Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?

[nereo]

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?

What about the GND do you oppose?

The fact that it is another progressive item without a clear way to pay for it.

ctuster1 makes some excellent points above, but I'd like to add that we are paying dearly for non-action on the climate, and the cost is rising exponentially. 
NOT acting quickly and effectively is going to cost several $T/year over the coming decades globally. We are likely to suffer far more in lost GDP domestically than the $2T-$4T packages currently being discusses, particularly when one considers the economic growth involved in the green sector.

I want that money to be used strategically and intelligently, but for me the worst option is to not have any clean energy package, and the second worst scenario would be to have a 'small' spending bill that's under $1T.

[EvenSteven]

Has the Green new Deal changed since it was first introduced? It was originally a non-binding resolution, so I don't understand how that can cost anything at all, much less trillions.

I don't think legislation introduced and written as a non-binding resolution can fairly be considered as if it were substantive policy prescriptions. That goes for both the cost and the likely impact on climate it would have.

If the Green new Deal has evolved into something else, then disregard the above.

[BicycleB]

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?

So not from any specific agenda, but things I have heard that I would label progressive and radical.  Free college tuition that is not paid for in some way, just see n as a "right".  In fact any argument that something is a "right" that sadly may not really be.  Healthcare is the obvious one.  Like it or not a country is not, and cannot in a fiscally responsible manner be, a charity.  That means people without the means to pay for something do not get that something.  Now before everyone strings me up as a far right conservative, let me elaborate on this because I think this is where the screaming begins and conversation stops in many cases.  I am NOT saying I do not feel everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare, I am just stating the stark reality that that is utopia that is unachievable.  That does not mean I am not for methods than increase coverage to more people (ACA or furtherance of the concept to a public option) but I want it to be done in a way that does not bankrupt (figuratively) the nation.  This is why a business person who was sane would actually be a good option for president, because they get these concepts that you need to find a way to pay for your agenda or your agenda does not happen.  I think programs like these are where the "socialist" and "communist" labels get tossed on them, because all those systems tend to not look at the monetary side as much, and here in the US where they are negative labels it is easy to say that as a synonym to "bad".  However, Bernie's "I am a Democratic Socialist" turns me off because, knowing that, he embraces that "bad" label which lowers my support for his views.  If we can provide "free" healthcare or "free" community college in a responsible way, I am for that as it raises the collective well being of the nation, but the key point I feel progressives miss is it is not free.  Someone is paying for it and that is where anyone not progressive gets nervous, because it seem the progressive wing just thinks it will work out, but I as a moderate very focused on a fiscally responsible government thing they are just like my kids who never learned to manage money.  Just because AOC is an adult woman, I have never heard any financial explanation of her proposals, just the "but this is the right thing to do".

Thanks, @caracarn! Wonderful reply - very clear, honest, thoughtful explanation of your concerns. These are very compelling.

Looking at this election's winning coalition and pondering future elections, I suppose that Biden's stated programs are arguably a pretty well crafted balance between the desire for humane progressive goals and the need to keep the costs tolerable. Sincere groups within the coalition will probably feel pulled to argue about various positions, of course (after all, they reason, Biden's bland path doesn't do the most important things that would really inspire voters). Can Democrats form a coalition that holds these conflicting views together enough to at least achieve the parts that we agree on? (And on the flip side, what will Republicans focus on in 2021-2024? What coalition will that carry into the 2024 polls?)

I wonder if the 9 groupings of voters in the article below would help to understand each other. They don't seem to address your concerns very precisely though. Maybe you're closest to the "Opportunity Democrat" category, with the next closest category being the Republican "New Era Enterpriser"?

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559774933/2-party-system-americans-might-be-ready-for-8

PS. The article headline mentions 8 "parties", but I think "groups with distinct views that will likely end up continuing to be factions within parties" is more accurate.

[nereo]

Has the Green new Deal changed since it was first introduced? It was originally a non-binding resolution, so I don't understand how that can cost anything at all, much less trillions.

I don't think legislation introduced and written as a non-binding resolution can fairly be considered as if it were substantive policy prescriptions. That goes for both the cost and the likely impact on climate it would have.

If the Green new Deal has evolved into something else, then disregard the above.

That's just it - the GND is a series of proposals for how we move towards a cleaner ("greener") economy.  It's more a concept and collection of ideas, and was never put into a cohesive spending bill.  However, several candidates, including Biden and Yang, have proposed their onw spending bills which took many of the ideas from the GND.  Yang's was the most ambitious propsoed at $4t... I believe BIden's new plan is $2T or so.

[Shane]

So not from any specific agenda, but things I have heard that I would label progressive and radical.  Free college tuition that is not paid for in some way, just see n as a "right".  In fact any argument that something is a "right" that sadly may not really be.  Healthcare is the obvious one.  Like it or not a country is not, and cannot in a fiscally responsible manner be, a charity.  That means people without the means to pay for something do not get that something.  Now before everyone strings me up as a far right conservative, let me elaborate on this because I think this is where the screaming begins and conversation stops in many cases.  I am NOT saying I do not feel everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare, I am just stating the stark reality that that is utopia that is unachievable.  That does not mean I am not for methods than increase coverage to more people (ACA or furtherance of the concept to a public option) but I want it to be done in a way that does not bankrupt (figuratively) the nation.  This is why a business person who was sane would actually be a good option for president, because they get these concepts that you need to find a way to pay for your agenda or your agenda does not happen. I think programs like these are where the "socialist" and "communist" labels get tossed on them, because all those systems tend to not look at the monetary side as much, and here in the US where they are negative labels it is easy to say that as a synonym to "bad".  However, Bernie's "I am a Democratic Socialist" turns me off because, knowing that, he embraces that "bad" label which lowers my support for his views.  If we can provide "free" healthcare or "free" community college in a responsible way, I am for that as it raises the collective well being of the nation, but the key point I feel progressives miss is it is not free.  Someone is paying for it and that is where anyone not progressive gets nervous, because it seem the progressive wing just thinks it will work out, but I as a moderate very focused on a fiscally responsible government thing they are just like my kids who never learned to manage money.  Just because AOC is an adult woman, I have never heard any financial explanation of her proposals, just the "but this is the right thing to do".

It seems really odd to me that anyone who claims to be a fiscal conservative would not be on board with switching to single-payer, universal healthcare. Every other OECD country in the world does it already, and their costs to provide quality healthcare for all of their citizens are much less than what we are spending in the US to provide healthcare only to those who can afford to pay for it. Switching seems like a no brainer to me. What am I missing?

OECD Countries' Health Expenditure as Share of GDP

Among OECD member countries, the United States had the highest percentage of gross domestic product spent on health care in 2018 - or latest year available. The U.S. spent nearly 17 percent of its GDP on health care services. Switzerland, France, and Germany followed the U.S. with distinctly smaller percentages. What makes the difference compared to other developed countries is the significantly higher private spending in the United States, while public health spending is on line with other developed countries.

[caracarn]

Given this history, why exactly this claim that somehow the "progressives" need to "prove" their fiscal rectitude, and the implication that no such proof is necessary from the habitual and repeat offenders - the conservatives?

You have made an assumption that caused you to waste a lot of time typing up a long reply.

I expect every proposal, regardless of who it is made by, to be paid for.  Obviously for some things that is not possible, like COVID stimulus.  Some things are done because we have to.  We do not have to provide everyone with free college or free healthcare.  We should always make improvements in those areas to improve access, but I support plans that do not lose money, regardless if they are Republican or progressive Democrat proposals.  What I have seen if that progressives tend to focus on what makes people feel good irrespective of the cost, hence the Green New Deal with all the empty aspirations.  If money were no object I could get as excited and hopeful as anyone, but in our reality, money is always an object. 

TL;DR  All parties need to "prove" their fiscal rectitude. 

[caracarn]

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?

So not from any specific agenda, but things I have heard that I would label progressive and radical.  Free college tuition that is not paid for in some way, just see n as a "right". In fact any argument that something is a "right" that sadly may not really be.  Healthcare is the obvious one.  Like it or not a country is not, and cannot in a fiscally responsible manner be, a charity.  That means people without the means to pay for something do not get that something.  Now before everyone strings me up as a far right conservative, let me elaborate on this because I think this is where the screaming begins and conversation stops in many cases.  I am NOT saying I do not feel everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare, I am just stating the stark reality that that is utopia that is unachievable.  That does not mean I am not for methods than increase coverage to more people (ACA or furtherance of the concept to a public option) but I want it to be done in a way that does not bankrupt (figuratively) the nation.  This is why a business person who was sane would actually be a good option for president, because they get these concepts that you need to find a way to pay for your agenda or your agenda does not happen.  I think programs like these are where the "socialist" and "communist" labels get tossed on them, because all those systems tend to not look at the monetary side as much, and here in the US where they are negative labels it is easy to say that as a synonym to "bad".  However, Bernie's "I am a Democratic Socialist" turns me off because, knowing that, he embraces that "bad" label which lowers my support for his views.  If we can provide "free" healthcare or "free" community college in a responsible way, I am for that as it raises the collective well being of the nation, but the key point I feel progressives miss is it is not free.  Someone is paying for it and that is where anyone not progressive gets nervous, because it seem the progressive wing just thinks it will work out, but I as a moderate very focused on a fiscally responsible government thing they are just like my kids who never learned to manage money.  Just because AOC is an adult woman, I have never heard any financial explanation of her proposals, just the "but this is the right thing to do".

