Democrats 2020

[Jimmy Higgins]

Women voters are abandoning Trump big time and are going to decide this election. They do not seem to be real supportive of Sanders.

Sanders has more women supporters than any other candidate according to the most recent polling.

According to that poll, Sanders has the highest percentage of supporters that are women. If some person was running and had 10 supporters, but 7 were women, that would be 70% up in that chart.

Biden most likely has the most women supporters, leading in the polls and having 48% of that being women.

That said, Sanders, Warren, and Biden have around the same number of women supporters.

 

[ZiprHead]

So, this raises an interesting question. In your view, is a political party something that should look after its own interests, and judge political forces and movements based on how well they serve the party, or should tit be responsive to political forces and movements, and judge the party based on how well it serves them?

Why can't they do both?

Because not everything that serves the party is congruent with what serves the people, obviously. When there is a conflict, and there always is a conflict, what should a political organization choose? What the people want, or what strengthens the party and keeps it in power?

A party with no power cannot do the what the people want.

 

[PyramidHead]

Because not everything that serves the party is congruent with what serves the people, obviously. When there is a conflict, and there always is a conflict, what should a political organization choose? What the people want, or what strengthens the party and keeps it in power?

A party with no power cannot do the what the people want.

I don't see an answer to my question. What's good about a powerful party that chooses to consolidate its power over meeting the needs of the people, upon whom its power should totally depend?

 

[PyramidHead]

Women voters are abandoning Trump big time and are going to decide this election. They do not seem to be real supportive of Sanders.

Sanders has more women supporters than any other candidate according to the most recent polling.

According to that poll, Sanders has the highest percentage of supporters that are women. If some person was running and had 10 supporters, but 7 were women, that would be 70% up in that chart.

Biden most likely has the most women supporters, leading in the polls and having 48% of that being women.

That said, Sanders, Warren, and Biden have around the same number of women supporters.

That's correct, my use of the word "number" was not accurate. I should have said "percentage".

That said, the notion that women do not like Sanders is not borne out by the polling data. If it were, you wouldn't expect the majority of his supporters to be women. That's all I was saying.

 

[ZiprHead]

Because not everything that serves the party is congruent with what serves the people, obviously. When there is a conflict, and there always is a conflict, what should a political organization choose? What the people want, or what strengthens the party and keeps it in power?

A party with no power cannot do the what the people want.

I don't see an answer to my question. What's good about a powerful party that chooses to consolidate its power over meeting the needs of the people, upon whom its power should totally depend?

Because if they stop meeting the needs of the people. The two are not mutually exclusive as much as you make it out to be.

 

[ZiprHead]

I made my point in the post you replied to.

"It won't be Bernie. The Democratic Party masters have demonstrated several times over that they allow their membership only a limited role in choosing their candidates. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. What they want to do this time is to give Bernie a good enough showing that they can woo his supporters over to the "real" candidate. They want him to be a boneless chicken for mass consumption, and he looks like he is more than ready to comply."

Okay, prove your point.

Crickets...

You rarely ever get to a point. You always dodge and obfuscate when it gets down to where you actually need to make a point and prove your assertions.

I guess I forgot to include just ignoring.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Women voters are abandoning Trump big time and are going to decide this election. They do not seem to be real supportive of Sanders.

Sanders has more women supporters than any other candidate according to the most recent polling.

According to that poll, Sanders has the highest percentage of supporters that are women. If some person was running and had 10 supporters, but 7 were women, that would be 70% up in that chart.

Biden most likely has the most women supporters, leading in the polls and having 48% of that being women.

That said, Sanders, Warren, and Biden have around the same number of women supporters.

I guess I was wrong then. It is obvious Trump has lost the women's vote big time, but if you are right, women have not yet chosen any Democrat overwhelmingly. So that will be interesting to see what that does to the Democratic primary.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Crickets...

You rarely ever get to a point. You always dodge and obfuscate when it gets down to where you actually need to make a point and prove your assertions.

I guess I forgot to include just ignoring.

I already made my point. I guess you weren't able to understand. I wish I was surprised. It would reflect well on you if I was surprised.

 

[angelo]

According to that poll, Sanders has the highest percentage of supporters that are women. If some person was running and had 10 supporters, but 7 were women, that would be 70% up in that chart.

Biden most likely has the most women supporters, leading in the polls and having 48% of that being women.

That said, Sanders, Warren, and Biden have around the same number of women supporters.

