Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Brian]

For It's Always Sunny fans:

Who said it: Frank Reynolds or Donald Trump?

[Brian]

Ted Cruz has called Mitch McConnell a liar.

This is the Trump effect, I think. In a race where the Trumpster is sucking up all the oxygen, you need to be increasingly crazy to get any TV time. The only way Ted Cruz will reclaim his fanbase from Trump is by out-crazying him.

[Todd]

Hillary's big idea: 500,000,000 solar panels installed in four years.  If they got started on day one of her presidency, that would require the installation of over 342,000 every day.  This raises some practical questions, such as 1.) Who will pay for them?  2.) Who will install them?  3.) Where will they be installed?  4.) Has the so far intractable problem of intermittency been solved?  If I didn't know better, I'd think this might be a hollow campaign promise.

[drogulus]

     The article says that would be 7 times the current total. It might take longer than 4 years. I care not a single shit.

     1) Payers

     2) Installers

     3) Wherever there's enough sun

     4) When we have that many more panels this oversold problem with be hacked down to a more realistic scale.

     In sum, once we move the efforts to scare us will be out of date. We'll get down to the business of making it work.

[Todd]

1) Payers

2) Installers

3) Wherever there's enough sun

Talk about simplistic non-answers.  Since no price tag has been mentioned yet, it's not even pie in the sky yet.

4) When we have that many more panels this oversold problem with be hacked down to a more realistic scale.

It's not oversold at all.  Intermittency is the main limitation of both solar and wind.  Even those with ideological or financial interests in the technologies admit that.  Until the issue can be addressed, both sources are limited.  Shy of adequate battery technology, a more interconnected "smart" grid is needed, and the price tag for that is immense.  That's two immensely expensive projects.  That's more than Hillary could deliver.

[Karl Henning]

Ted Cruz has called Mitch McConnell a liar.

This is the Trump effect, I think. In a race where the Trumpster is sucking up all the oxygen, you need to be increasingly crazy to get any TV time. The only way Ted Cruz will reclaim his fanbase from Trump is by out-crazying him.

Out-crazying Trump?  Is it medically possible?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Out-crazying Trump?  Is it medically possible?

But don't forget. On "that other board" we are told authoritatively that "he'll win (and win decisively) if he gets the nomination. In fact, he may ultimately get the nomination if for no other reason than primary voters conclude he's most likely to win the general election."

[Brian]

Out-crazying Trump?  Is it medically possible?

Well Mike Huckabee just said that Obama's Iran deal puts the people of Israel at "the door of the oven"...

[Ken B]

But don't forget. On "that other board" we are told authoritatively that "he'll win (and win decisively) if he gets the nomination. In fact, he may ultimately get the nomination if for no other reason than primary voters conclude he's most likely to win the general election."

Meh. Trump is able tolatch onto to immigration as an issue because no serious candidate wants to really discuss it honestly. That gives guys like Trump an opening. But once people see more of The Donald the less they like. His numbers fell after the McCain crap for instance. And that's just the first thing.
No need to panic. No-one normal really takes the election seriously yet, so name recognition and theatre go a long way at this stage.
I don't think Trump is actually running. I think he wants attention and then to flamboyantly pull out because "they" have blocked him. We will see.

[Karl Henning]

Did I even know that Lincoln Chafee is in the ring?

[Karl Henning]

... Chafee comes in fifth among the five declared candidates at 0.7 percent.

So there are two declared [Democratic] candidates whom I cannot seem to name . . . .

[kishnevi]

So there are two declared [Democratic] candidates whom I cannot seem to name . . . .

The poll rated the following
Her Presidentness in waiting
Sanders
Biden
Webb
O'Malley
Chafee

I had forgotten Webb has declared. There are six overall because Biden has not yet declared.

[Karl Henning]

Thanks, I think 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Meh. Trump is able tolatch onto to immigration as an issue because no serious candidate wants to really discuss it honestly. That gives guys like Trump an opening. But once people see more of The Donald the less they like. His numbers fell after the McCain crap for instance. And that's just the first thing.
No need to panic. No-one normal really takes the election seriously yet, so name recognition and theatre go a long way at this stage.
I don't think Trump is actually running. I think he wants attention and then to flamboyantly pull out because "they" have blocked him. We will see.

