Scrutable

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:46 pm

Make Politics Boring Again and Any Functioning Adult 2020 are real yard signs here, and about as common as Trump signs.

To be contrasted with the Giant Meteor 2016 and and Kodos/Kang 2016 last time out.

A friend of mine spotted a Bender one today (kill all humans, you meatbags have had your chance).

But there's very few presidential ones, there nearly all for the senate race, the split between dem and repub depends on which side of the hill you live on.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:43 pm

Grumble wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:09 pm

Biden got better tv ratings than trump. That is more significant than any number of polls I think. Americans are wanting to turn over to Biden to hear what he has to say and whether they actually want to vote for him IMO. Is there another way of reading this?

It should be added that this is despite Trump being on five NBC networks, including in Spanish, while Biden was just on two ABC networks.

And out of everything, you can guarantee that it’s this that will burn Trump most. Ratings are all he comprehends.

monkey wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 17, 2020 3:55 am

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:46 pm

Make Politics Boring Again and Any Functioning Adult 2020 are real yard signs here, and about as common as Trump signs.

To be contrasted with the Giant Meteor 2016 and and Kodos/Kang 2016 last time out.

A friend of mine spotted a Bender one today (kill all humans, you meatbags have had your chance).

But there's very few presidential ones, there nearly all for the senate race, the split between dem and repub depends on which side of the hill you live on.

The important thing here though is that these are anti-Trump signs rather than "a plague on both your houses" signs.

Not that it makes any difference in MA.

There's a reasonable chance that Thursday's debate follows the US breaking its all time daily CoVID cases record on Wednesday.

Grumble wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:09 pm

Biden got better tv ratings than trump. That is more significant than any number of polls I think. Americans are wanting to turn over to Biden to hear what he has to say and whether they actually want to vote for him IMO. Is there another way of reading this?

A few ideas:
- Everyone knows what Trump will say anyway.
- Biden's dementia is more endearing than Trump's dementia.
- Trump's supporters know he's an a..hole. They vote for him despite this because he enables stuff they like (racism, owning the libs, etc), but very few of them would actually want to spend any time with the guy. Meanwhile Biden comes across as a normal human being, to the extent that anyone who has been active in national politics for 50 years can have be "normal", or have been so when he went in.

Episode 3 tonight. 2 a.m. UK time.

Episode 2 got pulled because there was a strange looking white supremicist in the show. Episode 3 is a last chance to see kind of thing.

My prediction: Trump sprays a mysterious aerosol at the 3 min 42 second mark. Biden begins to cough at 1 hour 17 mins.

Big contrast to Debate 1.

Biden winning, in a different way to how he won last time.

Trump is lying as much as usual, but in a calmer way. I'm not sure if that highlights the lies or obscures them.

But of a blunder by Biden right at the end. About ending oil.

Was in the context of long term climate change, but very easy to take out of context. Unnecessary.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:37 pm

There's a reasonable chance that Thursday's debate follows the US breaking its all time daily CoVID cases record on Wednesday.

Ok, it was Thursday that broke the record. ETA: according to one accounting. Others seem to disagree.

lpm wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:03 am

But of a blunder by Biden right at the end. About ending oil.

Was in the context of long term climate change, but very easy to take out of context. Unnecessary.

I'm not sure it's that risky of a comment - even oil companies themselves are open about the need to transition away from oil, and he avoided saying anything suggesting that the transition was urgent.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:19 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:03 am

But of a blunder by Biden right at the end. About ending oil.

Was in the context of long term climate change, but very easy to take out of context. Unnecessary.

I'm not sure it's that risky of a comment - even oil companies themselves are open about the need to transition away from oil, and he avoided saying anything suggesting that the transition was urgent.

Unfortunately, in US politics, this is a bigger error than it should be. Because low information voters are being fed a stream of lies about oil and gas, and it's been made into a culture war issue.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:19 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:03 am

But of a blunder by Biden right at the end. About ending oil.

Was in the context of long term climate change, but very easy to take out of context. Unnecessary.

I'm not sure it's that risky of a comment - even oil companies themselves are open about the need to transition away from oil, and he avoided saying anything suggesting that the transition was urgent.

I think the comment from the token Republican on the Guardian (albeit a likely ABT Republican) was that comment may have cost Biden Texas.

The fact that Texas is even considered a possible toss-up is revealing about exactly where the US is ATM.

Demographic changes etc. could see Texas go full "California" in an election cycle or two; with an ever younger, "blacker, more liberal electorate along with redrawn electoral boundaries, at which point the Republicans will need to change massively or face an existential crisis.

Texas is the leading producer of wind power in the US, and Biden voters are in the suburbs, not the oil fields of west Texas. I don't know that it is as bad as that, tbh.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:30 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:19 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:03 am

But of a blunder by Biden right at the end. About ending oil.

Was in the context of long term climate change, but very easy to take out of context. Unnecessary.

I'm not sure it's that risky of a comment - even oil companies themselves are open about the need to transition away from oil, and he avoided saying anything suggesting that the transition was urgent.

