Market politics

[wdolson]

I'd add one nuance.

Just like older white working class, black & Latino working class older folks are socially moderate. But that is not the same thing with younger AAs. They also support Bernie over Biden.

That is a bellwether for the future, but it is less important for 2020. Older African Americans are a very reliable voting block for the Democratic party. Like most young people, younger people of color turn out in fewer numbers than their parents and grandparents. States that make it easier to vote tend to have higher youth turnout rates than states that make it more difficult.

I came across this:
CIRCLE » 2018 Youth Turnout Increased in Every State for Which We Have Data

and this
CIRCLE » Final Analysis of State-by-State Youth Voter Turnout Shows Increases Across the Country

In 2018 Oregon, Washington, and Colorado were 100% vote by mail (Washington offers an in person voting option, but basically you go to your county voting office and fill out your mail in ballot there). Hawaii starts mail in voting in 2020. In 2018 the turnout in these states was high: OR-39%, CO-40%, WA-35% and there were few key races in any of these states. There was an outside chance to unseat two Republican congresswomen in Washington, but it was almost guaranteed that Oregon's delegation was going to remain the same mix. The one Republican is in a super safe seat and it was unlikely any Democrats were going to lose seats. Some states with big races like Florida and Georgia saw big youth turnout increases. Many of the states with low youth turnout are states where Republicans have made it more difficult to vote.

Until I saw those articles I didn't realize how much the youth turnout had increased in 2018, but I do recall reading stories about how the turnout in 2018 more matched presidential election years than midterm years. I wouldn't expect similar increases in the youth vote from 2016 to 2020 because a lot of the increase was in populations that didn't vote in 2014, but voted in the same numbers in 2016 and 2018.

In any case, the country is definitely poised to move to the left over the next 20 years. Possibly more than it did in the 1930s, but the Baby Boomers are still a significant voting block and the Silent Generation still has an impact. The Millennials now outnumber the Boomers, but Boomers are much more reliable voters so Boomers are still the most significant voting generation. That will change soon, but I would be very surprised if it happened in 2020.

 

[JRP3]

It is my intent to support the candidate that proffers the best reasoned solutions for climate change. I see that person in Michael Bloomberg.

The Green New Deal

Michael Bloomberg Versus the Green New Deal
"Michael Bloomberg is an unapologetic advocate of fracking and natural gas who has huge investments in fossil fuels"

 

[Jack6591]

Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas

 

[Jack6591]

Since I advocate renewable energy and sustainable transportation, I believe it is incumbent upon me to disclose my background.

I am an electrician. That said, my training, education, and experience is somewhat different than what many would consider typical.

I first spent over six years in the U.S. Navy’s “advanced electronics program”, during the late 1970s and earlier 80s. Later I would complete an IBEW construction electrician apprenticeship (inside wireman for my brethren). This led to my employment building a variety of electrical generation, powerhouses, peaker plants, and substations. Even later in my career, I came to work for an electrical utility and attended a forty-month “electrical mechanic training program.” In this capacity, I was responsible for the construction, installation, and maintenance of electrical generation, transmission, and distribution facilities.

During the twilight of my career, I took a position as a solar power/electrical inspector. I have attended every installation, design, and maintenance course offered by the IBEW, and I am U.L. Certified in Solar Power.

It is with great pride that I call myself a working man—blue collar. I am an electrician, but somewhat specialized.

I advocate renewable energy, because I have had a hands-on, front row seat to electrical generation in its many guises—coal-fired, natural gas, wind, and solar.

I hope more than anything, that I remain open minded and able to learn; grounded in the scientific method. Show me reasoned evidence, and I will re-evaluate my views.

My wife drives a BMW I3, my daughter and I drive Tesla Model 3s and our home is solar powered with a Powerwall as backup.

 

[JRP3]

So then I assume you agree that Bloomberg's support of NG and fracking is problematic, yes?

 

[Jack6591]

So then I assume you agree that Bloomberg's support of NG and fracking is problematic, yes?

I believe that natural gas was transitional—a bridge to full renewable energy. I’m convinced Michael Bloomberg sees it that way as well.


