Impact on race if Pope Francis wins the Nobel Peace Prize (today)

[eric82oslo]

According to media reports as well as polling from several bookmakers, Pope Francis who just paid the US and Cuba state visits (and was the main architect behind the Cuba-USA softening), is the odds on favourite to be awarded this year's Nobel Peace Prize which is to be announced in less than six hours from now. The list of accomplishments since Francis took office that are at least somewhat peace related are at least ten-fold, including calling for a worldwide ban on atomic weapons and the death penalty, being a leading voice on efforts to address climate change, on the world's poor and poverty in general and showing prisoners some basic humanity (like Jesus did), taking a vital role on tackling the unprecendented refugee crisis in the world not seen since the end of World War 2, and medling in several conflicts, of which the Israel/Palestine one and the US/Cuba one are probably the two most important. All this as well as arguing for the Catholic Church to take a new approach to LGBTIQ issues.

Now with all this having been said, it is an unusually strong year when it comes to everything peace (and war) related. The number of nominated candidates is once again, I believe, record breaking, as it stands at more than 270. And out of those, so many are very clearly award worthy. Angela Merkel is another candidate with one of the strongest chances of becoming the next laureate, as she has been crucial to at least three mayor world developments during the past 12-18 months, the most important of course being her taking the role as the foremost world leader in welcoming refugees to her country. In fact she said that Germany would accept up to one million refugees in the first year alone (out of which of course not all will have the ultimate right to keep staying in the country), thus accepting even more refugees than Pope Francis allowed to live in the Vatican State (which was 2 families, which is quite a percentage considering only 800 people, of which pretty much all clergical, live there at present lol). The other two issues being her peace meddling between Ukraine and Russia, plus her ultimate acceptance in order to keep Greece within the euro and thus avoid a catasthropic economic collapse in the country which subsequently could have produced another "refugee crisis" (fleeing of the country).

The way I see it, there have been 5 mayor conflicts and/or peace deals during the past 18 months, namely: Syria-Iraq, Ukraine-Russia, Cuba-USA, Iran-US-rest of the world, plus the internal 50+ year old conflict having replaced millions of people in Colombia slowly coming to an end. In addition to all of this, we have of course "as usual" eternal conflicts/nominees like Kongo (the doctor stiching the sexually abused women together), the stateless people of Burma/Myanmar (the rohingyas) and equally stateless Palestinians in countries like Israel, Lebanon and Iraq, the democratization of Tunisia (the only thing still remaining of the Arab spring its said), the grave overhanging consequences of climate change, plus grave human rights violations in countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia and the peace advocates that are trying to work against these regimes, including a Russian news paper founded by former laureate Michail Gorbachev, Novaja Gazeta. And all of this is just the top of the ice berg of great lawyers of peace that have been nominated this year. I forgot to mention the Eritrean conflict by the way, said to be one of the most cruel dictatorships in the world currently and creating tens of thousands of refugees. A 50 year old Catholic priest from Eritrea living in Italy has been nominated for his mind-boggingly outstanding work for Eritrean and other Mediterranean refugees (Google/read a news paper article or two if you don't believe me).

Anyways, rant finished. My basic question is simply: How will it affect the 2016 presidential cycle if, and only if, the odds on favourite, Pope Francis, wins the prize in a few small hours? Don't forget that last year's odds on favourite, Malala Yousafsai, did go ahead and actually win the prize, so it's not that it's all that unlikely after all. This question is especially interesting because several of the candidates (or potential ones) this year are in fact Catholic themselves, including Jeb Bush, Joe Biden and Rick Santorum. I probably forgot a couple. Plus I believe Marco Rubio used to be Catholic but then changed his affiliation to become and evangelist or something. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I can't quite remember. In any case, whether the candidate is Catholic or not, I believe that such an award could at least have some impact on the race, if only for a short period of time. At the very least most candidates will be asked what they thought about the prize and if the new Argentinian Pope was the right winner. He would be the first person from Latin America in 23 years to win it if that was the case, quite an achievement. So what do you all think the impact will be, if any?