Unfortunately, in US politics, this is a bigger error than it should be. Because low information voters are being fed a stream of lies about oil and gas, and it's been made into a culture war issue.

For sure, but on the other hand most of the public, especially younger voters who are overwhelmingly anti-Trump but not enormously enthused about Biden, want to see strong commitments on climate change. So Biden also has the challenge of looking like he's going have decent green credentials to get his own (potential) base out, as well as worrying about low-information fossil-fuel fans (who would presumably be harder to pick up anyway).

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:36 pm

Texas is the leading producer of wind power in the US, and Biden voters are in the suburbs, not the oil fields of west Texas. I don't know that it is as bad as that, tbh.

I'd assume a lot of oil workers are already quite aware of the challenges to the industry, and might even be won over by Biden's promises of retraining and new jobs.

I think the people most invested in fossil fuels will be those with investments in fossil fuels (swidt?) as well as the aforementioned low-information voters. Remember too that younger voters of all parties want strong action on climate change.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:17 pm

I think the people most invested in fossil fuels will be those with investments in fossil fuels (swidt?) as well as the aforementioned low-information voters. Remember too that younger voters of all parties want strong action on climate change.

I expect that the US voters most invested in fossil fuels are those who like to use transport powered by them. Telling people that their car use costs are going to go up isn't popular (including if they need to buy a new electric model). The same applies to the cost of air tickets.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:17 pm

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:36 pm

Texas is the leading producer of wind power in the US, and Biden voters are in the suburbs, not the oil fields of west Texas. I don't know that it is as bad as that, tbh.

I'd assume a lot of oil workers are already quite aware of the challenges to the industry, and might even be won over by Biden's promises of retraining and new jobs.

I think the people most invested in fossil fuels will be those with investments in fossil fuels (swidt?) as well as the aforementioned low-information voters. Remember too that younger voters of all parties want strong action on climate change.

The European oil and gas producers are pivoting towards wind and solar quite strongly, but I’m not sure the American ones are so much. I know wind is big in Texas but I’m not sure it’s the oil firms doing it?

Grumble wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:15 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:17 pm

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:36 pm

Texas is the leading producer of wind power in the US, and Biden voters are in the suburbs, not the oil fields of west Texas. I don't know that it is as bad as that, tbh.

I'd assume a lot of oil workers are already quite aware of the challenges to the industry, and might even be won over by Biden's promises of retraining and new jobs.

I think the people most invested in fossil fuels will be those with investments in fossil fuels (swidt?) as well as the aforementioned low-information voters. Remember too that younger voters of all parties want strong action on climate change.

The European oil and gas producers are pivoting towards wind and solar quite strongly, but I’m not sure the American ones are so much. I know wind is big in Texas but I’m not sure it’s the oil firms doing it?

In West Texas, there's quite a few places were the oil wells and wind farms are co-located, using the same access roads (through cotton fields and scrub cattle grazing). E.g. Sweetwater, TX.

And in Pennsylvania, which is probably more important for the election, Pittsburgh is a center for manufacturing of wind turbines etc.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:13 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:17 pm

I think the people most invested in fossil fuels will be those with investments in fossil fuels (swidt?) as well as the aforementioned low-information voters. Remember too that younger voters of all parties want strong action on climate change.

I expect that the US voters most invested in fossil fuels are those who like to use transport powered by them. Telling people that their car use costs are going to go up isn't popular (including if they need to buy a new electric model). The same applies to the cost of air tickets.

Well that's basically everybody. I'm not sure it makes sense to describe everybody as "most invested"

And, despite that, the majority of people are saying they want stronger action on climate change and are presumably mostly aware of the connection with oil. I think it's a mistake to assume that lots people in 2020 are pro-oil in a way that would shift their voting intention.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:50 am

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:37 pm

There's a reasonable chance that Thursday's debate follows the US breaking its all time daily CoVID cases record on Wednesday.

Ok, it was Thursday that broke the record. ETA: according to one accounting. Others seem to disagree.

Definitely a record today: over 80k cases already, and the day isn't done.

Still, apparently we've turned the corner...

The deaths have stated increasing too. My bet is a fairly high rate before the election Probably not as high as previous peaks though, but on the other hand, if hospitals start getting overwhelmed...

monkey wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2020 12:05 am

The deaths have stated increasing too. My bet is a fairly high rate before the election Probably not as high as previous peaks though, but on the other hand, if hospitals start getting overwhelmed...

The locations here are more mid-west and west, where there's much less density and infrastructure, so that's a distinct possibility.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:59 pm

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:50 am

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:37 pm

There's a reasonable chance that Thursday's debate follows the US breaking its all time daily CoVID cases record on Wednesday.

Ok, it was Thursday that broke the record. ETA: according to one accounting. Others seem to disagree.

Definitely a record today: over 80k cases already, and the day isn't done.

Still, apparently we've turned the corner...

Trump never said which way the corner turned!

It's not just that you're a crook, senator

Absolute demolition of the crooked David Perdue by Dem challenger Jon Ossoff. An eloquent and utterly damning minute and twelve seconds of debate, with Ossoff's delivery reminiscent of Obama