2008 General Election Discussion Thread

[lostfan]

the New Yorker cover is actually making fun of the perception of Obama. The New Yorker has been very pro-Obama, claiming that they are intentionally trying to hurt his campaign is false.

I was listening to the radio this morning on the way to work (Russ Parr, very pro-Obama when they talk politics), most of their listeners completely misunderstood the whole intention of the New Yorker. I guess that's the problem here, no joke is too obvious. Everyone should already know that the New Yorker is a liberal magazine yet people were taking their satire seriously.

[NorthSideSox72]

No doubt he has been terrible in the past. The fact remains, he took action today by lifting one ban on offshore drilling and urging congress to do the same. That will have a real effect on the price of oil, right now, should congress follow suit. If obama were implementing his plan at this moment, I could not say the same thing. I'd be sitting around waiting for a check for 5 months watching the problem get worse.

There are so many things wrong with your assumptions here, I don't know wher to begin.

 

First, the "real effect on the price of oil" from new offshore drilling will take years to be in effect. Oil rigs don't spring up overnight. They take a long time to build and implement.

 

Second, per articles cited here previously by (I think) Balta, that small amount of space that some states MIGHT use for drilling is not going to yield much oil. Less than ANWR, and ANWR is seen as having a few cents' effect on the price of gas, at best, at peak. So this is really no solution at all.

 

Third, ANYTHING you do in the way of developing new energy - oil, gas, oil sands, wind, solar, geo, hydro, algae, plant-based ethanols, etc., will take time to develop. All of them. So why on earth would you rely so heavily on a tiny little boost, for something that later on will make us WORSE off for the dependence on it?

 

Do something long term - a real solution, not a political showpiece like this. Invest in a lot of different alt energy solutions, many of which are already out there and near maturity, just waiting for the last push. Heck, in terms of wind and solar, those technologies would actually be much faster to implement than new oil anyway, because they are already ready.

 

[lostfan]

Moreover, the Bush administration did that suspension on the development of new solar, so... the dumbness of that made his net effect on energy neutral, not positive.

[Steve9347]

lol now the New Yorker is part of the vast right win conspiracy.

 

you guys are so off on this one i don't even know what to tell you all

Wow, you're REALLY reading into this aren't you. I said "what the f***??" because it was incredibly poor judgement. It doesn't take a "Mr. Genius" to know that some less-educated folks will look at that cover and not see it as a joke... and they certainly won't open it up to read the pro-Obama content.

[HuskyCaucasian]

that's just.. yea, wow.

for those who havent seen it:

a little parody:

[Balta1701]

Moreover, the Bush administration did that suspension on the development of new solar, so... the dumbness of that made his net effect on energy neutral, not positive.

Actually, that decision was un-done after public outcry (See one of the energy threads, I posted that before I took off but I don't really remember where). But there is still a big backlog of applications for solar plant development that the BLM is well behind on taking care of (a backlog which would be fixed by hiring more people I believe) so there's still an issue slowing down that development in the government.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually, that decision was un-done after public outcry (See one of the energy threads, I posted that before I took off but I don't really remember where). But there is still a big backlog of applications for solar plant development that the BLM is well behind on taking care of (a backlog which would be fixed by hiring more people I believe) so there's still an issue slowing down that development in the government.

Encouraging a distributed system via tax incentives, research and development grants, and mandating net use power grids in a certain timeframe, would be a better solution than waiting for the BLM to get its act together. Not only is it a government agency, but its way understaffed (I actually have some specific knowledge on this), and developing large plants takes significant time. If you make solar cells effectively cheaper now, for businesses and homeowners, the market will push solar power along for you. And meanwhile, you add some new jobs to the private sector.

 

[Balta1701]

Encouraging a distributed system via tax incentives, research and development grants, and mandating net use power grids in a certain timeframe, would be a better solution than waiting for the BLM to get its act together. Not only is it a government agency, but its way understaffed (I actually have some specific knowledge on this), and developing large plants takes significant time. If you make solar cells effectively cheaper now, for businesses and homeowners, the market will push solar power along for you. And meanwhile, you add some new jobs to the private sector.