I guess I was wrong then. It is obvious Trump has lost the women's vote big time, but if you are right, women have not yet chosen any Democrat overwhelmingly. So that will be interesting to see what that does to the Democratic primary.

Despite what polls are saying now. The only poll that counts is on election day in November 2020. Remember that not one poll predicted the Trumpet would win in 2016!

 

[ZiprHead]

Crickets...

You rarely ever get to a point. You always dodge and obfuscate when it gets down to where you actually need to make a point and prove your assertions.

I guess I forgot to include just ignoring.

I already made my point. I guess you weren't able to understand. I wish I was surprised. It would reflect well on you if I was surprised.

You made an unproven assertion and provided no evidence to back it up. When called on it, you chose to run away. And now we're back to the dodge and obfuscate portion of The Jason Harvestdancer Show.

You get nothing! And you get nothing! And you get nothing!

 

[lpetrich]

Howard Schultz drops plans to run as independent candidate in 2020 - CNNPolitics
He made a statement in
Onward with gratitude | Howard Schultz

Done watching our two parties fail, I chose to explore running as an independent, committed to finding common ground and delivering results. I saw a path in the unprecedented frustration of today’s electorate.

...
In addition, not enough people today are willing to consider backing an independent candidate because they fear doing so might lead to re-electing a uniquely dangerous incumbent president.

...
Unfortunately, election rules in each state and the way this Democratic nomination process has unfolded pose another challenge: It has become more likely that the Democratic nominee will not be known before the deadlines to submit the required number of signatures for an independent to get on the ballot.

While mentioning no alternative to first-past-the-post vote counting.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/elizabeth-warren-comes-out-against-nuclear-power

I think this move will likely help Warren in the primaries (though probably not enough). However, she's either not being rational (if she's sincerely against nuclear power), or she's lying and won't oppose it if she wins, or she will oppose it knowing that she shouldn't.

 

[Harry Bosch]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/elizabeth-warren-comes-out-against-nuclear-power

I think this move will likely help Warren in the primaries (though probably not enough). However, she's either not being rational (if she's sincerely against nuclear power), or she's lying and won't oppose it if she wins, or she will oppose it knowing that she shouldn't.

Yea, I just don't understand why she is so popular. She just doesn't seem to have a great grasp of the issues. Also sad if there are a majority size of democrats who are against nuclear power. If true, it reinforces the view that dems can't always claim the high ground over republicans regarding scientific issues.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yang supports nuclear power but wants to switch to Thorium. Does anyone here know if that makes sense? I am not knowledgeable about nuclear power creation.

 

[Politesse]

Nuclear plants are generally unpopular, especially in the areas where Democratic likely voters tend to reside. So this actually strikes me as a fairly safe bet, at least in terms of primaries logic. In my state, it's a straight up hot button issue, and though the DNC does not revolve around us entirely, our relocation to super tuesday and the role we played in the 2016 general election makes us... not irrelevant either from a candidate's perspective.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Nuclear plants are generally unpopular, especially in the areas where Democratic likely voters tend to reside. So this actually strikes me as a fairly safe bet, at least in terms of primaries logic. In my state, it's a straight up hot button issue, and though the DNC does not revolve around us entirely, our relocation to super tuesday and the role we played in the 2016 general election makes us... not irrelevant either from a candidate's perspective.

Agreed. Very safe bet. Very political of Warren. Very similar to how some republicans claim that global warming is a Chinese made myth to appeal to their voters. However, I don't have patience for it. And I don't respect it. We are in a climate crisis now. I don't think that we can continue to afford politicians who don't use science to fix real problems. If there is a proven scientific reason that we should shut down nuclear plants - I'd be open to it. But at this time, most scientists believe that it is the safest way right now to bridge us to the future when we'll have safer technologies to meet our energy needs.

 

[Politesse]

Nuclear plants are generally unpopular, especially in the areas where Democratic likely voters tend to reside. So this actually strikes me as a fairly safe bet, at least in terms of primaries logic. In my state, it's a straight up hot button issue, and though the DNC does not revolve around us entirely, our relocation to super tuesday and the role we played in the 2016 general election makes us... not irrelevant either from a candidate's perspective.

Agreed. Very safe bet. Very political of Warren. Very similar to how some republicans claim that global warming is a Chinese made myth to appeal to their voters. However, I don't have patience for it. And I don't respect it. We are in a climate crisis now. I don't think that we can continue to afford politicians who don't use science to fix real problems. If there is a proven scientific reason that we should shut down nuclear plants - I'd be open to it. But at this time, most scientists believe that it is the safest way right now to bridge us to the future when we'll have safer technologies to meet our energy needs.