Funny how so many other countries have managed to figure it out, though.

Guess that means they are smarter than we are, or at least smarter than our system allows us to be.  That is of course assuming their proposals are not losing money, which I would question.  They may not be because of the higher taxes in socialist countries to pay for these programs.  The difference, that I agree with, is that the government in the US is not the solver of all problems.  Individuals are expected to figure it out.

[JLee]

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?

So not from any specific agenda, but things I have heard that I would label progressive and radical.  Free college tuition that is not paid for in some way, just see n as a "right". In fact any argument that something is a "right" that sadly may not really be.  Healthcare is the obvious one.  Like it or not a country is not, and cannot in a fiscally responsible manner be, a charity.  That means people without the means to pay for something do not get that something.  Now before everyone strings me up as a far right conservative, let me elaborate on this because I think this is where the screaming begins and conversation stops in many cases.  I am NOT saying I do not feel everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare, I am just stating the stark reality that that is utopia that is unachievable.  That does not mean I am not for methods than increase coverage to more people (ACA or furtherance of the concept to a public option) but I want it to be done in a way that does not bankrupt (figuratively) the nation.  This is why a business person who was sane would actually be a good option for president, because they get these concepts that you need to find a way to pay for your agenda or your agenda does not happen.  I think programs like these are where the "socialist" and "communist" labels get tossed on them, because all those systems tend to not look at the monetary side as much, and here in the US where they are negative labels it is easy to say that as a synonym to "bad".  However, Bernie's "I am a Democratic Socialist" turns me off because, knowing that, he embraces that "bad" label which lowers my support for his views.  If we can provide "free" healthcare or "free" community college in a responsible way, I am for that as it raises the collective well being of the nation, but the key point I feel progressives miss is it is not free.  Someone is paying for it and that is where anyone not progressive gets nervous, because it seem the progressive wing just thinks it will work out, but I as a moderate very focused on a fiscally responsible government thing they are just like my kids who never learned to manage money.  Just because AOC is an adult woman, I have never heard any financial explanation of her proposals, just the "but this is the right thing to do".

Funny how so many other countries have managed to figure it out, though.

Guess that means they are smarter than we are, or at least smarter than our system allows us to be.  That is of course assuming their proposals are not losing money, which I would question.  They may not be because of the higher taxes in socialist countries to pay for these programs.  The difference, that I agree with, is that the government in the US is not the solver of all problems.  Individuals are expected to figure it out.

The United States spends vastly more money per capita on health care than every other country.  It is not an "it's too expensive" problem. It's already more expensive than everywhere else.

[nereo]

So not from any specific agenda, but things I have heard that I would label progressive and radical.  Free college tuition that is not paid for in some way, just see n as a "right".  In fact any argument that something is a "right" that sadly may not really be.  Healthcare is the obvious one.  Like it or not a country is not, and cannot in a fiscally responsible manner be, a charity.  That means people without the means to pay for something do not get that something.  Now before everyone strings me up as a far right conservative, let me elaborate on this because I think this is where the screaming begins and conversation stops in many cases.  I am NOT saying I do not feel everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare, I am just stating the stark reality that that is utopia that is unachievable.  That does not mean I am not for methods than increase coverage to more people (ACA or furtherance of the concept to a public option) but I want it to be done in a way that does not bankrupt (figuratively) the nation.  This is why a business person who was sane would actually be a good option for president, because they get these concepts that you need to find a way to pay for your agenda or your agenda does not happen. I think programs like these are where the "socialist" and "communist" labels get tossed on them, because all those systems tend to not look at the monetary side as much, and here in the US where they are negative labels it is easy to say that as a synonym to "bad".  However, Bernie's "I am a Democratic Socialist" turns me off because, knowing that, he embraces that "bad" label which lowers my support for his views.  If we can provide "free" healthcare or "free" community college in a responsible way, I am for that as it raises the collective well being of the nation, but the key point I feel progressives miss is it is not free.  Someone is paying for it and that is where anyone not progressive gets nervous, because it seem the progressive wing just thinks it will work out, but I as a moderate very focused on a fiscally responsible government thing they are just like my kids who never learned to manage money.  Just because AOC is an adult woman, I have never heard any financial explanation of her proposals, just the "but this is the right thing to do".

It seems really odd to me that anyone who claims to be a fiscal conservative would not be on board with switching to single-payer, universal healthcare. Every other OECD country in the world does it already, and their costs to provide quality healthcare for all of their citizens are much less than what we are spending in the US to provide healthcare only to those who can afford to pay for it. Switching seems like a no brainer to me. What am I missing?

OECD Countries' Health Expenditure as Share of GDP

Here is one area that I am in agreement with you, Shane.  If there's anything, the one area you may be missing is how much money and jobs there are sloshing around in our healthcare system to prop up this inefficient behemoth.  The health insurance industry is enormous, and has a vested interest in not moving towards single-payer (they also have a vested interest in NOT providing life-saving care for their clients, a remarkable COI).

As has been noted, the ACA emerged from the GOP-led plan from MA (then Gov. Mitt Romney implemented it in 2006).

Further, I'd say it's supremely odd that self-described 'pro-business' and 'anti-taxation' conservatives continue to support a system which prioritizes employers providing insurance to their employees at enormous cost to the corporation.  For many companies, health-care benefits are their single largest line-item in their budget.  Providing health insurance can cost well over $10k/employee/year. And that of course is a driving reason why so many have shifted to contract employees, which is something most generally oppose in principle.

As JLee points out (above) - we already ARE spending this money on healthcare, and it's overwhelmingly become the burden of businesses, and at an enormous cost to both the company and to workers who see diminished paycheques and loss of coverage with loss of employment.

[EvenSteven]

Given this history, why exactly this claim that somehow the "progressives" need to "prove" their fiscal rectitude, and the implication that no such proof is necessary from the habitual and repeat offenders - the conservatives?

You have made an assumption that caused you to waste a lot of time typing up a long reply.

I expect every proposal, regardless of who it is made by, to be paid for.  Obviously for some things that is not possible, like COVID stimulus.  Some things are done because we have to.  We do not have to provide everyone with free college or free healthcare.  We should always make improvements in those areas to improve access, but I support plans that do not lose money, regardless if they are Republican or progressive Democrat proposals.  What I have seen if that progressives tend to focus on what makes people feel good irrespective of the cost, hence the Green New Deal with all the empty aspirations.  If money were no object I could get as excited and hopeful as anyone, but in our reality, money is always an object. 

TL;DR  All parties need to "prove" their fiscal rectitude.

The bolded part is what I was asking about above. Are you talking about the actual legislation proposed last year that was called the Green New Deal? Or something else with actual specific policy implications?

As far as I can tell non-binding resolutions cost close to zero dollars. The Green New Deal would basically just be the legislature acknowledging that climate change is a problem, and we should do something about it.

[ctuser1]

Given this history, why exactly this claim that somehow the "progressives" need to "prove" their fiscal rectitude, and the implication that no such proof is necessary from the habitual and repeat offenders - the conservatives?

You have made an assumption that caused you to waste a lot of time typing up a long reply.

I expect every proposal, regardless of who it is made by, to be paid for.  Obviously for some things that is not possible, like COVID stimulus.  Some things are done because we have to.  We do not have to provide everyone with free college or free healthcare.  We should always make improvements in those areas to improve access, but I support plans that do not lose money, regardless if they are Republican or progressive Democrat proposals.  What I have seen if that progressives tend to focus on what makes people feel good irrespective of the cost, hence the Green New Deal with all the empty aspirations.  If money were no object I could get as excited and hopeful as anyone, but in our reality, money is always an object. 

TL;DR  All parties need to "prove" their fiscal rectitude.

Admittedly I don’t know your opinion specifically. So my arguments may have made assumptions.

If you are for fiscal responsibilities, as you say, then by definition you could not have supported most (any?) of the signature conservative programs since Regan. If you never supported a republican administration/president since Regan - then my assumptions were unfounded, and I apologize.

Since Regan, however, “progressives” have run a stint of responsible administration during Clinton’s time, and passed Obamacare. If you compare the rate of growth in the total healthcare costs in the decade before Obamacare to the 10 year period after, you may conclude (just like my extremely rough back of the envelope calculation did) that Obamacare saved the US economy several trillions of $$ on an NPV basis.

Purely based on numbers and history, I’d be much more concerned about any conservative proposals than progressive ones!!

