McCain is blowing his election chances.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

since I took two weeks off and then returned.

Your reputation cannot be whitewashed in a mere two weeks. Inconvenient, that.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

woiyo wrote:

I would agree that McCain and his campaign has been "uneven" to date.

Yet, I find it amazing he is as close as he is.

To me that says more about Obama inability to gather support except from the hard core democrat.

Yep... he's black all right. Consider that in the last 3 decades; only one Candidate won by a safe enough margin that he could afford to have 5% of the voting public go to the other side over something like race. Really. So, if 1 voter in 20 fits this profile; that is basically the difference between a dead heat and a landslide. I, for one, will be canceling a bigot's vote.

Take note at how often a relatively narrow Popular lead results in dominant Electoral performance!

2004 Popular: Bush 51.2% Kerry 48.3% Electoral: Electoral: 286-251
2000 Popular: Bush 47.9% Gore 48.4% Electoral: 271-266
1996 Popular: Clinton 49.24% Dole 40.71% Electoral: 379-159 (less than 10%)
1992 Popular: Clinton 43.0% Bush 37.4% Perot 18.9% Electoral: 370-168 (less than 6%)
1988 Popular: Bush 53.4% Dukakis 45.6% Electoral: 426-111 (less than 8%)
1984 Popular: Reagan 58.8% Mondale 40.6% Electoral: 525-13
1980 Popular: Reagan 50.7% Carter 41.0% Electoral: 489-49 (less than 10%)
1976 Popular: Carter 50.1% Ford 48.0% Electoral: 297-240

please note that woiyo makes NO mention of race.... and then O'Bill's first sentence is ..... yup... he's black all right.... a clear indicator that his blackness is the reason that he's not garnering more support.

Then eat me.

It's an economy which is not based upon oil, but upon domestic energy production from renewable sources. We achieve that by spending the money to make it happen, instead of frittering it away on wars over oil.

Cycloptichorn

I don't care about my reputation

Quote:

It's an economy which is not based upon oil, but upon domestic energy production from renewable sources. We achieve that by spending the money to make it happen, instead of frittering it away on wars over oil.

Cycloptichorn

Not based on oil?
So you are going to ground all jet aircraft, stopping all commercial air traffic?
You are going to stop making plastics, because they are a petroleum product

And exactly what are those renewable sources?
Wind?
Solar?
Nuclear?
hydroelectric?

Lets start with wind.
How and where are you going to build wind farms large enough to power a city the size of LA?

Solar?
OK, that might work, IF someone wants to go to the expense of adding solar panels to their house.
Is Obama going to force people to do that?

Nuclear?
I support that, but where are you going to build the new plants required?
What are you going to do with the waste?

Hydroelectric?
OK, but where are you going to build the new dams?
How are you going to deal with the environmental wacko's that would oppose it?

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:

between Obama's plan to provide tax rebates to American families while creating a renewable energy economy in America that frees us from our dependence on foreign oil, and Senator McCain's plan to continue the same failed energy policies by handing out nearly $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies while investing almost nothing in the new energy sources that represent our future."

This is a steaming load of BS. Promise them cake and feed them pig **** seems to be the message of the day from the Obama camp. There is no way that he could ever live up to that crap.

Nice assertion, but the fact is that these are the plans which have been presented.

Cycloptichorn

With no details of how to carry them out or idea how to even begin. At least McCain deals in the present with an eye on the future. Solving today's problems before worrying about tomorrows. Obama is an idealist, McCain a realist. Obama's plan as stated here is doomed for failure.

Also, this constant whir in the background about "the same failed energy policies"... exactly what failed energy policies are they referring to?

The policies which have led to our current energy crisis, obviously. The Bush-McCain policies. The ones where renewable energy gets almost no money spent on it, while big oil gets big tax breaks and investments.

I would point out that McCain's economic plans have no relation whatsoever to McCain's claims of what his economic plan does; it's another message control problem.

Cycloptichorn

BPB said...

Quote:

I don't care about my reputation

You should, because without that your nothing.

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

It's an economy which is not based upon oil, but upon domestic energy production from renewable sources. We achieve that by spending the money to make it happen, instead of frittering it away on wars over oil.

Cycloptichorn

Not based on oil?
So you are going to ground all jet aircraft, stopping all commercial air traffic?
You are going to stop making plastics, because they are a petroleum product

And exactly what are those renewable sources?
Wind?
Solar?
Nuclear?
hydroelectric?

Yes, plus geothermal.

But geothermal wont work in all areas.

Quote:

Lets start with wind.
How and where are you going to build wind farms large enough to power a city the size of LA?

Outside of the city; and you build them one turbine at a time. It doesn't have to completely replace other power sources overnight, just over time.

How much time?
It would seem to me that to build enough turbines to really make a difference will take generations.

Quote:

Solar?
OK, that might work, IF someone wants to go to the expense of adding solar panels to their house.
Is Obama going to force people to do that?

You don't have to force people to do it, it's a money-saving proposition. It SAVES CONSUMERS MONEY. How hard is that to understand? People buy homes on a 30-year mortgage, install solar as part of the new house and price it in to the mortgage; it pays itself off within a decade.

Thats fine for new construction, but what about existing homes?

And what about businesses? They have tons of roof space available and will most definitely install greater amounts of solar as the prices drop, which they are currently doing.

Having a tax credit also helps spur adoption, and it's something we've done in the past many times.

Quote:

Nuclear?
I support that, but where are you going to build the new plants required?
What are you going to do with the waste?

Outside of cities; in deserts; anywhere where it is unlikely a large city will pop up. We are going to figure out a way to store the waste safely.

And how long will it take to figure that out?
And what do you do with the waste in the meantime?

Quote:

Hydroelectric?
OK, but where are you going to build the new dams?
How are you going to deal with the environmental wacko's that would oppose it?

You don't have to have new dams to have hydro, Tidal power is getting to be a big thing...

But tidal power wont do much good for someone living in Kansas or Nebraska, or any of the central plains states.
What kind of hydroelectric power do you plan for them?

As for the 'environmental wackos?' We'll deal with them the same way as we put up the wind facilities - one at a time. I think that when the fact that any of these facilities are much safer then Coal plants is better known, you will see almost no resistance to any of it.

Cycloptichorn

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

woiyo wrote:

I would agree that McCain and his campaign has been "uneven" to date.

Yet, I find it amazing he is as close as he is.

To me that says more about Obama inability to gather support except from the hard core democrat.

Yep... he's black all right. Consider that in the last 3 decades; only one Candidate won by a safe enough margin that he could afford to have 5% of the voting public go to the other side over something like race. Really. So, if 1 voter in 20 fits this profile; that is basically the difference between a dead heat and a landslide. I, for one, will be canceling a bigot's vote.

Take note at how often a relatively narrow Popular lead results in dominant Electoral performance!

2004 Popular: Bush 51.2% Kerry 48.3% Electoral: Electoral: 286-251
2000 Popular: Bush 47.9% Gore 48.4% Electoral: 271-266
1996 Popular: Clinton 49.24% Dole 40.71% Electoral: 379-159 (less than 10%)
1992 Popular: Clinton 43.0% Bush 37.4% Perot 18.9% Electoral: 370-168 (less than 6%)
1988 Popular: Bush 53.4% Dukakis 45.6% Electoral: 426-111 (less than 8%)
1984 Popular: Reagan 58.8% Mondale 40.6% Electoral: 525-13
1980 Popular: Reagan 50.7% Carter 41.0% Electoral: 489-49 (less than 10%)
1976 Popular: Carter 50.1% Ford 48.0% Electoral: 297-240

please note that woiyo makes NO mention of race.... and then O'Bill's first sentence is ..... yup... he's black all right.... a clear indicator that his blackness is the reason that he's not garnering more support.

Then eat me.

Yes... I think race is taking a heavy toll on Obama's numbers. No; I never said anyone not voting for him is refusing to out of racism. You're not really that stupid, so why act like you are?

