OT: Predictions for 2016 Presidential Election

User Forum Topic
Submitted by svelte on December 11, 2015 - 7:41am

I apologize in advance for bringing up the topic (it is sure to be over-discussed next year!), but now is a good time to make predictions.

The primaries start in just a few weeks and bring clarity to who will be the final candidates.

So now is the opportune time to make predictions: who will be the final, post-convention candidate selections for US President of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and any other party you which to mention?

Bonus points for specifying who their running mate will be!

Submitted by zk on March 8, 2016 - 12:12pm.

livinincali wrote:

There's certainly more CO2 in the air caused by man but it's effects on the climate are not completely understood.

“Completely understood” is not a reasonable standard for most things. Certainly not for climate change.
livinincali wrote:

Yeah sure we know what happens when you pump CO2 into a box and those climate models probably used that as a model, but those models haven't accurately predicted the warming that would occur.


Depends on your definition of accurate. Some of the problems with the model turned out to be problems with the data:
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/c...

livinincali wrote:

Of course every time it's a little hotter than usual or a hurricane hits New York we can blame it on climate change. Then hopefully we can get the people to support a new tax or a new ban on something.

Only a person who was truly uninformed (scientifically) would point to a single weather event as evidence for (or against) man-caused global warming. You obviously see that and agree with it. But to point to those uninformed people (and their opinions) as evidence we don’t need to do anything (which, I could be wrong, but you seem to be obliquely implying with your sarcasm here) is an invalid argument.

livinincali wrote:

To go back to what it was in the previous millions of years would require us to pretty much completely stop using fossil fuels. So you have a choice, reduce fossil fuel usage significantly and lower the standard of living for all of us. Or replace it with a different technology and understand that you aren't going to be able to do it with wind and solar. We could probably do it with fast breeder Thorium nuclear reactors. The dream would be solving the mysteries of recovering net positive energy from fusion. Wind and solar might have a place where it makes sense but it's never going to be more than 10-20% of total power generation without some sort of storage technology break through


I agree with that paragraph. Yes, to significantly reduce fossil fuel usage without alternative energy sources to replace them would be extremely (possibly disastrously) costly in many ways. But not as costly as catastrophic global warming. So it’s obviously very important to understand global warming and its causes, because if we’re wrong about it in either direction, it’s going to cost us dearly.

This is not an issue on which we can afford to have an agenda other than understanding as best we can global warming and its causes and its consequences.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on March 8, 2016 - 1:49pm.

utcsox wrote:
svelte wrote:
I apologize in advance for bringing up the topic (it is sure to be over-discussed next year!), but now is a good time to make predictions.

The primaries start in just a few weeks and bring clarity to who will be the final candidates.

So now is the opportune time to make predictions: who will be the final, post-convention candidate selections for US President of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and any other party you which to mention?

Bonus points for specifying who their running mate will be!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/07/politics/m...

I think Rubio is on fume now. CNN released this extremely damaging report late this afternoon that his advisers are recommending him to drop out before 3/15 so he won't get embarrassed at his home state. We will see what happen tomorrow. I think his campaign is about to collapse.

I think Rubio's biggest issue is the Big Money donors aren't too impressed with him. I mean, if I was a completely loaded Republican, at this point I'd be tempted to just let Trump or Cruz win the nomination and sink my cash into competitive Senate races. Or maybe even cross my fingers for a brokered convention, where backroom influence goes a long ways.

Submitted by livinincali on March 8, 2016 - 2:06pm.

zk wrote:

Depends on your definition of accurate. Some of the problems with the model turned out to be problems with the data:
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/c...

There seem to be problems with the data in general. There's evidence that NASA went back and modified the data after the fact. That's something you should never do in a scientific process. Sure it's fine apply adjustments to the data in a particular study but you should never change the underlying data. Are they just trying to fit the data to their wrong model or is there something actually wrong with the collection of the data.

http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exp...

zk wrote:

I agree with that paragraph. Yes, to significantly reduce fossil fuel usage without alternative energy sources to replace them would be extremely (possibly disastrously) costly in many ways. But not as costly as catastrophic global warming. So it’s obviously very important to understand global warming and its causes, because if we’re wrong about it in either direction, it’s going to cost us dearly.

This is not an issue on which we can afford to have an agenda other than understanding as best we can global warming and its causes and its consequences.

