Fear and Loathing Among the 1%ers

Avatar

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire.

Related Post Roulette

9 Responses

  1. Last time the lower tier candidate who shown through was Fiorina, who promptly flamed out at the big kid’s table and became a punchline for Ted Cruz’s campaign.Report

  2. Avatar North says:

    I think this is the right approach for the DNC too. A mild bar to hurdle for the first debate, then a moderately steeper one for the debate after that. Noone’s gonna be able to claim they’re putting their thumbs on the scale at this stage and that’s probably for the best. A big field like this is gonna need a bit of knife fighting to thin out the contenders and I optimistically think we’ll see a lot of thinning.Report

  3. Avatar Philip H says:

    One the one hand I am pleased to see the DNC trying to better manage the winnowing then the RNC did, as it seems they might have learned one lesson from 2016.

    That said they have come out to say they won’t do a climate focused debate, and while I get that the Democrats generally can be counted on to make advances to combat the climate crisis, it is still a necessary focus that needs more traction. Ignoring the rapid climate changes we face means hundreds of Billions of dollars of economic impacts, to say nothing of worsening migration crises and regional conflict driven by resource loss that the climate crisis is already precipitating (and which the DoD has been planning for for nearly a decade, Republican orthodoxy be damned).Report

    • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Philip H says:

      I want to see concrete steps taken on climate change as well, but it’s not an issue that Democrats are very good at promoting. They need to focus more on the number of jobs that could be created and the economic benefit instead of constantly making it sound like they are asking everyone to give things up. That’s now how you win elections.Report

      • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

        They need to focus more on the number of jobs that could be created and the economic benefit instead of constantly making it sound like they are asking everyone to give things up.

        That’s pretty much candidate’s current playbook. Whether the message is not getting through because they aren’t good at it or because large numbers of people don’t want to hear what they are being told would be an interesting question.Report

        • Avatar Philip H in reply to CJColucci says:

          My sense from many many conversations is the message is getting through at the city and county level but not so much the state level. DoD is spending enormous sums of money – albeit quietly – to refit its facilities worldwide in advance of sea level rise. That creates jobs etc.

          Demos have got to learn that more facts are never what you bring to an emotional fight. That said, if we aren’t crystal clear about the damage that will be caused the economic trade offs can’t actually be discussed. Coal interests still put up billboard in Pennsylvania about how coal is always burnable while wind dies – even though employment nationally in wind energy is close to 20 times what it is in coal mining.Report

          • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

            even though employment nationally in wind energy is close to 20 times what it is in coal mining.

            You say that like it’s a good thing. It’s really not, coal produces 4x as much energy as wind. This means (if you’re right) that every coal job creates 80x as much energy as a wind job. That’s a breathtakingly inefficient way to do things.

            U.S. electricity generation by source as a percentage of total in 2018
            Coal 27.4%
            Wind 6.6%

            https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3Report

      • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

        They need to focus more on the number of jobs that could be created and the economic benefit instead of constantly making it sound like they are asking everyone to give things up.

        They’re increasing the cost of energy (which is a sharply regressive tax), and the increase gets sharply higher with more capacity. That last is because green energy is so unreliable and also because it’s made where it’s not needed so there needs to be transportation.

        Turn on a nuke plant and you can dismantle a coal plant. A solar plant would still need the coal plant around for when the sun doesn’t shine and the energy is made far away from where it’s needed. In practice all that means every green job is created at the expense of several other jobs.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/23/if-solar-and-wind-are-so-cheap-why-are-they-making-electricity-more-expensive/#1af4fc531dc6

        http://www.renewable-energysources.com/

        https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/green-energy-mandates-could-double-your-electric-billsReport

  4. I think Inslee is playing a long game here.

    He’s Indy 500-ing it, just keep rolling along on new tires till the others crash into each other or run out of gas and then there he is putt-putting along right at the right time.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *