Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Flying Dice]

Perhaps then we should do what propnents of nuclear suggest and use it to generate baseload capacity with more flexible sources being used in peak hours, like solar or biomass or even oil until it runs out.

But we have baseload capacity out the wazzoo.  American energy needs are leveling off in recent years.  Yes we are going to retire some of that capacity and will need new capacity to meet peak demand.  But we should be meeting that peak demand with wind and solar that works best in those peak hours.

Maybe two decades down the line wind and solar will be a large enough part of our energy portfolio that we need to be worried about baseload capacity and then we start building nuclear for our needs three decades from today.  But over reliance on green energy sources isn't remotely a problem yet.

However most of our baseload capacity comes from fossil fuels, which we all agree is a terrible long term plan. Why don't we begin replacing oil/gas power stations with nuclear stations so we don't get fucked as oil becomes increasingly scarce and eventually vanishes altogether.

EDIT: In addition weaning ourselves (or yourselves, as I'm Canadian) off oil will reduce the need to invade Middle Eastern countries over imaginary weapons.

The last thing the oil companies want is instability in areas which produce large amounts of oil. Like, say, a pair of U.S.-lead wars in the Middle East. If we're going to throw around blame for Iraq, we could at least do it properly and go after the neocons and the Israel lobby.

[Osmosis Jones]

Have some funny linkage!

Presidential candidates getting sued over FB use!

[FearfulJesuit]

The LA Times is reporting on the exit polls: a full 10% of voters admitted to being evil liberal Democrats, which is probably less than the actual number who are- probably lots didn't admit it. Indeed, they might turn the race in Santorum's favor; right now the LA Times is reporting only 6.4% of precincts reporting, but Romney and Santorum are neck-and-neck. Is Michigan going to send delegates proportionally like it's supposed to, or pull a Florida?

[Aqizzar]

With 30% of the vote in for Michigan, Romney is leading Santorum by about ten thousand votes out of about three hundred thousand total.  So, pretty close so far.  And rural areas always take longer to come in.

Now 60% of the vote counted, Romney's lead over Santorum continues to widen.  Looks like Rick missed the chance to strike while the iron was hot, unless some twenty five thousand votes for him suddenly spring from the Upper Peninsula.

[mainiac]

The LA Times is reporting on the exit polls: a full 10% of voters admitted to being evil liberal Democrats, which is probably less than the actual number who are- probably lots didn't admit it. Indeed, they might turn the race in Santorum's favor; right now the LA Times is reporting only 6.4% of precincts reporting, but Romney and Santorum are neck-and-neck. Is Michigan going to send delegates proportionally like it's supposed to, or pull a Florida?

That article says only 50% of the democrats voted for Santorum in their exit polling.  So that's only a 5% operation hilarity voter block and the other 5% are just registered democrats who liked one of the republicans.  Still if this thing is right down to the wire, that block could swing it.

[Aqizzar]

Fox News exit poling is equally interesting.  Maybe the number I find most intriguing: a whopping 20% of the electorate was under the age of 40, and 60% were over 50.

You hear a lot of wonks talk about "Reagan Democrats" as a significant voting block.  How many of them actually exist is an open question (since most of them are probably just Republicans now), but the fact is that anyone who could have voted for Reagan would today be at least 50/46 years old (1980/1984).  Of course, someone who was 20ish in the 1980s probably wasn't a "Reagan Democrat" then anyway.

Other than that, the rest of the questions break down in much the ways one would expect, including Support/Opposition to the Tea Party.  Of those who said they Strongly Oppose the Tea Party, a whole 12% of respondents, about half voted for Santorum.  Those are your Democratic "chaos voters" who were willing to identify themselves.  Since other than that, not a huge about of Tea Party difference.

Also, NBC is now willing to call Michigan for Romney.  Santorum is halfway through his [ _____ ] speech, since he doesn't actually know if he won or lost let but he isn't going to let that stop him from throwing some haymakers at Obama while the cameras are still running.