[Shane]

I support big investments in high speed rail, further incentives for the adoption of zero emission vehicles, more investment in public transit in cities.

I support coming up with incentives for farmers to manage runoff and nitrous oxide emissions (which would also necessarily mean also investing in better technologies to measure these).

I support big investments to achieve a target of 100% non-fossil fuel based power (the GND wanted 100% renewable power).

However, to fight climate change I think we need to expand and standardize the construction of nuclear power plants, not phase them out as the GND proposes. I think we need to incentivize densification of cities, without which it will be very hard to pull off effective public transportation like we see in both Europe and Asia. This would also help make high speed rail more affordable since rail companies in other countries make a lot of money by buying up land around a place they plan to put a new high speed rail line/stop and then redeveloping the land with high density housing they sell/rent once the access to a high speed rail stop makes it a more desirable place for people to live. We also need to focus on adaption to climate change in parallel with mitigation of climate change. The government should be providing incentives for people to relocate out of low laying areas, instead of subsidizing flood insurance that only will pay to rebuild the same house over and over ahead as storm surges become ever more common.

Totally agree with all of the above, especially the part about expanding nuclear power. There is new technology available for building Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded Terra Power's innovative Traveling Wave Reactor, which are safer and can even burn the spent fuel from conventional nuclear reactors. Incentivizing people to densify our cities also seems like a no brainer. Humans have a far bigger footprint on the Earth, now, than we need to. Some people will always need to live in the countryside surrounding cities, so that they can grow food for us to eat, but most don't. It would be great if we could, eventually, return 90%+ of our country to wilderness.

[Poundwise]

I support big investments in high speed rail, further incentives for the adoption of zero emission vehicles, more investment in public transit in cities.

I support coming up with incentives for farmers to manage runoff and nitrous oxide emissions (which would also necessarily mean also investing in better technologies to measure these).

I support big investments to achieve a target of 100% non-fossil fuel based power (the GND wanted 100% renewable power).

However, to fight climate change I think we need to expand and standardize the construction of nuclear power plants, not phase them out as the GND proposes. I think we need to incentivize densification of cities, without which it will be very hard to pull off effective public transportation like we see in both Europe and Asia. This would also help make high speed rail more affordable since rail companies in other countries make a lot of money by buying up land around a place they plan to put a new high speed rail line/stop and then redeveloping the land with high density housing they sell/rent once the access to a high speed rail stop makes it a more desirable place for people to live. We also need to focus on adaption to climate change in parallel with mitigation of climate change. The government should be providing incentives for people to relocate out of low laying areas, instead of subsidizing flood insurance that only will pay to rebuild the same house over and over ahead as storm surges become ever more common.

Totally agree with all of the above, especially the part about expanding nuclear power. There is new technology available for building Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded Terra Power's innovative Traveling Wave Reactor, which are safer and can even burn the spent fuel from conventional nuclear reactors. Incentivizing people to densify our cities also seems like a no brainer. Humans have a far bigger footprint on the Earth, now, than we need to. Some people will always need to live in the countryside surrounding cities, so that they can grow food for us to eat, but most don't. It would be great if we could, eventually, return 90%+ of our country to wilderness.

I agree, modernized nuclear plants are probably the only technological solution that we have that is mature enough to cut emissions enough within a single decade to prevent irreversible, catastrophic climate change.

[Shane]

The United States spends vastly more money per capita on health care than every other country.  It is not an "it's too expensive" problem. It's already more expensive than everywhere else.

If the US were driving the Cadillac of all world healthcare systems, and Americans were the healthiest humans on the planet because of it, it might be worth it to consider keeping and, maybe just improving upon, the system we already have. Since that's obviously not the case, though, arguments in favor of continuing with the current US healthcare system always seem pretty weak, imho.

[the_fixer]

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?

So not from any specific agenda, but things I have heard that I would label progressive and radical.  Free college tuition that is not paid for in some way, just see n as a "right".  In fact any argument that something is a "right" that sadly may not really be.  Healthcare is the obvious one.  Like it or not a country is not, and cannot in a fiscally responsible manner be, a charity.  That means people without the means to pay for something do not get that something.  Now before everyone strings me up as a far right conservative, let me elaborate on this because I think this is where the screaming begins and conversation stops in many cases.  I am NOT saying I do not feel everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare, I am just stating the stark reality that that is utopia that is unachievable.  That does not mean I am not for methods than increase coverage to more people (ACA or furtherance of the concept to a public option) but I want it to be done in a way that does not bankrupt (figuratively) the nation.  This is why a business person who was sane would actually be a good option for president, because they get these concepts that you need to find a way to pay for your agenda or your agenda does not happen.  I think programs like these are where the "socialist" and "communist" labels get tossed on them, because all those systems tend to not look at the monetary side as much, and here in the US where they are negative labels it is easy to say that as a synonym to "bad".  However, Bernie's "I am a Democratic Socialist" turns me off because, knowing that, he embraces that "bad" label which lowers my support for his views.  If we can provide "free" healthcare or "free" community college in a responsible way, I am for that as it raises the collective well being of the nation, but the key point I feel progressives miss is it is not free.  Someone is paying for it and that is where anyone not progressive gets nervous, because it seem the progressive wing just thinks it will work out, but I as a moderate very focused on a fiscally responsible government thing they are just like my kids who never learned to manage money.  Just because AOC is an adult woman, I have never heard any financial explanation of her proposals, just the "but this is the right thing to do".

I have been in favor of FREE  trade school, community college or 4 years of state college.

My father in law labels me as a flaming liberal and says it will bankrupt the country and he had to pay for it so everyone else should have to.

I actually see it as an investment in the country and as a potential long term boost to the economy.

1. If we have more educated people working they will pay more in taxes
2. More educated people should equal more opportunities for potential innovations that will put our country in the lead for future technologies
3. Someone that has a skill or education has more opportunities for earning a higher income and should be less likely to need social services
4. I think crime like personal property theft would go down, if someone has skills / education they are going to be less likely to see stealing worth the potential downside.

The benefits just go on and on such as drug use, taking care of your health, savings and general life choices that lead people one way or the other if they have skills / education the choices that lead to success become easier.

I just do not see it as a drag on the economy in the end as I suspect it would provide more savings than cost in the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shane]

So not from any specific agenda, but things I have heard that I would label progressive and radical.  Free college tuition that is not paid for in some way, just see n as a "right".  In fact any argument that something is a "right" that sadly may not really be.  Healthcare is the obvious one.  Like it or not a country is not, and cannot in a fiscally responsible manner be, a charity.  That means people without the means to pay for something do not get that something.  Now before everyone strings me up as a far right conservative, let me elaborate on this because I think this is where the screaming begins and conversation stops in many cases.  I am NOT saying I do not feel everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare, I am just stating the stark reality that that is utopia that is unachievable.  That does not mean I am not for methods than increase coverage to more people (ACA or furtherance of the concept to a public option) but I want it to be done in a way that does not bankrupt (figuratively) the nation.  This is why a business person who was sane would actually be a good option for president, because they get these concepts that you need to find a way to pay for your agenda or your agenda does not happen. I think programs like these are where the "socialist" and "communist" labels get tossed on them, because all those systems tend to not look at the monetary side as much, and here in the US where they are negative labels it is easy to say that as a synonym to "bad".  However, Bernie's "I am a Democratic Socialist" turns me off because, knowing that, he embraces that "bad" label which lowers my support for his views.  If we can provide "free" healthcare or "free" community college in a responsible way, I am for that as it raises the collective well being of the nation, but the key point I feel progressives miss is it is not free.  Someone is paying for it and that is where anyone not progressive gets nervous, because it seem the progressive wing just thinks it will work out, but I as a moderate very focused on a fiscally responsible government thing they are just like my kids who never learned to manage money.  Just because AOC is an adult woman, I have never heard any financial explanation of her proposals, just the "but this is the right thing to do".

It seems really odd to me that anyone who claims to be a fiscal conservative would not be on board with switching to single-payer, universal healthcare. Every other OECD country in the world does it already, and their costs to provide quality healthcare for all of their citizens are much less than what we are spending in the US to provide healthcare only to those who can afford to pay for it. Switching seems like a no brainer to me. What am I missing?

OECD Countries' Health Expenditure as Share of GDP

Here is one area that I am in agreement with you, Shane.  If there's anything, the one area you may be missing is how much money and jobs there are sloshing around in our healthcare system to prop up this inefficient behemoth.  The health insurance industry is enormous, and has a vested interest in not moving towards single-payer (they also have a vested interest in NOT providing life-saving care for their clients, a remarkable COI).

As has been noted, the ACA emerged from the GOP-led plan from MA (then Gov. Mitt Romney implemented it in 2006).

Further, I'd say it's supremely odd that self-described 'pro-business' and 'anti-taxation' conservatives continue to support a system which prioritizes employers providing insurance to their employees at enormous cost to the corporation.  For many companies, health-care benefits are their single largest line-item in their budget.  Providing health insurance can cost well over $10k/employee/year. And that of course is a driving reason why so many have shifted to contract employees, which is something most generally oppose in principle.