To what lengths are you willing to go to prevent or reduce CO2 emission. It seems like you'd have to being willing to go to war in order to force major global reductions in fossil fuel usage.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 8, 2016 - 2:09pm.

Rubio is not so much a problem.
A young Latino guy, whoever he is, will just not gain traction with the Republican base.
That narrative is just fantasy on the part of the big money establishment.

BTW, I listened Rubio him speak Spanish (I need to keep from forgetting the Spanish I studied so I watch Univision). I kinda like the Cuban accent where they don't really pronounce the s at the end. Cruz, on the other hand, never gives interviews in Spanish.
Jeb speaks Spanish really well. Hard to price, but I have a feeling the base didn't like Jeb because of the Hispanic connection in his family. People don't trust him to come down hard on immigration.

Submitted by bearishgurl on March 8, 2016 - 3:23pm.

Case in point re: the relationship between Trump and Cruz:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4791439545001...

At 5:15, Trump is asked why he's still "attacking" Rubio when Rubio doesn't appear to be a "threat" to his campaign in FL. Why is he not attacking Cruz, who is coming up right behind him in the FL polls?

Trump deflects the question to re-remind them about Rubio's lagging behind in the FL polls and his absence record in the Senate and there's a rumor that he may be dropping out, blah, blah, blah. He doesn't even mention Cruz.

Why? I don't think he CARES if Cruz wins FL ... or not ... as the two are "one and the same."

They just haven't announced it .... yet.

Submitted by zk on March 8, 2016 - 3:23pm.

livinincali wrote:

There seem to be problems with the data in general. There's evidence that NASA went back and modified the data after the fact. That's something you should never do in a scientific process. Sure it's fine apply adjustments to the data in a particular study but you should never change the underlying data. Are they just trying to fit the data to their wrong model or is there something actually wrong with the collection of the data.

http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exp...


One guy claims NASA modified data, and, naturally, the right-wing noise machine was all over it. Not peer-reviewed. Not convincing. Tin-foil-hat stuff.

livinincali wrote:

To what lengths are you willing to go to prevent or reduce CO2 emission. It seems like you'd have to being willing to go to war in order to force major global reductions in fossil fuel usage.

What lengths? I don’t know. That’s a separate issue. As long as there are people in power denying climate change, we can’t even get to that question.

Submitted by bearishgurl on March 8, 2016 - 3:27pm.

I think Trump and Cruz made a backroom deal to force Rubio out after he loses his home state of FL in the primaries next week. They want Rubio's voter base added to their own SINGLE campaign when they start campaigning together.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 8, 2016 - 4:34pm.

Rubio might do well to get out before a humiliating defeat in FL
He's still young, his future is bright with the party establishment.

BG, I doubt trump and Cruz cooked up a deal very far in advance. Back then, trump was being written off by everyone. Maybe the relationship evolved as trump's support strengthened.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on March 8, 2016 - 4:54pm.

zk wrote:
livinincali wrote:

There seem to be problems with the data in general. There's evidence that NASA went back and modified the data after the fact. That's something you should never do in a scientific process. Sure it's fine apply adjustments to the data in a particular study but you should never change the underlying data. Are they just trying to fit the data to their wrong model or is there something actually wrong with the collection of the data.

http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exp...


One guy claims NASA modified data, and, naturally, the right-wing noise machine was all over it. Not peer-reviewed. Not convincing. Tin-foil-hat stuff.

Yeah, I mean, in science you always need to be skeptical of any one individual data point. Science is littered with studies that were never reproducible for one reason or another.

But when ALL the data points in the same direction, it makes a pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty strong case, even if there's always cause to keep looking closer.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on March 8, 2016 - 4:55pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Rubio might do well to get out before a humiliating defeat in FL
He's still young, his future is bright with the party establishment.

BG, I doubt trump and Cruz cooked up a deal very far in advance. Back then, trump was being written off by everyone. Maybe the relationship evolved as trump's support strengthened.

Eh, I'm not sure how humiliating that would be. Plenty of candidates lose the nomination one cycle and come back later to win it.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 8, 2016 - 5:24pm.

Even if the science is not 100% that global warming is bad, what's wrong with conserving carbon resources? After all, they are non-renewal and the more we save now, the more we will bank for the future.

I'm always amazed that some people want to save money (an unlimited renewal resource), but they want to burn up carbon fuels (non-renewal resources) as fast as we can get it out of the ground. I mean, think about it from a scientific standpoint.