Large plants are needed for one specific thing that normal cells can not provide though...energy storage. The normal energy usage curve during a day is phase-shifted by a few hours from the sun intensity curve...power usage rises in the morning at a time after the sun goes up, peaks usually in the afternoon I think, and then drops off slowly through the evening. Solar peaks at mid day and declines until sunset. A large plant can develop things like thermal technologies that allow energy storage to meet nighttime demand, something that can't be done with simple photovoltaics.

[NorthSideSox72]

Large plants are needed for one specific thing that normal cells can not provide though...energy storage. The normal energy usage curve during a day is phase-shifted by a few hours from the sun intensity curve...power usage rises in the morning at a time after the sun goes up, peaks usually in the afternoon I think, and then drops off slowly through the evening. Solar peaks at mid day and declines until sunset. A large plant can develop things like thermal technologies that allow energy storage to meet nighttime demand, something that can't be done with simple photovoltaics.

What you are describing isn't a limitation of solar cells - its a storage issue. So to say that simple PV's can't do it, is I think, not really accurate. Its a question of the cost of batteries to store the energy.

 

And by the way, I am not saying that they shouldn't ALSO pursue large plants. I'm saying that we shouldn't wait for that. A significant increase in solar panel use in homes and businesses could dramatically drop the overall energy demands on the power grid.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Large plants are needed for one specific thing that normal cells can not provide though...energy storage. The normal energy usage curve during a day is phase-shifted by a few hours from the sun intensity curve...power usage rises in the morning at a time after the sun goes up, peaks usually in the afternoon I think, and then drops off slowly through the evening. Solar peaks at mid day and declines until sunset. A large plant can develop things like thermal technologies that allow energy storage to meet nighttime demand, something that can't be done with simple photovoltaics.

Ah and also, note my earlier comment about Net Use. Power plants already have energy storage capacity, to an extent. Thsi can be leveraged, so that homes themselves don't need to bear the cost of extra storage (batteries). This can be reduced, if again, utilities are willing to go to net use billing.

 

[mr_genius]

Wow, you're REALLY reading into this aren't you. I said "what the f***??" because it was incredibly poor judgement. It doesn't take a "Mr. Genius" to know that some less-educated folks will look at that cover and not see it as a joke... and they certainly won't open it up to read the pro-Obama content.

 

Satirical political cartoons on the cover of the New Yorker are common, I can remember one of Hillary when she ran for the NY Senate seat. It wasn't poor judgement, it's what the New Yorker does, and I'm glad because I like the New Yorker and if they start making their magazine stupid like a Katie Couric broadcast I'm not buying it anymore. I don't remember any of this outrage over a satirical GW Bush cover (which there have been numerous).

Edited July 15, 2008 by mr_genius

[----------]

There are so many things wrong with your assumptions here, I don't know wher to begin.

 

First, the "real effect on the price of oil" from new offshore drilling will take years to be in effect. Oil rigs don't spring up overnight. They take a long time to build and implement.

 

Second, per articles cited here previously by (I think) Balta, that small amount of space that some states MIGHT use for drilling is not going to yield much oil. Less than ANWR, and ANWR is seen as having a few cents' effect on the price of gas, at best, at peak. So this is really no solution at all.

 

Third, ANYTHING you do in the way of developing new energy - oil, gas, oil sands, wind, solar, geo, hydro, algae, plant-based ethanols, etc., will take time to develop. All of them. So why on earth would you rely so heavily on a tiny little boost, for something that later on will make us WORSE off for the dependence on it?

 

Do something long term - a real solution, not a political showpiece like this. Invest in a lot of different alt energy solutions, many of which are already out there and near maturity, just waiting for the last push. Heck, in terms of wind and solar, those technologies would actually be much faster to implement than new oil anyway, because they are already ready.

First of all, I didn't make any assumptions. I just posted what I believe will happen, based on the current oil market and my experiences in futures markets. No one can say they know for sure what will happen or how the market will interpret news, so I don't know what you are basing all of your information on, if anything, other than supply and demand, which is only part of the reason oil is currently so high in price. Mathematical predictions don't work on futures markets, period. Unfortunately that seems to be the basis for most of what you say. Experts can write as many articles as they want, I could find just as many people, perhaps more, that support an opposite position on ANWR and the price of oil. So where does that leave us?