Oh, I'm not "panicking," and possibly you didn't catch the irony in my use of the word "authoritatively" in reference to the poster on that other board who considers himself the universal expert in all things. Actually I think the whole Trump thing is hilarious. I love it when Republicans make fools of themselves; they do it so well.

[Karl Henning]

This is only an opinion, to be sure:

Donald Trump thrives in the realm of snap judgments on issues like immigration and trade. Logic takes more time, and his GOP rivals won't have much of it in a debate. He thrives on anger, too. What's left is mockery.

RTWT here. (If you wish.)

(I dig how this refers to a book which — IIRC — Jeffrey recommended . . . and which I have started to read on my Kindle . . . .)

[Ken B]

Oh, I'm not "panicking," and possibly you didn't catch the irony in my use of the word "authoritatively" in reference to the poster on that other board who considers himself the universal expert in all things. Actually I think the whole Trump thing is hilarious. I love it when Republicans make fools of themselves; they do it so well.

Ah but that references fits so many posters ...

[(poco) Sforzando]

Ah but that references fits so many posters ...

But some are more proud of their ignorance than others.

[drogulus]

Talk about simplistic non-answers.  Since no price tag has been mentioned yet, it's not even pie in the sky yet.

Such nonquestions deserve nothing better. Actually they deserve that. Do you care what new businesses or expanded old ones flourish to install solar panels. OMFNG, it's labor intensive, numerous paychecks (garlic to Republican "job creators") will be generated. Offshore that, Kongresssional Klowns!

Ah, then there's the lovely "who pays?"....nonquestion par exellence, always asked with the firm intention not of preventing any payment, but preventing anything worthy of paying for from happening.

It's not oversold at all.  Intermittency is the main limitation of both solar and wind.  Even those with ideological or financial interests in the technologies admit that.  Until the issue can be addressed, both sources are limited.  Shy of adequate battery technology, a more interconnected "smart" grid is needed, and the price tag for that is immense.  That's two immensely expensive projects.  That's more than Hillary could deliver.

No, that's not how it works. It never works that way. You don't start a vast project knowing how you'll accomplish it. We did not go to the moon when we knew how, we learned how by going. We will learn how, and who does the work, and who pays for what as we go along, just as we always do, and we'll do it with all the usual sniping from the sidelines.

[Todd]

Ah, then there's the lovely "who pays?"....nonquestion par exellence, always asked with the firm intention not of preventing any payment, but preventing anything worthy of paying for from happening.

Nah, it's just a question rooted in the real world.  Someone has to pay, and if it's a government program, that means taxpayers, and so far there isn't even a price tag.  That's good politics, of course.  It gets true believers like you to talk about how it's a good idea before even seeing the figures.  It's the idea that matters, or something along those lines.  Who cares if it's a multitrillion boondoggle to embarrass even DOD types currently red-faced over the JSF?  It's just (other peoples') money.

And Hillary's plan is grand, based on what she said subsequently.  She has a ten year goal of freeing people from utilities, generating their own power, and so forth.  That's a decent pitch for suburbanites, a bit tougher for city dwellers, but she knows her base, and how she has to entice those harder to convince suburbanites - with that Democrat specialty, the taxpayer funded handout.  I do commend her on her cynicism.  She and her advisors know that the targets will never be met, specifically because of issues like "who pays", plus lawsuits, local zoning ordinances, endless environmental impact studies, shortages of skilled labor and inadequate training time, etc, etc, etc.  Here's the kicker, projections for solar growth over the same time periods are roughly half of what she advocates.  If that growth occurs, and she gets, say, an additional 10-15 points of growth over the projections, she can say that she tripled or quadrupled solar energy, and could have done better, but for those dastardly Republicans.  Again, good, borderline great politics.  Policy?  Not so much.

[drogulus]

   

     

Someone has to pay

     Got it, someone has to pay so it shouldn't happen. Or....are you just being a good citizen and reminding everyone that it costs more money to do worthwhile things than let the economy go in the toilet to "save dollars". Yeah I think we know that.