Plan for 100% Clean Power | Mike Bloomberg for President

 

[AudubonB]

The perfect being inimical - and, if one is not careful, deadly to - the good, I concur. ALL natural gas electric power stations should not be discarded, and market forces should be augmented to the extent necessary to encourage cleaner alternatives: wind, solar, 233Th LWBR and above all, battery storage. Already we have seen compelling evidence that at least wind/solar/battery are at present the least expensive even without taking into account anything like a full accounting of the economic externalities of (mostly CO2-derived, but there are many others) pollution.

This thread is not the right venue to take on a full discussion of 233Th, and I have not delved into any challenges of handling its spent materials handling, but esp. as I have brought it up will permit limited discussion of it here so long as the political aspect remains paramount to any such posts.

 

[bkp_duke]

Vis-a-vis a Thorium reactor, my preference would actually be a molten-salt traveling wave reactor (TWR):
A Bill Gates-backed energy company is developing what could be a game-changing nuclear reactor

Why? Because it can use a a fuel source all of the nuclear waste we have currently stockpiled. That's a huge 2 for 1.

It is also much further along in the commercial development process than Thorium reactors, which while they have been around since the early Oak Ridge days, have not had the same level of investment in the past 2 decades as this technology.

Good nuclear reactors (key word: good) are vital to reducing greenhouse gas levels and keeping them down. They are compact (unlike batteries), and are perfect for baseline electrical loads.

Too bad Trump's trade war with China caused the demonstration TWR power plant to be put on hold:
Bill Gates’ Nuclear Reactor Hits a Roadblock

I will happily embrace Thorium reactors, however, given their extremely safe design (by their inherent nature).

 

[JRP3]

Good nuclear reactors (key word: good) are vital to reducing greenhouse gas levels and keeping them down.

Maybe not. If they are too slow and too expensive to develop, which seems to be the case, they will have no impact. Take the billions we've invested in experimental nuclear, both fission and fusion, and we probably could have larger impact by installing wind, solar, and batteries.

 

[Jack6591]

My criticism of nuclear power is the choices that have been made for their locations. Diablo Canyon at Avila Beach and San Onofre in south Orange County were both built in close proximity to earthquake fault lines. Fukushima was built vulnerable to tsunamis.
The US Navy has a far greater nuclear safety record. Underwater transmission line technology is seasoned and mature. Why aren’t we building ships with hardened exteriors, and parking nuclear plants miles offshore with all appropriate safety measures designed from the keel up?

 

[wdolson]

Vis-a-vis a Thorium reactor, my preference would actually be a molten-salt traveling wave reactor (TWR):
A Bill Gates-backed energy company is developing what could be a game-changing nuclear reactor

Why? Because it can use a a fuel source all of the nuclear waste we have currently stockpiled. That's a huge 2 for 1.

It is also much further along in the commercial development process than Thorium reactors, which while they have been around since the early Oak Ridge days, have not had the same level of investment in the past 2 decades as this technology.

Good nuclear reactors (key word: good) are vital to reducing greenhouse gas levels and keeping them down. They are compact (unlike batteries), and are perfect for baseline electrical loads.

Too bad Trump's trade war with China caused the demonstration TWR power plant to be put on hold:
Bill Gates’ Nuclear Reactor Hits a Roadblock

I will happily embrace Thorium reactors, however, given their extremely safe design (by their inherent nature).

The biggest hurdles to nuclear power today are the NIMBY attitudes and the fact that almost all the installed base out there are ancient reactor designs (from the 50s). The waste pile up is a serious problem too and at minimum building a few reactors to consume the waste would be a very good idea. It kills two birds with one stone: deals with the old problem and generates electricity while its at it.

My criticism of nuclear power is the choices that have been made for their locations. Diablo Canyon at Avila Beach and San Onofre in south Orange County were both built in close proximity to earthquake fault lines. Fukushima was built vulnerable to tsunamis.
The US Navy has a far greater nuclear safety record. Underwater transmission line technology is seasoned and mature. Why aren’t we building ships with hardened exteriors, and parking nuclear plants miles offshore with all appropriate safety measures designed from the keel up?

Thing is we don't know the true safety record of the Navy because they could have covered up minor accidents by making them top secret. Additionally the Navy had to make compact reactors that would fit on a ship. This requires enriched fuel. To save cost, land based reactors copied the Navy's design. It never was the best reactor design for stationary power generation because it requires enriched fuel and is inherently more dangerous than most of the newer designs sitting on the shelf or in development.