As JLee points out (above) - we already ARE spending this money on healthcare, and it's overwhelmingly become the burden of businesses, and at an enormous cost to both the company and to workers who see diminished paycheques and loss of coverage with loss of employment.

I think you're right, Nereo, that the thousands or maybe millions(?) of people currently employed in the private insurance industry, who might be at risk of losing their jobs because of a disruption to the status quo, are something that we'll need to consider. It doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem, though. I've also often wondered why businesses don't push harder to shift the burden of healthcare to the public sector, give that it is such a huge expense for them. Can't say I understand why they tolerate the status quo, tbh.

[nereo]

I support big investments in high speed rail, further incentives for the adoption of zero emission vehicles, more investment in public transit in cities.

I support coming up with incentives for farmers to manage runoff and nitrous oxide emissions (which would also necessarily mean also investing in better technologies to measure these).

I support big investments to achieve a target of 100% non-fossil fuel based power (the GND wanted 100% renewable power).

However, to fight climate change I think we need to expand and standardize the construction of nuclear power plants, not phase them out as the GND proposes. I think we need to incentivize densification of cities, without which it will be very hard to pull off effective public transportation like we see in both Europe and Asia. This would also help make high speed rail more affordable since rail companies in other countries make a lot of money by buying up land around a place they plan to put a new high speed rail line/stop and then redeveloping the land with high density housing they sell/rent once the access to a high speed rail stop makes it a more desirable place for people to live. We also need to focus on adaption to climate change in parallel with mitigation of climate change. The government should be providing incentives for people to relocate out of low laying areas, instead of subsidizing flood insurance that only will pay to rebuild the same house over and over ahead as storm surges become ever more common.

Totally agree with all of the above, especially the part about expanding nuclear power. There is new technology available for building Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded Terra Power's innovative Traveling Wave Reactor, which are safer and can even burn the spent fuel from conventional nuclear reactors. Incentivizing people to densify our cities also seems like a no brainer. Humans have a far bigger footprint on the Earth, now, than we need to. Some people will always need to live in the countryside surrounding cities, so that they can grow food for us to eat, but most don't. It would be great if we could, eventually, return 90%+ of our country to wilderness.

I agree, modernized nuclear plants are probably the only technological solution that we have that is mature enough to cut emissions enough within a single decade to prevent irreversible, catastrophic climate change.

Agree with you insofar that expanding nuclear would have had the greatest impact on reducing carbon emissions, and I would like to see us develop a lot more Gen III+ reactors.
However, it's utter fallacy to think we could bring those online fast enough to cut emissions "within a single decade".  Simply put, under the BEST of scenarios it takes much longer than a decade to go from design to generation of a nuclear reactor, and that's assuming we somehow addressed the massive permitting and funding issues which are systemic to their creation.

Bottom line - like much of addressing climate change, we would have been much better off had we been addressing these problems in the 1990s.  Today is better than tomorrow, though.  But don't expect our nuclear capacity to increase substantially for a couple decades, at least (point of fact, we are accelerating the decomissioning of plants right now, with no new reactors past the conceptual phase right now).

[Shane]

I agree, modernized nuclear plants are probably the only technological solution that we have that is mature enough to cut emissions enough within a single decade to prevent irreversible, catastrophic climate change.

My family and I lived for almost 20 years completely off the grid, making our own energy with solar power and using a diesel generator as backup, so I believe in and support renewable energy. It's just not going to be enough, though, especially since world energy consumption is predicted to increase 50% from what it is now, by 2050. Before Covid hit, we were on track to provide almost 20% of our energy from renewables. Sorry, but that's just not enough. It's possible that advances in technology will eventually make renewable energy, i.e., wind and solar, more efficient and, thus, capable of supplying all of our energy needs, but that's not going to happen soon enough to save us from climate change. Rapidly building many, many small, modular nuclear reactors would allow us meet our climate goals. Renewables will not. :(

[frugalnacho]

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?

So not from any specific agenda, but things I have heard that I would label progressive and radical.  Free college tuition that is not paid for in some way, just see n as a "right".  In fact any argument that something is a "right" that sadly may not really be.  Healthcare is the obvious one.  Like it or not a country is not, and cannot in a fiscally responsible manner be, a charity.  That means people without the means to pay for something do not get that something.  Now before everyone strings me up as a far right conservative, let me elaborate on this because I think this is where the screaming begins and conversation stops in many cases.  I am NOT saying I do not feel everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare, I am just stating the stark reality that that is utopia that is unachievable.  That does not mean I am not for methods than increase coverage to more people (ACA or furtherance of the concept to a public option) but I want it to be done in a way that does not bankrupt (figuratively) the nation.  This is why a business person who was sane would actually be a good option for president, because they get these concepts that you need to find a way to pay for your agenda or your agenda does not happen.  I think programs like these are where the "socialist" and "communist" labels get tossed on them, because all those systems tend to not look at the monetary side as much, and here in the US where they are negative labels it is easy to say that as a synonym to "bad".  However, Bernie's "I am a Democratic Socialist" turns me off because, knowing that, he embraces that "bad" label which lowers my support for his views.  If we can provide "free" healthcare or "free" community college in a responsible way, I am for that as it raises the collective well being of the nation, but the key point I feel progressives miss is it is not free.  Someone is paying for it and that is where anyone not progressive gets nervous, because it seem the progressive wing just thinks it will work out, but I as a moderate very focused on a fiscally responsible government thing they are just like my kids who never learned to manage money.  Just because AOC is an adult woman, I have never heard any financial explanation of her proposals, just the "but this is the right thing to do".

I have been in favor of FREE  trade school, community college or 4 years of state college.

My father in law labels me as a flaming liberal and says it will bankrupt the country and he had to pay for it so everyone else should have to.

I actually see it as an investment in the country and as a potential long term boost to the economy.

1. If we have more educated people working they will pay more in taxes
2. More educated people should equal more opportunities for potential innovations that will put our country in the lead for future technologies
3. Someone that has a skill or education has more opportunities for earning a higher income and should be less likely to need social services
4. I think crime like personal property theft would go down, if someone has skills / education they are going to be less likely to see stealing worth the potential downside.

The benefits just go on and on such as drug use, taking care of your health, savings and general life choices that lead people one way or the other if they have skills / education the choices that lead to success become easier.

I just do not see it as a drag on the economy in the end as I suspect it would provide more savings than cost in the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've never understood that talking point.  Somehow the richest nation on earth would go completely bankrupt by providing a college education for free, but foisting that non-dischargeable expense onto young people, who by definition have at most a high school education, won't? 

[nereo]

I agree, modernized nuclear plants are probably the only technological solution that we have that is mature enough to cut emissions enough within a single decade to prevent irreversible, catastrophic climate change.

My family and I lived for almost 20 years completely off the grid, making our own energy with solar power and using a diesel generator as backup, so I believe in and support renewable energy. It's just not going to be enough, though, especially since world energy consumption is predicted to increase 50% from what it is now, by 2050. Before Covid hit, we were on track to provide almost 20% of our energy from renewables. Sorry, but that's just not enough. It's possible that advances in technology will eventually make renewable energy, i.e., wind and solar, more efficient and, thus, capable of supplying all of our energy needs, but that's not going to happen soon enough to save us from climate change. Rapidly building many, many small, modular nuclear reactors would allow us meet our climate goals. Renewables will not. :(

I don't understand your response about renewables to a quote about increasing nuclear capacity.

[EvenSteven]

I agree, modernized nuclear plants are probably the only technological solution that we have that is mature enough to cut emissions enough within a single decade to prevent irreversible, catastrophic climate change.

My family and I lived for almost 20 years completely off the grid, making our own energy with solar power and using a diesel generator as backup, so I believe in and support renewable energy. It's just not going to be enough, though, especially since world energy consumption is predicted to increase 50% from what it is now, by 2050. Before Covid hit, we were on track to provide almost 20% of our energy from renewables. Sorry, but that's just not enough. It's possible that advances in technology will eventually make renewable energy, i.e., wind and solar, more efficient and, thus, capable of supplying all of our energy needs, but that's not going to happen soon enough to save us from climate change. Rapidly building many, many small, modular nuclear reactors would allow us meet our climate goals. Renewables will not. :(

I feel it important to note here that it's not an either/or between nuclear and renewables. Nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar, and hydro can all be ramped up in parallel.

[Shane]

I support big investments in high speed rail, further incentives for the adoption of zero emission vehicles, more investment in public transit in cities.

I support coming up with incentives for farmers to manage runoff and nitrous oxide emissions (which would also necessarily mean also investing in better technologies to measure these).

I support big investments to achieve a target of 100% non-fossil fuel based power (the GND wanted 100% renewable power).