 

Something long term must be done, no doubt, but that really isn't Bush's job at this point in his presidential career. You make an obvious point, and one that is irrelevant to what I have said.

 

My position is that obama's plan sucks, long term and short. Especially short. Obama will actually help drive the price of oil higher if people use their energy checks for energy. That is completely retarded. Long term the plan is just plain lackluster to me and I have no faith that the dollars he proposes to be used for development of alternative energy will end up anywhere but in the hands of some bureaucratic bulls*** organization(s).

[NorthSideSox72]

First of all, I didn't make any assumptions. I just posted what I believe will happen, based on the current oil market and my experiences in futures markets. No one can say they know for sure what will happen or how the market will interpret news, so I don't know what you are basing all of your information on, if anything, other than supply and demand, which is only part of the reason oil is currently so high in price. Mathematical predictions don't work on futures markets, period. Unfortunately that seems to be the basis for most of what you say. Experts can write as many articles as they want, I could find just as many people, perhaps more, that support an opposite position on ANWR and the price of oil. So where does that leave us?

 

Something long term must be done, no doubt, but that really isn't Bush's job at this point in his presidential career. You make an obvious point, and one that is irrelevant to what I have said.

 

My position is that obama's plan sucks, long term and short. Especially short. Obama will actually help drive the price of oil higher if people use their energy checks for energy. That is completely retarded. Long term the plan is just plain lackluster to me and I have no faith that the dollars he proposes to be used for development of alternative energy will end up anywhere but in the hands of some bureaucratic bulls*** organization(s).

1. You keep hitting on Obama's rebate check thing. I don't agree with that either, but you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Much of the rest of his plan is far better than what McCain has to offer.

 

2. I said nothing about futures markets (which by the way, I have worked in or around for the past 10 years). And frankly, this problem is way, way, way beyond what the futures market may do to oil prices, since they aren't going to plummet in any case because they can't.

 

3. What mathematical formulae are you referring to? I used no such things.

 

4. Why on earth would it not be Bush's job to help secure the future? In fact, if you look at history, its the last year in which Presidents (having lost political capital) usually try to stretch out and try to leave their mark in some useful way.

 

5. There are certain realities involved in offshore drilling and ANWR, that will limit the amount of oil that can be added to the system. That's why they won't have a significant effect on the price.

 

6. Finally, if you are experienced in the futures markets, I'd like to hear your theory on what the main factors on oil prices are. Because as far as I can see, they are fundamentals (supply and demand), geo-regional conflict and risk, and the weak dollar. There are other factors too, but they are all minor. Are you suggesting that the dollar will suddenly gain a whole ton of new strength? Or that oil producing regions will suddenly calm down? Or that the increase in oil from offshore and ANWR is so much as to significantly change the foreign/domestic balance of our oil?

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Week in Review (July 9th-15th)

Swing Away?

 

Alabama (AEA/Capital Survey) - McCain 49%, Obama 36%

Kansas (TargetPoint ®) - McCain 49%, Obama 36%

Missouri (PPP (D)) - McCain 47%; Obama 44%

Missouri (Rasmussen) - McCain 47%; Obama 42%

New Jersey (Rasmussen) - Obama 44%, McCain 39%

Maine (Pan Atlantic SMS) - Obama 37%, McCain 26%

Illinois (Rasmussen) - Obama 52%, McCain 41%

North Dakota (Rasmussen) - McCain 47%, Obama 46%

Wisconsin (Rasmussen) - Obama 52%, McCain 42%

Washington (Rasmussen) - Obama 51%, McCain 43%

Missouri (Research 2000) - McCain 43%, Obama 48%

Louisiana (Rasmussen) - McCain 56%, Obama 37%

Colorado (PPP (D)) - Obama 47%, McCain 43%

Michigan (Rasmussen) - Obama 50%, McCain 42%

South Dakota (Rasmussen) - McCain 47%, Obama 43%

Minnesota (Rasmussen) - Obama 54%, McCain 37%

Iowa (Rasmussen) - Obama 51%, McCain 41%

 

In the movie Signs, the famous line is “Swing away, Merrill.” So, why did I choose this line for today?s theme? Simple... it works on two levels.