At Fukoshima they were idiots and put the emergency generators in a basement that flooded. Many nuclear power plants put them, or at least a bank of them up on the cooling towers so they will run even if the plant gets inundated. That was a serious design flaw.

My parents lived in Morro Bay, near Diablo Canyon and I went to school at Cal Poly, also in the area. Their next door neighbor when they moved there had been an engineer at Diablo Canyon. Because of all the lawsuits the plant was reinforced for increased safety several times during its construction. It's probably one of the most stout nuclear plants in the world at this point.

I don't think we should rush willy nilly into any new nuclear projects, but reactors that can burn up the piled up waste are almost a necessity at this point.

There was a Physics professor at, I believe Cambridge, who did a TED talk as well as some longer lectures about the feasibility of renewable energy around the world. His primary focus was on the UK, but he looked at other places too. The drawback to all renewable energy sources is that all of them have a low energy density per acre. He ran the numbers and he made a case that offshore wind might help the UK, there was not enough sunlight and because wind turbines need to be spaced so they don't interfere with each other's access to the wind, there is a limit to how many wind turbines they can build. Even with battery storage, going fully renewable in the UK was going to be very difficult.

He also had some analysis of other parts of the world. Places with low population densities like the US Southwest and North Africa could have massive solar farms that generate electricity for larger areas. North Africa could export electricity to Europe, but transmission losses become a factor. The same would be true for the US Southwest.

People who live in detached single family homes could put solar on their roof and batteries on the ground and this could meet most of their needs, but by world standards, only the richest live that way. In places where people live in high rises, there is a lot of electricity demand with little solar exposure to take advantage of.

He concluded that safer nuclear power (based on modern reactor designs) was necessary to supplement renewables. I forget his name right now and I need to run to an appointment. I'll try to remember to look it up when I get back. I know he died of cancer about 1-2 years ago.

 

[Paracelsus]

My criticism of nuclear power is the choices that have been made for their locations. Diablo Canyon at Avila Beach and San Onofre in south Orange County were both built in close proximity to earthquake fault lines. Fukushima was built vulnerable to tsunamis.
The US Navy has a far greater nuclear safety record. Underwater transmission line technology is seasoned and mature. Why aren’t we building ships with hardened exteriors, and parking nuclear plants miles offshore with all appropriate safety measures designed from the keel up?

I was a Navy Nuclear Reactor Operator in Desert Storm. I would speculate that you could cover an entire county or two with solar panels and add some Tesla battery storage for the cost of a Navy-grade nuclear project on a ship at sea.

 

[Paracelsus]

"This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism." – Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. August 28, 1963

 

[Bobfitz1]

Looks like she might pick Castro. See how quickly he endorsed her after dropping off and he has become her most high profile surrogate.

If Warren won the nomination she might pick Castro, but how would that help her beat Trump?
She might be better off picking Amy Klobuchar who could campaign effectively in the states that will be key to reaching 270 votes in the Electoral college. Ten million more women than men voted in 2016. A ticket with two women would likely supercharge womens turnout in all states.

"As the Democratic primaries rapidly approach, Castro struggles to pull in national Latino voter support. A poll released this week by Telemundo Noticias showed Castro in a three-way tie for fourth place among Latino voters, with only 2% support. Former Vice President Joe Biden (26%) and Sanders (18%) led the candidates among those voters."

Election 2020: Candidate Julian Castro lacks Latino voter support

 

[EVNow]

If Warren won the nomination she might pick Castro, but how would that help her beat Trump?
She might be better off picking Amy Klobuchar who could campaign effectively in the states that will be key to reaching 270 votes in the Electoral college. Ten million more women than men voted in 2016. A ticket with two women would likely supercharge womens turnout in all states.

"As the Democratic primaries rapidly approach, Castro struggles to pull in national Latino voter support. A poll released this week by Telemundo Noticias showed Castro in a three-way tie for fourth place among Latino voters, with only 2% support. Former Vice President Joe Biden (26%) and Sanders (18%) led the candidates among those voters."

Election 2020: Candidate Julian Castro lacks Latino voter support

President and VP works differently. The expectation is balance.

Amy is terrible- who wants a boss who throws things at employees.

AZ and TX in play would be a game changer.