However, to fight climate change I think we need to expand and standardize the construction of nuclear power plants, not phase them out as the GND proposes. I think we need to incentivize densification of cities, without which it will be very hard to pull off effective public transportation like we see in both Europe and Asia. This would also help make high speed rail more affordable since rail companies in other countries make a lot of money by buying up land around a place they plan to put a new high speed rail line/stop and then redeveloping the land with high density housing they sell/rent once the access to a high speed rail stop makes it a more desirable place for people to live. We also need to focus on adaption to climate change in parallel with mitigation of climate change. The government should be providing incentives for people to relocate out of low laying areas, instead of subsidizing flood insurance that only will pay to rebuild the same house over and over ahead as storm surges become ever more common.

Totally agree with all of the above, especially the part about expanding nuclear power. There is new technology available for building Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded Terra Power's innovative Traveling Wave Reactor, which are safer and can even burn the spent fuel from conventional nuclear reactors. Incentivizing people to densify our cities also seems like a no brainer. Humans have a far bigger footprint on the Earth, now, than we need to. Some people will always need to live in the countryside surrounding cities, so that they can grow food for us to eat, but most don't. It would be great if we could, eventually, return 90%+ of our country to wilderness.

I agree, modernized nuclear plants are probably the only technological solution that we have that is mature enough to cut emissions enough within a single decade to prevent irreversible, catastrophic climate change.

Agree with you insofar that expanding nuclear would have had the greatest impact on reducing carbon emissions, and I would like to see us develop a lot more Gen III+ reactors.
However, it's utter fallacy to think we could bring those online fast enough to cut emissions "within a single decade". Simply put, under the BEST of scenarios it takes much longer than a decade to go from design to generation of a nuclear reactor, and that's assuming we somehow addressed the massive permitting and funding issues which are systemic to their creation.

Bottom line - like much of addressing climate change, we would have been much better off had we been addressing these problems in the 1990s.  Today is better than tomorrow, though.  But don't expect our nuclear capacity to increase substantially for a couple decades, at least (point of fact, we are accelerating the decomissioning of plants right now, with no new reactors past the conceptual phase right now).

I dunno. Usually it takes like ten years for a vaccine to get approved in the US but, somehow, Pfizer appears to be poised to get approval for their Covid vaccine, which took them less than 10 months to develop. If we made climate change a priority, anything is possible, imho. Of course, we shouldn't immediately abandon all of the renewable energy production which is currently operational and providing almost 20% of our energy needs. We should continue expanding on that, at the same time that we dramatically ramp up the building of nuclear plants and streamline the approval process.

[Shane]

I agree, modernized nuclear plants are probably the only technological solution that we have that is mature enough to cut emissions enough within a single decade to prevent irreversible, catastrophic climate change.

My family and I lived for almost 20 years completely off the grid, making our own energy with solar power and using a diesel generator as backup, so I believe in and support renewable energy. It's just not going to be enough, though, especially since world energy consumption is predicted to increase 50% from what it is now, by 2050. Before Covid hit, we were on track to provide almost 20% of our energy from renewables. Sorry, but that's just not enough. It's possible that advances in technology will eventually make renewable energy, i.e., wind and solar, more efficient and, thus, capable of supplying all of our energy needs, but that's not going to happen soon enough to save us from climate change. Rapidly building many, many small, modular nuclear reactors would allow us meet our climate goals. Renewables will not. :(

I don't understand your response about renewables to a quote about increasing nuclear capacity.

Sorry if my editing of the post made it unclear. I was agreeing with Poundwise's statement that, "modernized nuclear plants are probably the only technological solution that we have that is mature enough to cut emissions enough within a single decade to prevent irreversible, catastrophic climate change." I agree that renewables aren't going to be enough to reach our climate goals. We are going to need nuclear, too.

[maizefolk]

While it is true building and designing nuclear plants is a slow process, it's also important to keep in mind that a government investment in bringing new reactors online wouldn't be starting the design process or scaling up manufacturing from scratch but could use recently developed designs by companies like TerraPower, or even NuScale with their 60 megawatt modular reactor which has already be approved for a 12 module reactor complex in Idaho to be completed by 2029. In that particular case the reactors themselves are only 65 ft x 9 ft, which makes it possible to assemble them in factories and ship them to where they will be installed, dramatically reducing the logistical complexity of building a nuclear reactor on-site which is where a lot of current projects run into problems.

Aside from the problems of building a giant complex reactor on site, the other big reason it is slow and expensive to build new nuclear reactors is the regulatory hurdles people have to jump through (the article I linked quoted $500M and 2M person hours to get the NuScale reactor design approved). A lot of that regulation is there for good reason, but as Shane points out in times of crisis the government can move a LOT faster (like with operation warp speed for COVID vaccines).

One place I disagree with some folks is that I think we are already too late to prevent irreversible catastrophic climate change. The question we are faced with now is how catastrophic. The GND taking nuclear power off the table made me think the folks proposing it may still be of the view we're in a situation where we can argue about the best way to reduce carbon emissions instead of using all the tools at our disposal.

[Shane]

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?

So not from any specific agenda, but things I have heard that I would label progressive and radical.  Free college tuition that is not paid for in some way, just see n as a "right". In fact any argument that something is a "right" that sadly may not really be.  Healthcare is the obvious one.  Like it or not a country is not, and cannot in a fiscally responsible manner be, a charity.  That means people without the means to pay for something do not get that something.  Now before everyone strings me up as a far right conservative, let me elaborate on this because I think this is where the screaming begins and conversation stops in many cases.  I am NOT saying I do not feel everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare, I am just stating the stark reality that that is utopia that is unachievable.  That does not mean I am not for methods than increase coverage to more people (ACA or furtherance of the concept to a public option) but I want it to be done in a way that does not bankrupt (figuratively) the nation.  This is why a business person who was sane would actually be a good option for president, because they get these concepts that you need to find a way to pay for your agenda or your agenda does not happen.  I think programs like these are where the "socialist" and "communist" labels get tossed on them, because all those systems tend to not look at the monetary side as much, and here in the US where they are negative labels it is easy to say that as a synonym to "bad".  However, Bernie's "I am a Democratic Socialist" turns me off because, knowing that, he embraces that "bad" label which lowers my support for his views.  If we can provide "free" healthcare or "free" community college in a responsible way, I am for that as it raises the collective well being of the nation, but the key point I feel progressives miss is it is not free.  Someone is paying for it and that is where anyone not progressive gets nervous, because it seem the progressive wing just thinks it will work out, but I as a moderate very focused on a fiscally responsible government thing they are just like my kids who never learned to manage money.  Just because AOC is an adult woman, I have never heard any financial explanation of her proposals, just the "but this is the right thing to do".

Funny how so many other countries have managed to figure it out, though.

Guess that means they are smarter than we are, or at least smarter than our system allows us to be.  That is of course assuming their proposals are not losing money, which I would question. They may not be because of the higher taxes in socialist countries to pay for these programs.  The difference, that I agree with, is that the government in the US is not the solver of all problems.  Individuals are expected to figure it out.

It seems really absurd to me to expect healthcare to "make money." Healthcare is a service that all successful, rich countries provide to their citizens, just like police and fire protection. No one expects their local police or fire departments to "make a profit," so why would we expect that healthcare does? It just makes no sense to me, at all. We need to step out of that mindset completely.

[frugalnacho]

Let's apply the same standard to the military budget.  They don't seem to be self sufficient and are suckling at america's teet. 

[nereo]

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?

So not from any specific agenda, but things I have heard that I would label progressive and radical.  Free college tuition that is not paid for in some way, just see n as a "right". In fact any argument that something is a "right" that sadly may not really be.  Healthcare is the obvious one.  Like it or not a country is not, and cannot in a fiscally responsible manner be, a charity.  That means people without the means to pay for something do not get that something.  Now before everyone strings me up as a far right conservative, let me elaborate on this because I think this is where the screaming begins and conversation stops in many cases.  I am NOT saying I do not feel everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare, I am just stating the stark reality that that is utopia that is unachievable.  That does not mean I am not for methods than increase coverage to more people (ACA or furtherance of the concept to a public option) but I want it to be done in a way that does not bankrupt (figuratively) the nation.  This is why a business person who was sane would actually be a good option for president, because they get these concepts that you need to find a way to pay for your agenda or your agenda does not happen.  I think programs like these are where the "socialist" and "communist" labels get tossed on them, because all those systems tend to not look at the monetary side as much, and here in the US where they are negative labels it is easy to say that as a synonym to "bad".  However, Bernie's "I am a Democratic Socialist" turns me off because, knowing that, he embraces that "bad" label which lowers my support for his views.  If we can provide "free" healthcare or "free" community college in a responsible way, I am for that as it raises the collective well being of the nation, but the key point I feel progressives miss is it is not free.  Someone is paying for it and that is where anyone not progressive gets nervous, because it seem the progressive wing just thinks it will work out, but I as a moderate very focused on a fiscally responsible government thing they are just like my kids who never learned to manage money.  Just because AOC is an adult woman, I have never heard any financial explanation of her proposals, just the "but this is the right thing to do".

