tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9138684222900314613.post9052341876526994758..comments2023-11-02T12:28:34.767+00:00Comments on Green Fallacies: U.S. Presidential ElectionJack Eddyfierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00546379110958307956noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9138684222900314613.post-16366349421819794142017-05-13T10:33:33.146+00:002017-05-13T10:33:33.146+00:00This article is based on an early and incomplete v...This article is based on an early and incomplete vote count. The final tally was 65,853,516 for Hillary Clinton (which is less than 100k short of Obama's 2012 total) and 62,984,825 for Donald Trump – this suggests that Trump's ability to mobilize the racist vote was more important.<br /><br />And while there are certainly a lot of anti-environmental assholes on the American Right (as shown by the "rolling coal" phenomenon) I don't think Hillary lost because she was seen as anti-growth. It could be the case however that <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440274/hillary-clinton-says-she-supports-nuclear-energy" rel="nofollow">Hillary's turn against the anti-nuclear movement</a> could have scared the fossil fuel interests (led by Russia and the Koch brothers) into pulling out all the stops to ensure her defeat.George Cartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12170378024031141482noreply@blogger.com