If 1 in 20 are backing McCain over Obama because of race (and I HAVE NOT SUGGESTED THIS IS THE CASE), that would negate an additional 10 points in the spread between them... enough to predict a massive landslide not seen since Reagan. If only 2% (1 in 50) of the voters are switching sides, based on race (a percentage I'd wager is low), that would be enough to swing the elections of 1976, 2000, and 2004. The point, and fair answer to Woiyo's statement, is that race is likely a VERY important factor in determining why Obama hasn't yet put more distance between himself and McCain in the polls. More specifically; the point demonstrates that a relatively small change in Popular Vote (for whatever reason), historically, has been VERY significant insofar as affecting the outcome. I'd wager most 4 year olds would understand this without too much difficulty.

As for pre-existing houses, offering a tax credit is a great way to spur investment. And even without a tax credit, an investment of 30-40k will get one 90% off of the electric grid and pay itself off within a decade, after which you enjoy super-cheap energy and independence for a lifetime.

then why say your vote is canceling out a bigot's vote? If what you say is true.... then your vote could be canceling out (although that's merely an expression) any number of people who are voting against Obama.... and by your own words... only 1 in 20 of those are potentially bigots. I should think that's understandable to all but the purposely obtuse.

Just saw this -- yikes. During the latest campaign shakeup, a lot of Rove people joined the McCain campaign and there was speculation about what that would mean. I don't know if this is about the Rove people or what, but it's very much the sort of muddled, weird Obama-bashing McGentrix is talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg

Comparing Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears? OK...

Obama response:

Quote:

Quote:

As for pre-existing houses, offering a tax credit is a great way to spur investment. And even without a tax credit, an investment of 30-40k will get one 90% off of the electric grid and pay itself off within a decade, after which you enjoy super-cheap energy and independence for a lifetime.

You and others have complained about people losing their homes, jobs, insurance, etc.
Now you want them to spend 30-40k more on solar power?
How do you propose they do that?

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

then why say your vote is canceling out a bigot's vote? If what you say is true.... then your vote could be canceling out (although that's merely an expression) any number of people who are voting against Obama.... and by your own words... only 1 in 20 of those are potentially bigots. I should think that's understandable to all but the purposely obtuse.

Doesn't matter if it's 1 in 1000. Watch:

McCain with 1000 votes + 1 from a bigoted A-hole= 1001
Obama with 1000 votes + mine= 1001
Mine cancels a bigot's vote.

Clear enough?

No?

Imagine a seesaw with 1000 pounds on each side. Add on single pound on side A and it begins to tilt... but if you add a pound to side B it is equalized again.

Got it now?

I hope so.

The midwest has no hydro? Who knew?

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

As for pre-existing houses, offering a tax credit is a great way to spur investment. And even without a tax credit, an investment of 30-40k will get one 90% off of the electric grid and pay itself off within a decade, after which you enjoy super-cheap energy and independence for a lifetime.

You and others have complained about people losing their homes, jobs, insurance, etc.
Now you want them to spend 30-40k more on solar power?
How do you propose they do that?

Is your objection going to be this stupid in every conversation we have, MM? Obviously not everyone can afford to do this, but you don't NEED everyone to do it all at once in order to start making a difference.

As I said, tax credits can lower the cost of the initial investment significantly. Also, you don't have to spend that money all at once; you could do 3-5k of work per year for a few years, reap partial benefits and the cost will drop the whole time.

Please think for one second about what my answer is going to be before you post. Nothing I've written here is complicated or revolutionary, you know that!

Cycloptichorn

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

As for pre-existing houses, offering a tax credit is a great way to spur investment. And even without a tax credit, an investment of 30-40k will get one 90% off of the electric grid and pay itself off within a decade, after which you enjoy super-cheap energy and independence for a lifetime.

You and others have complained about people losing their homes, jobs, insurance, etc.
Now you want them to spend 30-40k more on solar power?
How do you propose they do that?

Is your objection going to be this stupid in every conversation we have, MM? Obviously not everyone can afford to do this, but you don't NEED everyone to do it all at once in order to start making a difference.

As I said, tax credits can lower the cost of the initial investment significantly. Also, you don't have to spend that money all at once; you could do 3-5k of work per year for a few years, reap partial benefits and the cost will drop the whole time.

Please think for one second about what my answer is going to be before you post. Nothing I've written here is complicated or revolutionary, you know that!

Cycloptichorn