Funny how so many other countries have managed to figure it out, though.

Guess that means they are smarter than we are, or at least smarter than our system allows us to be.  That is of course assuming their proposals are not losing money, which I would question. They may not be because of the higher taxes in socialist countries to pay for these programs.  The difference, that I agree with, is that the government in the US is not the solver of all problems.  Individuals are expected to figure it out.

It seems really absurd to me to expect healthcare to "make money." Healthcare is a service that all successful, rich countries provide to their citizens, just like police and fire protection. No one expects their local police or fire departments to "make a profit," so why would we expect that healthcare does? It just makes no sense to me, at all. We need to step out of that mindset completely.

I agree, modernized nuclear plants are probably the only technological solution that we have that is mature enough to cut emissions enough within a single decade to prevent irreversible, catastrophic climate change.

My family and I lived for almost 20 years completely off the grid, making our own energy with solar power and using a diesel generator as backup, so I believe in and support renewable energy. It's just not going to be enough, though, especially since world energy consumption is predicted to increase 50% from what it is now, by 2050. Before Covid hit, we were on track to provide almost 20% of our energy from renewables. Sorry, but that's just not enough. It's possible that advances in technology will eventually make renewable energy, i.e., wind and solar, more efficient and, thus, capable of supplying all of our energy needs, but that's not going to happen soon enough to save us from climate change. Rapidly building many, many small, modular nuclear reactors would allow us meet our climate goals. Renewables will not. :(

I feel it important to note here that it's not an either/or between nuclear and renewables. Nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar, and hydro can all be ramped up in parallel.

Exactly.  We ought to have addressed this a couple decades ago, when it would have been far cheaper (and long after the science had been conclusive). But since we can't go back in time we should start now and concurrently. Wind/Solar/Hydro can be rapidly incorporated into grid (as little as a few months).  Things like nuclear will take far longer, but we'll need (far more) power in the second half of this century, so let's start planning and building for that now.

I dunno. Usually it takes like ten years for a vaccine to get approved in the US but, somehow, Pfizer appears to be poised to get approval for their Covid vaccine, which took them less than 10 months to develop. If we made climate change a priority, anything is possible, imho. Of course, we shouldn't immediately abandon all of the renewable energy production which is currently operational and providing almost 20% of our energy needs. We should continue expanding on that, at the same time that we dramatically ramp up the building of nuclear plants and streamline the approval process.

Every. Single. Time. this comes up people assume we can just plop down some brand new nuclear plants like it was SimCity, based largely on fairy-dusty and unicorn farts.  FWIW I worked as an analyst on two decomissioning projects, so I've gotten a pretty detailed look at what's involved.  Building new plants involves massive projects in design, planning, permitting and construction, not to mention the consierable funding and public relations challenges. There aren't any 'off-the-shelf' plans for Gen III+ reactors.  And we've never built a new plant (from conception to generation) in under a decade.  Heck, we haven't even done it in under two decades.  Could we shave years off the process?  absolutely.  But I've never encountered ANYONE in the industry that thinks a new plant can be built in a couple of years.  Most people think 10 years would be a monumental accomplishment and involve clearing most permitting and public-comment periods while also providing massive public funding.
Do I still think we should forge ahead?  Absolutely (see above).

While it is true building and designing nuclear plants is a slow process, it's also important to keep in mind that a government investment in bringing new reactors online wouldn't be starting the design process or scaling up manufacturing from scratch but could use recently developed designs by companies like TerraPower, or even NuScale with their 60 megawatt modular reactor which has already be approved for a 12 module reactor complex in Idaho to be completed by 2029. In that particular case the reactors themselves are only 65 ft x 9 ft, which makes it possible to assemble them in factories and ship them to where they will be installed, dramatically reducing the logistical complexity of building a nuclear reactor on-site which is where a lot of current projects run into problems.

Exactly.  It's importnat to distinguish between reactors and plants. Adding reactors to existing plants is the easier of the two challenges.

[nereo]

At this point, on this day, I tell anyone who wants to know I am firmly Democratic party until they too push me away.  That may happen in 2024, assuming Biden is not running for whatever reason, even if they run Kamala if she embraces the progressive agenda whole heartedly.  I just do not feel we need radical change expect in certain spaces like racial/social justice and healthcare.  We can make progress on the climate without jumping onto the Green New Deal.  We can improve taxes and jobs without massive change.

@caracarn, as often happens, you raise profound thoughts. I've often thought of myself as progressive, but that's only because I want racial/social justice, healthcare and action against climate change (but not the Green New Deal). Maybe I've been misunderstanding the term. What is the progressive agenda? What radical changes would it entail?

So not from any specific agenda, but things I have heard that I would label progressive and radical.  Free college tuition that is not paid for in some way, just see n as a "right". In fact any argument that something is a "right" that sadly may not really be.  Healthcare is the obvious one.  Like it or not a country is not, and cannot in a fiscally responsible manner be, a charity.  That means people without the means to pay for something do not get that something.  Now before everyone strings me up as a far right conservative, let me elaborate on this because I think this is where the screaming begins and conversation stops in many cases.  I am NOT saying I do not feel everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare, I am just stating the stark reality that that is utopia that is unachievable.  That does not mean I am not for methods than increase coverage to more people (ACA or furtherance of the concept to a public option) but I want it to be done in a way that does not bankrupt (figuratively) the nation.  This is why a business person who was sane would actually be a good option for president, because they get these concepts that you need to find a way to pay for your agenda or your agenda does not happen.  I think programs like these are where the "socialist" and "communist" labels get tossed on them, because all those systems tend to not look at the monetary side as much, and here in the US where they are negative labels it is easy to say that as a synonym to "bad".  However, Bernie's "I am a Democratic Socialist" turns me off because, knowing that, he embraces that "bad" label which lowers my support for his views.  If we can provide "free" healthcare or "free" community college in a responsible way, I am for that as it raises the collective well being of the nation, but the key point I feel progressives miss is it is not free.  Someone is paying for it and that is where anyone not progressive gets nervous, because it seem the progressive wing just thinks it will work out, but I as a moderate very focused on a fiscally responsible government thing they are just like my kids who never learned to manage money.  Just because AOC is an adult woman, I have never heard any financial explanation of her proposals, just the "but this is the right thing to do".

Funny how so many other countries have managed to figure it out, though.

Guess that means they are smarter than we are, or at least smarter than our system allows us to be.  That is of course assuming their proposals are not losing money, which I would question. They may not be because of the higher taxes in socialist countries to pay for these programs.  The difference, that I agree with, is that the government in the US is not the solver of all problems.  Individuals are expected to figure it out.

It seems really absurd to me to expect healthcare to "make money." Healthcare is a service that all successful, rich countries provide to their citizens, just like police and fire protection. No one expects their local police or fire departments to "make a profit," so why would we expect that healthcare does? It just makes no sense to me, at all. We need to step out of that mindset completely.

Healthcare makes a ton of money.  For insurance companies, drug companies, for-profit hospitals, litigation defense and the like. 
That's the crux of why it's so expensive, particularly here in the US... it's underlaid by a massive system which all take a portion of the overall pie.

[Shane]

I agree, modernized nuclear plants are probably the only technological solution that we have that is mature enough to cut emissions enough within a single decade to prevent irreversible, catastrophic climate change.

My family and I lived for almost 20 years completely off the grid, making our own energy with solar power and using a diesel generator as backup, so I believe in and support renewable energy. It's just not going to be enough, though, especially since world energy consumption is predicted to increase 50% from what it is now, by 2050. Before Covid hit, we were on track to provide almost 20% of our energy from renewables. Sorry, but that's just not enough. It's possible that advances in technology will eventually make renewable energy, i.e., wind and solar, more efficient and, thus, capable of supplying all of our energy needs, but that's not going to happen soon enough to save us from climate change. Rapidly building many, many small, modular nuclear reactors would allow us meet our climate goals. Renewables will not. :(

I feel it important to note here that it's not an either/or between nuclear and renewables. Nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar, and hydro can all be ramped up in parallel.

Agreed, we should continue developing renewables at the same time that we dramatically ramp up and streamline the approval process for many new nuclear reactors.

[Montecarlo]

The question with nuclear isn’t how long it will take to build plants or what to do with the fuel or how to streamline the regulatory processes.

The question is how to get public support behind nuclear.

My guess is we don’t until there’s a lot more human suffering.

[Shane]

While it is true building and designing nuclear plants is a slow process, it's also important to keep in mind that a government investment in bringing new reactors online wouldn't be starting the design process or scaling up manufacturing from scratch but could use recently developed designs by companies like TerraPower, or even NuScale with their 60 megawatt modular reactor which has already be approved for a 12 module reactor complex in Idaho to be completed by 2029. In that particular case the reactors themselves are only 65 ft x 9 ft, which makes it possible to assemble them in factories and ship them to where they will be installed, dramatically reducing the logistical complexity of building a nuclear reactor on-site which is where a lot of current projects run into problems.