 

1) The trend in polls of key swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and Iowa is Obama pulling AWAY in SWING states. These states need to be in Obama's column for a win in November. In another swing state like Colorado, he has a marginal lead, but it's been fairly constant at around 5 points and I suspect a bumb after the convention. that is Why Obama's big lead in Minnesota is so important.

 

2) Obama is going to “swing away” at states he should not win, but might! Polling shows he's got a shot. Look at North Dakota (McCain +1) and South Dakota (McCain +4). South Dakota has voted republican in every presidential election since 1968 and only voted Democrat once since 1940! North Dakota is exactly the same. In 2004, George Bush won South Dakota by 21.47%.

 

Here is the RCP Electoral Map base don poll averages:

 

 

Of note: I said last week the Chuck Todd of MSNBC says a lot of internal and private polling shows Indiana VERY close and Obama ahead in many. Just two hours a go, and Obama supporter said America will be shocked by Indiana come November. He insinuated that Obama will win Indiana, and it may not be close.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[----------]

1. You keep hitting on Obama's rebate check thing. I don't agree with that either, but you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Much of the rest of his plan is far better than what McCain has to offer.

 

2. I said nothing about futures markets (which by the way, I have worked in or around for the past 10 years). And frankly, this problem is way, way, way beyond what the futures market may do to oil prices, since they aren't going to plummet in any case because they can't.

 

3. What mathematical formulae are you referring to? I used no such things.

 

4. Why on earth would it not be Bush's job to help secure the future? In fact, if you look at history, its the last year in which Presidents (having lost political capital) usually try to stretch out and try to leave their mark in some useful way.

 

5. There are certain realities involved in offshore drilling and ANWR, that will limit the amount of oil that can be added to the system. That's why they won't have a significant effect on the price.

 

6. Finally, if you are experienced in the futures markets, I'd like to hear your theory on what the main factors on oil prices are. Because as far as I can see, they are fundamentals (supply and demand), geo-regional conflict and risk, and the weak dollar. There are other factors too, but they are all minor. Are you suggesting that the dollar will suddenly gain a whole ton of new strength? Or that oil producing regions will suddenly calm down? Or that the increase in oil from offshore and ANWR is so much as to significantly change the foreign/domestic balance of our oil?

 

 

1. OK. I have to admit I'm losing interest after you agreeing with me here.

 

2. Spot markets/futures markets, it doesn't really matter which one you are looking at. A market is a market, and you can't predict how a market is going to interpret news with a mathematic formula, which I assumed you used.

 

3. You posted that if congress ended the bans on drilling offshore it will only cause a move of ____ cents. I assumed that since you arrived at some proposed amount, and most importantly, stated it as a fact, that you used some kind of mathematical formula to arrive at that number. What did you or the person who wrote it use then? If its just some market analyst's opinion, an exact number like that is worth less than 2 cents to me. If you are so market savvy, why cite a stat like that?

 

4. I don't really care about bush (repeating myself). I guess its his job but he has zero political capital. He couldn't get anything done if he tried. Also, he doesn't want to risk harm to McCain's campaign.

 

As to your final two points, I see the market as already extremely overbought, as markets often get, and see news like congress lifting the ban as a catalyst that can bring us back to normality. I've come to believe fundamentals, in general, are mainly useful at explaining why things happened a day after they did. If I'm making a prediction like I did, I'll look at the market data for my answer and delve in the fundamentals afterward. Its had a nice move for me the last few days anyhow, tyvm.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Maxwell

[HuskyCaucasian]

How untrustworthy are polls?

 

Ohio:

PPP (D).........07/17 - 07/20..... 1058 LV..... Obama: 48..... McCain: 40..... Obama +8

Rasmussen....07/21 - 07/21..... 500 LV....... Obama: 42..... McCain: 52..... McCain +10.0

[NorthSideSox72]

Vanity Fair decides to jump into the New Yorker/Obama fray, with a cartoon response on McCain.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Vanity Fair decides to jump into the New Yorker/Obama fray, with a cartoon response on McCain.