Submitted by livinincali on March 9, 2016 - 8:18am.

poorgradstudent wrote:

Yeah, I mean, in science you always need to be skeptical of any one individual data point. Science is littered with studies that were never reproducible for one reason or another.

But when ALL the data points in the same direction, it makes a pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty strong case, even if there's always cause to keep looking closer.

Have you actually looked at some of the stuff the skeptics have produced. This guy went back into old studies and shows how newer studies actually lower the past temperatures to make if look like there's a larger warming tend then there really is. The past temperatures didn't change. There's no reason to adjust them unless you are trying to make you CO2 model work out when it isn't working out.

http://realclimatescience.com/history-of...

He provides links to the actual older studies so I don't think he's just making this stuff up, but who knows. Climate change/global warming is becoming a religion or belief system. Not believing in climate change is blasphemous. I want real science not people with agendas screwing with the data to fit their models to keep the grant money rolling in.

We should put some significant effort into Thorium nuclear. It's clearly the best option in the short term. I agree that we shouldn't just use more oil for the sake of using more oil, but oil based products are really hard to beat for travel purposes. Electric cars can be good for commuting, but considering most people are going to be plugging them in when they get home from work it's getting it's electricity from a fossil fuel power plant somewhere. Public transportation is good as well but the west coast just isn't that well designed for public transport.

The bottom line is there's a huge economic investment that has to happen to do any of this and in most cases it will hit the lower middle class and poorest the worst. A new car payment, a new gas tax, higher electricity prices all hit them harder than it would hit me or you.

Submitted by livinincali on March 9, 2016 - 8:30am.

bearishgurl wrote:
I think Trump and Cruz made a backroom deal to force Rubio out after he loses his home state of FL in the primaries next week. They want Rubio's voter base added to their own SINGLE campaign when they start campaigning together.

I really don't see Trump picking Cruz as a running mate. It could happen to make sure the hard right shows up at the polls, but you don't have to fear the hard right voting for Clinton or Sanders.

Surprisingly Sanders actually won Michigan which is a little outside of his local sphere of influence. I still think Clinton has the nomination won especially with the Super delegate situation the democrats use in the nomination process. It's probably up to the FBI and Attorney General to keep her from being the democratic candidate although I don't know that the FBI is going to be done with the case by the end of July. It could get rather ugly down the stretch if she's the nominee but also recommended for prosecution.

Submitted by spdrun on March 9, 2016 - 8:48am.

Of course, that cough could end up being more than just a winter flu.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 9, 2016 - 9:51am.

livinincali wrote:

The bottom line is there's a huge economic investment that has to happen to do any of this and in most cases it will hit the lower middle class and poorest the worst. A new car payment, a new gas tax, higher electricity prices all hit them harder than it would hit me or you.

There are ways to mitigate that, if only we had the willingness to do it.

Free, or nearly free public transport? That would spur so a lot of infrastructure investment and change the face of urban planning.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 9, 2016 - 10:07am.

livinincali wrote:

I really don't see Trump picking Cruz as a running mate. It could happen to make sure the hard right shows up at the polls, but you don't have to fear the hard right voting for Clinton or Sanders.

Right now, Cruz looks like the only Trump alternative. Rubio has been sidelined.

livinincali wrote:

Surprisingly Sanders actually won Michigan which is a little outside of his local sphere of influence. I still think Clinton has the nomination won especially with the Super delegate situation the democrats use in the nomination process. It's probably up to the FBI and Attorney General to keep her from being the democratic candidate although I don't know that the FBI is going to be done with the case by the end of July. It could get rather ugly down the stretch if she's the nominee but also recommended for prosecution.

The email is thing is nothing. So is Benghazi.
That shows that the Republican base those stories are targeted at know nothing about government.

Plenty of other government officials used private email accounts. Certainly, they didn't have the resources to have their own servers, but they certainly used yahoo, gmail, and AOL and CompuServe before that.

I grew up among American diplomats. Diplomats can be targeted sometimes, and it's their job to be out and about mingling with the public. You can't protect everyone. Chris Steven was armed with the best local intelligence and he chose to go to Benghazi. Keeping diplomats sheltered behind high walls, to be flown out at any minute sign of danger, would irreparably harm American interests around the world.