Safety is a relative term. It is safer to live next to a well-run nuclear facility than next to a coal-fired smoker. But an aging one, running on rapidly corroding 70s technology and built on top of an active earthquake fault? Maybe not so safe. Again, there's a question of where democratic voters live, and what the world looks like from that vantage point. When liberal voters say they don't like nuclear power, I don't think replacing them with very carbon-heavy alternatives is quite what they are aiming for(even if that is the practical outcone).

 

[Sarpedon]

Switching to Thorium is a good move: if only we could make it work. There are a number of projects around the world, but none have become fully commercially successful. However, unlike Fusion, which is always 20 years away, there's a whole host of engineers who believe that Thorium power can be achieved with strong effort in a matter of years. The main technical limitation is that Thorium is more stable (less radioactive) than Uranium, and so is more difficult to start on its path to radioactive decay.

Advantages of Thorium:
It is more plentiful than Uranium
It decays into non-radioactive products, greatly reducing nuclear waste
It does not produce by products that can be used in nuclear weapons, allowing any country to use it without proliferation risks.
It is less radioactive by itself, which makes it easier and safer to mine, process and use.

India, with its large reserves of Thorium and huge energy needs, is taking the lead on research, with many other countries following.

Yang is very correct. The advantages of Thorium almost completely cancel out most people's concerns with nuclear power. I read once that the USA has enough Thorium that can easily be extracted from discarded mine tailings to last for centuries, let alone if we start mining it on purpose.

 

[Derec]

Switching to Thorium is a good move: if only we could make it work. There are a number of projects around the world, but none have become fully commercially successful. However, unlike Fusion, which is always 20 years away, there's a whole host of engineers who believe that Thorium power can be achieved with strong effort in a matter of years. The main technical limitation is that Thorium is more stable (less radioactive) than Uranium, and so is more difficult to start on its path to radioactive decay.

Radioactivity has nothing to do with it directly. Neither do you start anything "on its path to radioactive decay". Being fissile (being able to readily undergo fission by a thermal neutron) is not the same as regular radioactive decay and thats what matters here. Pu239 is almost 30,000x more radioactive than U235, and yet both are fissile and readily usable in both reactors and bombs.

The problem with Thorium (Th232 specifically) is that it is not fissile by itself but has to be transmuted to fissile U233 by absorbing a neutron (and undergoing beta decay). So you need a neutron source or conventional fissile material like U235 or Pu239 to start the Thorium fuel cycle.

Advantages of Thorium:
It is more plentiful than Uranium

True.

It decays into non-radioactive products, greatly reducing nuclear waste

Not true. You still have a hot mess of different radioactive fission products. But it does generate less long-lived actinides which makes nuclear waste storage less problematic.

It does not produce by products that can be used in nuclear weapons, allowing any country to use it without proliferation risks.
It is less radioactive by itself, which makes it easier and safer to mine, process and use.

True.

India, with its large reserves of Thorium and huge energy needs, is taking the lead on research, with many other countries following.

Good luck to them. But it is infuriating that technologically and industrially advanced US and EU are largely taking a pass on these technologies because of pseudogreen ideology. We should be taking the lead on it.

Yang is very correct. The advantages of Thorium almost completely cancel out most people's concerns with nuclear power. I read once that the USA has enough Thorium that can easily be extracted from discarded mine tailings to last for centuries, let alone if we start mining it on purpose.

Have not looked it up but it would not surprise me.

 

[Derec]

Safety is a relative term. It is safer to live next to a well-run nuclear facility than next to a coal-fired smoker. But an aging one, running on rapidly corroding 70s technology and built on top of an active earthquake fault? Maybe not so safe.

A power plant built in the 70s is not necessarily "rapidly corroding". Is the "earthquake fault" a reference to Fukushima? Nobody died as a result of it. And even if we count in Chernobyl, nuclear power is still safest.

Again, there's a question of where democratic voters live, and what the world looks like from that vantage point. When liberal voters say they don't like nuclear power, I don't think replacing them with very carbon-heavy alternatives is quite what they are aiming for(even if that is the practical outcone).

Whatever they are aiming for, if that is the result in the real world, that has to be taken into account.
Germany’s green dreams run into climate change reality: Berlin’s commitment to stay nuclear free complicates Europe’s push to lower emissions.