Aside from the problems of building a giant complex reactor on site, the other big reason it is slow and expensive to build new nuclear reactors is the regulatory hurdles people have to jump through (the article I linked quoted $500M and 2M person hours to get the NuScale reactor design approved). A lot of that regulation is there for good reason, but as Shane points out in times of crisis the government can move a LOT faster (like with operation warp speed for COVID vaccines).

One place I disagree with some folks is that I think we are already too late to prevent irreversible catastrophic climate change. The question we are faced with now is how catastrophic. The GND taking nuclear power off the table made me think the folks proposing it may still be of the view we're in a situation where we can argue about the best way to reduce carbon emissions instead of using all the tools at our disposal.

Because of the bolded part of maize's comment above, I think we also need to start dramatically ramping up mitigation strategies in response to the inevitable catastrophic effects we are already experiencing, which are only going to get worse as time goes on. We need to start incentivizing people to move from rickety, old houses in the countryside, get them out of low-lying areas that are prone to flooding, and into more secure housing, preferable built from concrete or some other more indestructible material, which can easily be closed up to protect people from violent hurricane-like storms. That program, too, needs to be put on steroids, just like we have successfully done with the Covid vaccine.

[BicycleB]

I agree, modernized nuclear plants are probably the only technological solution that we have that is mature enough to cut emissions enough within a single decade to prevent irreversible, catastrophic climate change.

My family and I lived for almost 20 years completely off the grid, making our own energy with solar power and using a diesel generator as backup, so I believe in and support renewable energy. It's just not going to be enough, though, especially since world energy consumption is predicted to increase 50% from what it is now, by 2050. Before Covid hit, we were on track to provide almost 20% of our energy from renewables. Sorry, but that's just not enough. It's possible that advances in technology will eventually make renewable energy, i.e., wind and solar, more efficient and, thus, capable of supplying all of our energy needs, but that's not going to happen soon enough to save us from climate change. Rapidly building many, many small, modular nuclear reactors would allow us meet our climate goals. Renewables will not. :(

I feel it important to note here that it's not an either/or between nuclear and renewables. Nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar, and hydro can all be ramped up in parallel.

This "in parallel" approach has some very high powered supporters. Some of them offer concrete reason to believe a renewables-heavy in-parallel approach can do a lot, including have the US do its part to keep global warming down to 1.5 C!

Macarthur Genius grant awardee / physicist / engineer Saul Griffith concludes that the US can decarbonize 80% of the economy by 2035 and 100% by 2050. His analysis was technology-agnostic but determined that the path to achieving this with existing technology is mostly through a huge rampup of renewables, plus expansion of the electric grid, incentivizing of private decisions to switch to electric cars, and similar techniques; the theme is a comprehensive electrification. He thinks nuclear will probably be increased slightly but will still play only a minority role.

His evidence? Griffith compiled, with support from the US government, the largest database detailing US energy usage and generation ever assembled, applied known performance of existing technologies, and analyzed to determine "What does US need to do to play its part in limiting temperature increase to 1.5 C, the goal set by the Paris Accords?" Assuming that we do implement each step at the high end of known existing performance, the path that he says would work would be an intense rampup phase to build infrastructure, followed by wave of private electrification projects.

On the funding side, he reasons that if government's primary investment were to provide loan guarantees, along with rule changes to facilitate infrastructure projects, private funding would finance the bulk of the projects due to the profit motive while the government expense would be about $200/billion year for a decade. Interestingly, the amount of spending he proposes is similar to Biden's proposals, which contain several elements of his plan, but Biden also seeks to invest some funding in R&D.

PS. Once the electrification takes hold, Griffith calculates that the long term cost of the new all-electric system would be cheaper than our current system (about 50% of our current system's cost IIRC). That's on a per-kilowatt or per-joule basis, if I understand him; I don't think he tried to calculate side effects like "if it's cheaper, people might spend more." Apparently it's conceivable the investment would pay off financially as well as ecologically though.

https://www.rewiringamerica.org/

145 page handbook (they email it free from this page if you enter an email)
https://www.rewiringamerica.org/handbook

[Shane]

I dunno. Usually it takes like ten years for a vaccine to get approved in the US but, somehow, Pfizer appears to be poised to get approval for their Covid vaccine, which took them less than 10 months to develop. If we made climate change a priority, anything is possible, imho. Of course, we shouldn't immediately abandon all of the renewable energy production which is currently operational and providing almost 20% of our energy needs. We should continue expanding on that, at the same time that we dramatically ramp up the building of nuclear plants and streamline the approval process.

Every. Single. Time. this comes up people assume we can just plop down some brand new nuclear plants like it was SimCity, based largely on fairy-dusty and unicorn farts.  FWIW I worked as an analyst on two decomissioning projects, so I've gotten a pretty detailed look at what's involved.  Building new plants involves massive projects in design, planning, permitting and construction, not to mention the consierable funding and public relations challenges. There aren't any 'off-the-shelf' plans for Gen III+ reactors.  And we've never built a new plant (from conception to generation) in under a decade.  Heck, we haven't even done it in under two decades.  Could we shave years off the process?  absolutely.  But I've never encountered ANYONE in the industry that thinks a new plant can be built in a couple of years.  Most people think 10 years would be a monumental accomplishment and involve clearing most permitting and public-comment periods while also providing massive public funding.
Do I still think we should forge ahead?  Absolutely (see above).

Interesting to hear your thoughts on the time it will take to develop and deploy new nuclear power plants, Nereo. I think we should treat the problem similarly to how we have approached developing a covid vaccine. Everything should move forward at the same time: wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear. In the 10 years you say it will take to fast track new nuclear power plants, we may be able to get wind, solar and hydro energy production up to meeting 30% or 40% or 50% or even 100% of our energy needs. If advances in solar or wind or hydro power technology end up making nuclear power unnecessary, so be it. I'd rather have too much power available than not enough.

[the_fixer]

I agree, modernized nuclear plants are probably the only technological solution that we have that is mature enough to cut emissions enough within a single decade to prevent irreversible, catastrophic climate change.

My family and I lived for almost 20 years completely off the grid, making our own energy with solar power and using a diesel generator as backup, so I believe in and support renewable energy. It's just not going to be enough, though, especially since world energy consumption is predicted to increase 50% from what it is now, by 2050. Before Covid hit, we were on track to provide almost 20% of our energy from renewables. Sorry, but that's just not enough. It's possible that advances in technology will eventually make renewable energy, i.e., wind and solar, more efficient and, thus, capable of supplying all of our energy needs, but that's not going to happen soon enough to save us from climate change. Rapidly building many, many small, modular nuclear reactors would allow us meet our climate goals. Renewables will not. :(

Energy storage is the major thing holding back the move away from old technology like coal, fuel oils and even the adoption of electrified transportation.

Once someone comes up with a way to store the energy capacity and distribute it coal, natural gas and fuel oils will be excessively expensive and decline rapidly.

Until that happens you will have backup and base load to fill in the gaps. Currently in my area we have shuttered 2 coal plants and have 3 more units slated to close since we can buy energy from renewables for less that we can produce with coal or natural gas but we still need base load for now.

A battery or way to store energy that is small and affordable is going to completely transform the energy sector when / if it happens.

I should also add that utilities would LOVE to install small nuclear reactors and would ASAP but regulations and public opinion are what is holding it back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nereo]

I dunno. Usually it takes like ten years for a vaccine to get approved in the US but, somehow, Pfizer appears to be poised to get approval for their Covid vaccine, which took them less than 10 months to develop. If we made climate change a priority, anything is possible, imho. Of course, we shouldn't immediately abandon all of the renewable energy production which is currently operational and providing almost 20% of our energy needs. We should continue expanding on that, at the same time that we dramatically ramp up the building of nuclear plants and streamline the approval process.

Every. Single. Time. this comes up people assume we can just plop down some brand new nuclear plants like it was SimCity, based largely on fairy-dusty and unicorn farts.  FWIW I worked as an analyst on two decomissioning projects, so I've gotten a pretty detailed look at what's involved.  Building new plants involves massive projects in design, planning, permitting and construction, not to mention the consierable funding and public relations challenges. There aren't any 'off-the-shelf' plans for Gen III+ reactors.  And we've never built a new plant (from conception to generation) in under a decade.  Heck, we haven't even done it in under two decades.  Could we shave years off the process?  absolutely.  But I've never encountered ANYONE in the industry that thinks a new plant can be built in a couple of years.  Most people think 10 years would be a monumental accomplishment and involve clearing most permitting and public-comment periods while also providing massive public funding.
Do I still think we should forge ahead?  Absolutely (see above).