Read a little about Graham Martin, the last American Ambassador before the fall of Saigon. He put himself in a lot of danger.

Submitted by no_such_reality on March 9, 2016 - 10:35am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
livinincali wrote:

The bottom line is there's a huge economic investment that has to happen to do any of this and in most cases it will hit the lower middle class and poorest the worst. A new car payment, a new gas tax, higher electricity prices all hit them harder than it would hit me or you.

There are ways to mitigate that, if only we had the willingness to do it.

Free, or nearly free public transport? That would spur so a lot of infrastructure investment and change the face of urban planning.

The problem for public transportation is not the cost to the users, it's the distance, 500 meters and cost to society build and run it.

Planet wide, culture wide, it's repetitively shown to the be the maximum distance people are willing to walk for public transportation on a regular basis.

Free is bad. We need to stop saying free. We need to stop thinking free. We need to stop thinking an all you can gorge on buffet is good, whether it's health care, education, consumer goods or an actual buffet.

Over consumption is the problem. You don't solve over consumption with 'free'.

And over consumption is the problem, IMHO.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 9, 2016 - 10:43am.

ok, not free, but cheap and not budget busting.
Mexico City's subway fare is 25c.

yes, I agree with 500 meters. That's why urban planning needs to change.

We can save resources and live better as a whole, but we need to have the willingness to do it. There is no law of nature preventing that.

The law of nature does say that we will run out carbon fuels sooner or later. Question is: do we want to have pollution and run out of fuel in a shorter amount of time or longer period?

Submitted by livinincali on March 9, 2016 - 11:22am.

FlyerInHi wrote:

The email is thing is nothing. So is Benghazi.
That shows that the Republican base those stories are targeted at know nothing about government.

Plenty of other government officials used private email accounts. Certainly, they didn't have the resources to have their own servers, but they certainly used yahoo, gmail, and AOL and CompuServe before that.

Last time I checked the FBI doesn't spend resources investigating nothing and I also don't believe the FBI works for the republican party.

The point isn't that government workers use google and yahoo email for their private matters. The problem is transmitting classified information in those channels.

Submitted by livinincali on March 9, 2016 - 11:25am.

FlyerInHi wrote:

There are ways to mitigate that, if only we had the willingness to do it.

Free, or nearly free public transport? That would spur so a lot of infrastructure investment and change the face of urban planning.

Nothing is free. The money for improving public transportation or making if free to use has to come from somewhere. Maybe you can shift the burden onto the wealthy to some degree, but it isn't free.

Submitted by no_such_reality on March 9, 2016 - 11:51am.

FlyerInHi wrote:

The law of nature does say that we will run out carbon fuels sooner or later. Question is: do we want to have pollution and run out of fuel in a shorter amount of time or longer period?

Seems like you're flip flopping. IS it Global warming or now running out of carbon fuels?

ARe we going to look at Tesla and really figure out lifetime emission impacts or do we just want to feel good and get a carpool sticker?

I bought solar panels years ago. Great deal for me, I locked my effectively power costs at just sub-10 cents a KwH. The cost to you and society, is roughly 35 cents. That's 35 cents per KwH, whether I use them or not, whether I produce them or not. You already paid for them.

It's a screaming good deal considering that wholesale PEAK demand generation averages about 3 cents/KwH and tops out around 6 cents currently...

Is that the trade off you're proposing in mass?

Submitted by zk on March 9, 2016 - 11:57am.

livinincali wrote:

Have you actually looked at some of the stuff the skeptics have produced. This guy went back into old studies and shows how newer studies actually lower the past temperatures to make if look like there's a larger warming tend then there really is. The past temperatures didn't change. There's no reason to adjust them unless you are trying to make you CO2 model work out when it isn't working out.

http://realclimatescience.com/history-of...
He provides links to the actual older studies so I don't think he's just making this stuff up, but who knows.

You keep pointing to individuals who have done unsubstantiated work. And, in this case, one with an obvious political agenda. Why is that? Is it because virtually all the substantiated, peer-reviewed work supports the hypothesis that man is causing global warming?

livinincali wrote:

Climate change/global warming is becoming a religion or belief system. Not believing in climate change is blasphemous.


This stuff is right out of the right-wing noise machine playbook. It’s designed to manipulate you. It appears to have worked.

livinincali wrote:

I want real science not people with agendas screwing with the data to fit their models to keep the grant money rolling in.