 

[wdolson]

Andrew Yang was on Bill Maher last Friday (along with Nancy Pelosi). He pointed out that a big presidential win is where the loser gets into the low 40s of the popular vote. I looked it up, there have only been 4 presidential elections where the winner broke 60% of the popular vote: 1920 (biggest margin 26.17%, but Harding got 60.32%), 1936, 1964, and 1972. Ronald Reagan got over 90% of the EV twice, but never got more than 58.77% of the vote. He got 90.89% of the EV in 1980 with 50.75% of the popular vote.

In this environment it's unlikely that a Democrat is going to be able to run the board like Roosevelt, Nixon, Johnson, or Reagan, but a 55/45 win could be a pretty decisive EV college victory. If a number of formerly safe Republicans states are even in play this time around that will make it much harder for the Republicans. They will have to poor in resources just to hold onto states they didn't have to work for in the past. And that's resources they aren't spending defending Congressional seats or going after the normal battleground states.

 

[Jack6591]

Greta Thunberg calls on world leaders to listen to young activists

To overcome climate change we must fight with technology, with political action, and with judicial action. We must envision a healing planet and believe we can leave a healthy future. In human dna is the base drive to protect our children — it is our common thread. Like petrichor after a drought, a healing planet will be a welcoming scent.

JB Leonard

 

[Ggusev]

Yeah, there was no KGB in 2001

sorry for OT but this is worth telling:
Soviet union did collapse, but KGB was too big to disappear that easy.

Late 90s was fairly brutal time in large cities, every day one or two fancy cars would be blown up with explosives, in Moscow many young men were shot dead (most explosions and killings were members of organized crime killing each other in large numbers).

then old drunkard Yeltsin suddenly resigns right before 1999 ends and new president popped out of nowhere.
and guess what - just within two years - all these violent young men in black leather jackets just - puff! - disappeared with their black BMWs. Shootings almost stopped, street crime was almost gone too.

Everyone was so happy the new cool president did something that stopped the violence.
But despite criminals were forced out of very profitable niche but extortions and milking of businesses did not stop. Only difference was that instead of organized crime the collections were going to feed new mafia: calm, well-dressed and very polite folks you know as 'siloviki'

the beast what former KGB had mutated into is ruling the country for 2 decades now.

 

[JRP3]

I also hope SpaceX is going to roll out the red carpet for Pence or Trump, for the Falcon 9 Crew Dragon NASA astronaut launch to the ISS this ~April, which I'm sure will feature prominently in Trump's re-election campaign

JOE KERNEN: Tesla’s now worth more than GM and Ford. Do you have comments on Elon Musk?

DONALD TRUMP: Well-- you have to give him credit. I spoke to him very recently, and he’s also doing the rockets. He likes rockets. And-- he does good at rockets too, by the way. I never saw where the engines come down with no wings, no anything, and they’re landing. I said I’ve never seen that before. And I was worried about him, because he’s one of our great geniuses, and we have to protect our genius. You know, we have to protect Thomas Edison and we have to protect all of these people that-- came up with originally the light bulb and-- the wheel and all of these things. And he’s one of our very smart people and we want to-- we want to cherish those people. That’s very important. But he’s done a very good job. Shocking how well-- you know, how it’s come so fast. I mean you go back a year and they were talking about the end of the company. And now all of a sudden they’re talking about these great things. He’s going to be building a very big plant in the United States. He has to, because we help him, so he has to help us.

The above ramblings should provide plenty of evidence why I hope SpaceX keeps as far away from the administration as possible. No need to taint a great accomplishment.

 

[bkp_duke]

The above ramblings should provide plenty of evidence why I hope SpaceX keeps as far away from the administration as possible. No need to taint a great accomplishment.

Amazing that when someone else expresses their opinions they are "ramblings", but your words we are supposed to take on a higher level?

This hyper-partisanship is simply amazing to watch, both here and in the mainstream media.

I notice how no one on the left wants to talk about the completely legal, and peaceful gun rights rally that happened in Virginia this week. 20,000+ law-abiding citizens descended on Richmond carrying their arms and demanding that the government not infringe upon their 2nd amendment rights, and not a single incident (one law abiding citizen was arrested for refusing to remove her ski mask - it was cold - but pictures show that the police on site were wearing the same masks). So much for law-abiding citizens carrying their arms being the underlying problem that the left claims they are in regards to mass shootings.

Simply amazing how the mainstream media gave it almost no coverage. Obvious bias at work.