Interesting to hear your thoughts on the time it will take to develop and deploy new nuclear power plants, Nereo. I think we should treat the problem similarly to how we have approached developing a covid vaccine. Everything should move forward at the same time: wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear. In the 10 years you say it will take to fast track new nuclear power plants, we may be able to get wind, solar and hydro energy production up to meeting 30% or 40% or 50% or even 100% of our energy needs. If advances in solar or wind or hydro power technology end up making nuclear power unnecessary, so be it. I'd rather have too much power available than not enough.

I feel passionately about this, and I think it's important to be realistic when planning, lest we fail because we're relying too much on an altogether unproven speed of construction. Gen III+ and Gen IV reactors certainly have the potential of meeting much of our electricity needs for the second half of this century, and if we act quickly and decisively enough they could start to really matter by 2035... maybe sooner!

But consider this - in the last five years we've had a net loss of nuclear capacity as several (six?) plants have been decomissioned and no large reactors have gone online. In terms of new reactors, I think we're still under 2 GW in that time frame.  For comparison, we added close to 23 GW of wind and solar in 2019 alone, and we're likely to be over 30 GW by 2022.  There's no reason why we can't push that Y/Y growth above 50 GW in just a few years... we have the technology, site capacity and manufacturing capability.  Heck, some estimates have us getting there with no additional incentives (e.g. carbon tax) by 2028 - before we'd  likely complete even the first 'new nuclear' plant.

As for production, renewables accounts for 18% of our total electricity generation right now.  If you are counting gasoline for our vehicles it's obviously a fraction of that.

[OtherJen]

Back on topic, GOP leaders: We’ll abide by popular vote, won’t give Michigan to Trump (source: Bridge Michigan)

So once Trump’s legal circus wears itself out, there won’t be any other excuse not to declare Biden the winner in Michigan.

[Michael in ABQ]

I dunno. Usually it takes like ten years for a vaccine to get approved in the US but, somehow, Pfizer appears to be poised to get approval for their Covid vaccine, which took them less than 10 months to develop. If we made climate change a priority, anything is possible, imho. Of course, we shouldn't immediately abandon all of the renewable energy production which is currently operational and providing almost 20% of our energy needs. We should continue expanding on that, at the same time that we dramatically ramp up the building of nuclear plants and streamline the approval process.

One of the things that takes vaccines a long time to get approval is they have to wait for enough people in the vaccine trial to get sick. How often might someone with no vaccine get sick from Measles, Hepatitis, HPV, Yellow Fever, or whatever? With a pandemic going on they can find out much faster if people in the control group are getting sick with COVID-19 while those with the vaccine are not. Plus, there's huge market incentives because the first company to develop a vaccine might end up selling billions of doses - certainly hundreds of millions.


I work for the federal government and I see all the time where the normal process for something takes a year or two. But if there's enough pressure from senior leadership some of those things can get done in months. Simply getting a document signed by the base commander in a normal process might take a couple of weeks. Or it can be done in a matter of hours if it's important enough and gets physically walked around to each signatory who is told ahead of time to push it through quickly.

Bureaucracy is great about spreading around the responsibility so it takes 20 people to make a decision and it takes them months to make it. You go look at a company like SpaceX and they do stuff in days and weeks that take old-fashioned competitors months because those competitors have the same type of bureaucracy.

[Travis]

Another lawsuit laughed out of court. Trump campaign abandons any further AZ suits. And one of the firms hired for this shows backs out completely.

Trump’s Clown Car Election Suit Turns Arizona Courtroom Into A Three Ring Circus

https://flip.it/2vBve2

I can't help but notice a growing trend in the courtroom. The lawyers are all very carefully avoiding the word "fraud" despite that being the reason they were hired in the first place. It's one thing to make accusations at the podium, but when your case melts publicly in real time in front of a judge because you have no evidence and your witnesses either recant on the stand or turn out to be trolls has to be professionally humiliating.

[bacchi]

Another lawsuit laughed out of court. Trump campaign abandons any further AZ suits. And one of the firms hired for this shows backs out completely.

Trump’s Clown Car Election Suit Turns Arizona Courtroom Into A Three Ring Circus

https://flip.it/2vBve2

I can't help but notice a growing trend in the courtroom. The lawyers are all very carefully avoiding the word "fraud" despite that being the reason they were hired in the first place. It's one thing to make accusations at the podium, but when your case melts publicly in real time in front of a judge because you have no evidence and your witnesses either recant on the stand or turn out to be trolls has to be professionally humiliating.

Humorous and bizarre.

Obviously the lawyers aren't true believers but who is the sucker?

A) Trump Cultists, who will believe anything OAN/Newsmax tells them and now they know that all Judges are part of the Deep State!!1111!!
B) Trump, who is demanding lawsuits and now staff can point and say, "Look, we tried but the entire system is rigged!"
C) All of the above.

Related, can Trump be both the con artist and a sucker in his own con?

[Travis]

Another lawsuit laughed out of court. Trump campaign abandons any further AZ suits. And one of the firms hired for this shows backs out completely.

Trump’s Clown Car Election Suit Turns Arizona Courtroom Into A Three Ring Circus

https://flip.it/2vBve2

I can't help but notice a growing trend in the courtroom. The lawyers are all very carefully avoiding the word "fraud" despite that being the reason they were hired in the first place. It's one thing to make accusations at the podium, but when your case melts publicly in real time in front of a judge because you have no evidence and your witnesses either recant on the stand or turn out to be trolls has to be professionally humiliating.

Humorous and bizarre.

Obviously the lawyers aren't true believers but who is the sucker?

A) Trump Cultists, who will believe anything OAN/Newsmax tells them and now they know that all Judges are part of the Deep State!!1111!!
B) Trump, who is demanding lawsuits and now staff can point and say, "Look, we tried but the entire system is rigged!"
C) All of the above.

Related, can Trump be both the con artist and a sucker in his own con?

Depends on how much he believes his own hype. From his own narcissistic history and recent anonymous WH sources he sincerely couldn't fathom losing, but deep down he knows he did and he's just making all this shit up to delay the inevitable with the slim chance it might actually work. He's had a decent success rate of coming out of ruinous situations looking like he won.

[PhilB]

So are the law firms pulling out because of reputational damage, or because they don't think much of their chances of actually getting paid?

[middo]

So are the law firms pulling out because of reputational damage, or because they don't think much of their chances of actually getting paid?

Yes.

[frugalnacho]

The lincoln project ran an ad naming the law firm, and they have gotten a lot of flak from the public prompting them to pull out.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

The lincoln project ran an ad naming the law firm, and they have gotten a lot of flak from the public prompting them to pull out.

Those guys don't pull any punches.

[Travis]

The lincoln project ran an ad naming the law firm, and they have gotten a lot of flak from the public prompting them to pull out.

Those guys don't pull any punches.

And it's not like these law firms have a lot to show for their efforts and negative exposure. They were hired to make a tangible legal case out of a Twitter rant and so far have nothing to show.

[GuitarStv]

The lincoln project ran an ad naming the law firm, and they have gotten a lot of flak from the public prompting them to pull out.

Those guys don't pull any punches.

And it's not like these law firms have a lot to show for their efforts and negative exposure. They were hired to make a tangible legal case out of a Twitter rant and so far have nothing to show.

Nothing except these dump trucks of money . . .

:P

[sui generis]

The lincoln project ran an ad naming the law firm, and they have gotten a lot of flak from the public prompting them to pull out.

Those guys don't pull any punches.

And it's not like these law firms have a lot to show for their efforts and negative exposure. They were hired to make a tangible legal case out of a Twitter rant and so far have nothing to show.

Nothing except these dump trucks of money . . .

:P

I dunno, when you're working for Trump, there's a serious risk of the dump trucks of money not showing up.

[Arbitrage]

At least one of Trump's lawsuits seeks to throw out a few thousand votes in Nevada because the voters postmarked their ballots from Pearl Harbor. You know, that place with thousands of military service members who move a lot.

They made a big deal out of that lawsuit, because of the thousands of voters.  I work with a lot of military, and despite living in CA they are, almost without fail, residents of FL, TX, NV, WA.  It's not difficult to figure out.

[OzzieandHarriet]

He sorta admitted he lost:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/15/us/joe-biden-trump/trump-acknowledges-bidens-win-but-quickly-reverses-saying-i-concede-nothing

[OtherJen]

The lincoln project ran an ad naming the law firm, and they have gotten a lot of flak from the public prompting them to pull out.

Those guys don't pull any punches.

And it's not like these law firms have a lot to show for their efforts and negative exposure. They were hired to make a tangible legal case out of a Twitter rant and so far have nothing to show.

Nothing except these dump trucks of money . . .

:P

I dunno, when you're working for Trump, there's a serious risk of the dump trucks of money not showing up.

Right. Anyone who does business with him should assume that they're footing the bill for all costs. I have zero sympathy for businesses, contractors, or city government that agree to work with him at this point and then whine that he isn't honoring their contracts. Um, hello, that's been his MO for literally decades and it's not like it hasn't been public news.