I’m going to have to call B.S. on you saying you want real science. If you want “real science,” you don’t go to a webpage with a clear political agenda for that science. (realclimatescience.com) There’s tons of real science out there. The only “science” you’re focusing on is individuals who clearly have an agenda and, therefore, aren’t doing real science.

livinincali wrote:

The bottom line is there's a huge economic investment that has to happen to do any of this and in most cases it will hit the lower middle class and poorest the worst. A new car payment, a new gas tax, higher electricity prices all hit them harder than it would hit me or you.

First of all, if we’re concerned about “real science,” this has nothing to do with anything. Secondly, to use concern for poor people as a reason to sell the idea that climate change is bogus is highly disingenuous. Basically, the people trying to deny climate change are the same people who regularly show a complete lack of concern for poor people.

Submitted by spdrun on March 9, 2016 - 12:04pm.

Long-term environmental costs are not factored into the cost of fossil-fool power.

We also should be building more nuclear power generation capacity. Just bought some Electricite de France (~13% div yield, babeh!) and AREVA ADR's :)

Both of which are involved in nuclear power construction in China. We're too chickenshit to do the same on our shores, sadly. Americans are really a bunch of fearful weaklings when it comes down to it.

Submitted by an on March 9, 2016 - 12:27pm.

spdrun wrote:
Long-term environmental costs are not factored into the cost of fossil-fool power..

What would those long term cost be? I think most reasonable people would agree human contribute to increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The real question is, what is the cost if we do nothing and would would be the cost of eliminate the problem. I don't think I've ever see any real solution that say, "if we do x, y, z, it'll solve the problem 100% but here is the consequences of that solution".

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 9, 2016 - 12:32pm.

no_such_reality wrote:

Seems like you're flip flopping. IS it Global warming or now running out of carbon fuels?

It's both. It's about spreading out carbon pollution over a much longer time horizon so that we can enjoy lesser impact.

Submitted by spdrun on March 9, 2016 - 12:35pm.

What would those long term cost be? I think most reasonable people would agree human contribute to increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Pollution from extraction, leakage, and burning.

Loss of land area due to greenhouse effect. Same goes for food production capacity, etc.

Submitted by an on March 9, 2016 - 12:40pm.

spdrun wrote:

What would those long term cost be? I think most reasonable people would agree human contribute to increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Pollution from extraction, leakage, and burning.

Loss of land area due to greenhouse effect. Same goes for food production capacity, etc.

What about leakage of nuclear plant?
What about loss of land due to leakage of nuclear (3 miles island)?
Food production capacity? Easily solved w/ tech (cloning and GMO).
Now, what about the many other products that uses oil, like plastic? What would replace those?

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 9, 2016 - 12:40pm.

AN wrote:
I don't think I've ever see any real solution that say, "if we do x, y, z, it'll solve the problem 100% but here is the consequences of that solution".

That's analysis paralysis that the fossil fuel industry wants.

We just need to take reasonable steps while we bank fossil fuels for future generations. You wouldn't want to use your grandkids' fossil fuels now, would you?

Submitted by spdrun on March 9, 2016 - 12:44pm.

What about leakage of nuclear plant?
What about loss of land due to leakage of nuclear (3 miles island)?

Not a problem if you don't hire idiots to design and operate the plant. And modern designs are a lot safer than 1960s designs in operation in the US.

Burning coal also puts radwaste into the environment you know.

Submitted by an on March 9, 2016 - 12:46pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
That's analysis paralysis that the fossil fuel industry wants.

We just need to take reasonable steps while we bank fossil fuels for future generations. You wouldn't want to use your grandkids' fossil fuels now, would you?

No it's not. I just want to make sure the steps we're taking actually make a meaningful change. How do we know it's a meaningful change unless we thoroughly analyze it? Without proper analyzing the solution, how do you know it's even going to make a difference or take you in the wrong direction? Since none of the solution is absence of side effect, wouldn't it be smart to analyze the side effect and let the people decide whether a particular solution is worthwhile w/ a particular set of side effect? I mean, we all can go back to 1900 without cars, planes, and kill off 1/2 of the world population. This whole CO2 problem would be solved 100%. But would people be OK w/ the side effect?

I believe in technology and believe that by my grandkids' time, they'll have fusion all figured out and they'll have infinite renewable energy.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.