, and districts with a low number of Democrats 4 delegates.