[Blue3]

I thought Merkel was the favorite to win in?

[eric82oslo]

I thought Merkel was the favorite to win in?

Yeah, you're right now actually. When I looked at the odds last night, there was basically a four fold tie between Francis, Merkel, Denis Mukwege (Kongolese doctor) and Mussie Zerai (Eritrean Catholic priest), but since then Merkel's odds have been more than halved from about 10 to now between 2 and 4. At the same time Pope Francis' odds have stayed the same or perhaps have become slightly longer. Such a sharp shift in a few hours' time could indicate that rumours have spread from inside the headquarter, from someone who knows the answer. It would be far from the first time a rumour would have been leaked the night before, although it's become less common during the last couple of years.

[cinyc]

None.  Nobody in the U.S. cares who wins the Nobel Peace Prize, especially after it has been given to terrorists like Yasser Arafat and unfit politicians who had done nothing until that point to deserve it, like Barack Obama.  The prize has no real meaning.

[Mr. Reactionary]

None.  Nobody in the U.S. cares who wins the Nobel Peace Prize, especially after it has been given to terrorists like Yasser Arafat and unfit politicians who had done nothing until that point to deserve it, like Barack Obama.  The prize has no real meaning.

[eric82oslo]

We were all wrong, that much I can say. The eventual winner weren't even on the betting lists to begin with, if I'm not mistaken. It was one of the main favourites last year though, the Tunisian civil society, the only structure still remaining from the Arab Spring. Now, making comments like islam not being compatible with democracy, which several GOP candidates have hinted on is their actual opinion, including Carson, Trump (and more?), is of course an even harder stance to justify now. It's hard to say which GOP candidate exactly that comes out stronger from this prize though? Any ideas? Probably those who want more international cooperation, including more closely knit international trade deals and other agreements between countries and regions. Yet who are those candidates? I have no idea honestly, maybe Kasich? Maybe Bush, Rubio, Christie, Pataki? I guess we're all pretty clueless on this. It's certainly a blow to hardliners whose only concern is to protect the American worker, such as Santorum and Trump I guess, maybe Huckabee too? Some serious thinkers have suggested today that this prize should lead to Tunisia becoming some sort of half baked member of the EU, a so called EFTA member, which means an economic, yet not political, member of the EU. Such an agreement that Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein currently have with the EU countries. We will see.

[cinyc]

I dare you to go to the U.S. edition of any cable news website to see how little the U.S. cares about who won the Nobel Peace Prize.  The story is buried at the bottom of the website, if it is featured at all.   Even the New York Times relegates it to the side, not front and center.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I didn't read, but none.

[Sumner 1868]

it has been given to terrorists like Yasser Arafat

He was more worthy of it than Kissinger.

[eric82oslo]

it has been given to terrorists like Yasser Arafat

He was more worthy of it than Kissinger.

Absolutely. Actually I think this is one of the wisest peace prizes ever awarded by the committee in recent memory, but that simultaneously, unfortunately, will go down, very mistakenly so, as one of the most boring. This is the only way to confront ISIS and other extremist groups, for f--k's sake, and as of such might be the most brilliant award given away by the committee for quite a few decades (and extremely far above Saint Mother Theresa [Wangari Mathai of Kenya was only slightly more senseless], who certainly is among the 10 modern winners least deserving of the prize, despite everyone claiming that she is the most deserving lol). This award could actually potentially change the path of history. Not too often you utter those words. Though again, caution, as it's far too early to know anything for sure. (And the path of history might actually end up in the hands of Donald Trump, how scary as it ever sounds. In that case, of course, the point of this prize would probably be 80-90% senseless as he would use every chance he got to undermine it and democracy in the Middle East in general. After all he's a hater who only knows one thing, namely to hate, hate, hate.)

[Kingpoleon]

Don't think it helps Blaxicans or Eurasians much at all.

[Classic Conservative]

None.  Nobody in the U.S. cares who wins the Nobel Peace Prize, especially after it has been given to terrorists like Yasser Arafat and unfit politicians who had done nothing until that point to deserve it, like Barack Obama.  The prize has no real meaning.