Sadly, this is much more realistic than the other. It's almost not parody.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Week in Review (July 16th-22th)

The North of the South Goes Left

 

California (Field) - Obama 54%, McCain 30%

North Carolina (SurveyUSA) - McCain 50%, Obama 45%

Oregon (Rasmussen) – Obama 49%, McCain 40%

South Carolina (PPP (D)) - McCain 45%, Obama 39%

Washington (SurveyUSA) - Obama 55%, McCain 39%

Kansas (Rasmussen) - McCain 58%, Obama 35%

North Carolina (Rasmussen) - McCain 48%, Obama 45%

Nevada (Rasmussen) - McCain 45%, Obama 47%

Arkansas (Rasmussen) - McCain 52%, Obama 39%

New Jersey (Strategic Vision ®) - Obama 47%, McCain 38%

Nevada (Rasmussen) - McCain 45%, Obama 47%

Virginia (Rasmussen) - Obama 47%, McCain 48%

Alaska (Research 2000) - McCain 51%, Obama 41%

Maine (Rasmussen) - Obama 49,% McCain 41%

New Hampshire (University of New Hampshire) - Obama 46%, McCain 43%

North Carolina (Civitas/TelOpinion ®) - McCain 43%, Obama 40%

Alaska (Rasmussen) - McCain 49%, Obama 44%

Georgia (Rasmussen) - McCain 53%, Obama 42%, Barr (L) 1%

Ohio (PPP (D)) - Obama 48%, McCain 40%

Michigan (Detroit News) - Obama 43%, McCain 41%

Ohio (Rasmussen) - Obama 42%, McCain 52%

 

Due to a minor family emergency and a busy work week, I didn't have time to type up a review.

Edited July 24, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[bmags]

those Quinnepac polls were pretty whacky.

[HuskyCaucasian]

those Quinnepac polls were pretty whacky.

you means the ones that just came out today? yea, I'll post a commentary on them next week. But to be brief: I dont buy the Colorado and Minnesota polls. Too drastic a shift and very contradictory to what other polls show. I'll reserve "panic" until I see other polls in those states. For what it's worth, SurveyUSA had Minn +1 for Obama a month ago. For those who havent seen:

 

Minnesota in June:

Rasmussen.... 06/11 - 06/11.... 500 LV.... Obama: 52%.... McCain: 39%.... Obama +13.0

Quinnipiac/WSJ/WP.... 06/17 - 06/24....1572 LV.... Obama: 54%.... McCain: 37%....Obama +17.0

 

Minnesota in July:

Rasmussen.... 07/22 - 07/22.... 500 LV.... Obama:52%.... McCain:39%.... Obama +13.0

Quinnipiac/WSJ/WP.... 07/14 - 07/22.... 1261 LV.... Obama:46%.... McCain:44%.... Obama +2.0

 

A 15 point drop in one poll while the other is strong? Kinda odd.

[mr_genius]

Vanity Fair decides to jump into the New Yorker/Obama fray, with a cartoon response on McCain.

 

This is an outrage!

[HuskyCaucasian]

Post Trip Bump? McCain's Gaff-fest Bump? Dunno, but WOW!

 

Gallup:

 

Rasmussen Reports:

Obama has enjoyed a modest bounce in the polls since his Berlin speech on Thursday (see recent daily results). To this point, however, he has not reached the 50% level of support or expanded his lead beyond where it was a couple of weeks ago.

[----------]

Does anyone read vanity fair? I don't and I'm curious if the title of the magazine is meant to be sarcastic or if its about all things vain. It doesn't really pertain to the cover.

[BigSqwert]

Heh

 

Annals of spell check

 

From the AP wire yesterday:

 

CHICAGO - Presidential candidate John moccasin on Sunday endorsed a proposal to ban affirmative action programs in his home state, a policy that Democratic rival Barrack Abeam called a disappointing embrace of divisive tactics. In the past, moccasin has criticized such ballot initiatives.

 

LINK