Obviously! But they mostly don't. Check this out:
New Hampshire scientists call on "all candidates" to "acknowledge" cliamte change
In 2008, one of the little acknowledged political subtexts was how significantly global warming played in the Republican primary process. Both independently and as part of organizational efforts, individuals asked questions at events (and on street corners) and many events has signs about voters' concerns over the need for climate change action. John McCain stood alone in discussing climate change forthrightly. In terms of impact, John McCain might just have won in New Hampshire (setting him on the path for the nomination) due to statements like these:
More like this
I wrote about what I thought might happen in the New Hampshire primary a few days ago, but enough new stuff has happened to make it worth revisiting.
What is wrong with the teachers in New Hampshire? They just endorsed Clinton for the Democratic candidate, and Huckabee for the Republicans.
Kate's parents live on the New Hampshire side of Boston, and we're down visiting for the weekend. This morning, I went downstairs with the tablet to do my morning blogroll in front of the tv while Kate slept in.
There are special elections all the time, mostly at the state level. The news is full of the Moore vs. Strange race, which isn't just strange because Strange is in it. You all know about that.
Barrigon@1:
Not necessarily a bad idea. Removing climate denialists from the body politic should solve a myriad of other social issues.
Is it common for people like poster number 1 to assume issues they have no hope of understanding must be nepharious plots to destroy freedom?
@dean: yes, depressingly so.