[RedKing]

Back from a fresh hockey victory, only to find...dammit, Santorum! You had Romney on the ropes and you let 'im get away from you! Bad crazy theocrat! Bad! No Jesus for you!

So, umm....yeah. Looks like a clean sweep for Romney, though pretty much as I predicted early in the day: Arizona was a given but it's penalized half its delegates and doesn't amount to much. Michigan will be roughly a split decision. Romney still has a big lead in delegates, but Santorum now moves into the #2 spot in the delegate race. Gingrich is actually doing worse than his polling numbers (7% in Michigan, 16% in Arizona). Ron Paul placed at 12% in Michigan, which is right about in the median of where various polls had him.

Be interesting to see how the media narrative shakes out tomorrow. Does Romney get credit for taking 40%+ in his home state, or does it count as an "underperform" that he only won by 4%? Santorum will certainly be saying that given his far lower ad expenditures, it shows that he can take on the big boys and that Romney only won by throwing money at the race (which is less money he has to throw at Obama).

[Aqizzar]

Be interesting to see how the media narrative shakes out tomorrow. Does Romney get credit for taking 40%+ in his home state, or does it count as an "underperform" that he only won by 4%? Santorum will certainly be saying that given his far lower ad expenditures, it shows that he can take on the big boys and that Romney only won by throwing money at the race (which is less money he has to throw at Obama).

Santorum will try to milk it for all its worth, yes.  Romney with all his money, all his time, all his name recognition, and a four year head start, won Michigan by a smaller margin than he did in 2008 (when he beat McCain by 9%, versus today's 4%).  And he didn't win the nomination in 2008 either.  Like Florida, Romney is winning, but nowhere near as well or as easily as everyone in the world expected right up until January 2nd.  Santorum, Gingrich, and a good chunk of the Republican party are hoping the rest of the party stops believing he's "inevitable" before it becomes genuinely true, and they're going to point to results like this for the reason why, to be sure.

[RedKing]

Definitely sets up an interesting Super Tuesday. Especially given the dearth of polling data (which I expect will be fixed toot sweet over the next week) in most of the states involved. Last I remember, Santorum was crushing in Ohio, Gingrich was hanging on for dear life in Georgia, and Ron Paul was doubling down in North Dakota (with no poll data yet).

[mainiac]

Still he is going to be spinning a loss rather then milking a victory.  At least limping to victory in Michigan let's Romney attract new fundraising which he desperately needs.  Santorum on the other hand needs to keep people from concluding that Romney is inevitably going to squeak by and lining up behind him to bring this ugly spectacle to an end.

[Criptfeind]

and Ron Paul was doubling down in North Dakota (with no poll data yet).

How is this a good idea? I mean, no offense to North Dakotans, but even if everyone one of them was a delegate that is still only seven delegates. Why is he 'doubling down' there?

[RedKing]

and Ron Paul was doubling down in North Dakota (with no poll data yet).

How is this a good idea? I mean, no offense to North Dakotans, but even if everyone one of them was a delegate that is still only seven delegates. Why is he 'doubling down' there?

Old rule of asymmetric warfare: Hit 'em where they ain't. Nobody else is spending any real time or money in North Dakota. Winning one state (even if it is Outer Fargostan) would be a new level of achivement for Ron Paul, something he can tell his great-grandchildren about. (Seriously...dude's old enough that he has four great-grandchildren.)

[mainiac]

I move that we officially change the name of North Dakota to Fargostan.  South Dakota should be South Fargostan.

[RedKing]

I move that we officially change the name of North Dakota to Fargostan.  South Dakota should be South Fargostan.

No, I prefer Inner and Outer Fargostan. Evokes more of a sense of desolate steppe wastes....which is more or less an apt description of the Dakotas.

Note: I feel thoroughly entitled to pick on the Dakotas, as I have family there and spent a fair bit of time as a kid visiting. It's flat, it's mostly empty, it's f**king freezing in the winter and scorching in the summer. To wit, it's America's Mongolia.

[Sirus]

Does it have hordes of horse-riding barbarians? Because that would be awesome.