US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Anyone can post and discuss breaking science news or science-related public policy, that interests them (please respect posting guidelines and be sure to reference properly).
Forum rules
Please be sure to check our forum's Rules & Guidelines

US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby Natural ChemE on June 26th, 2016, 10:43 am 

Here's a recent opinion poll concerning the 2016 US Presidential Election:
Currently the major candidates are, in order of portion of popular vote survey respondents claimed:The main party candidates, Hillary and Trump, are historically unpopular, allowing for the Libertarian and Green party candidates, Johnson and Stein, to take significant interest.

Currently PredictWise has Hillary winning at 74% likelihood vs. Trump at 26% likelihood, though I'd note that the prediction markets recently showed some pretty irrational behavior around Brexit.
Natural ChemE
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2744
Joined: 28 Dec 2009


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby TheVat on June 26th, 2016, 11:30 am 

I had heard some predictions that Gary could crack the fabled 10% barrier this year. Maybe if he and Jill form a Strange Bedfellows coalition ticket, heh heh. Seriously, booth behavior often doesn't match what someone is willing to say in a survey. I suspect that effect works against Trump...easier to say you will vote for an outrageous loudmouth and get that warm glow of flipping off the establishment, but maybe you go in the booth and are a little scared to actually pull the trigger. I really don't know, but wasn't that what happened with Barry Goldwater in '64?
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7107
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby ronjanec on June 26th, 2016, 11:42 am 

It ain't over till it's over, and it ain't over until it's begun. I am not going to start getting upset about any poll results until after the debates have begun.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby Natural ChemE on June 26th, 2016, 12:13 pm 

Jeeze, I just read up on Jill Stein's political positions. She's arguably even crazier than Trump! Ah wells, she's not going to win so it's moot.

It's just weird to see a "Green" party candidate so out-of-touch with environmental science:
Natural ChemE
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2744
Joined: 28 Dec 2009


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby zetreque on June 26th, 2016, 4:55 pm 

Every time I look at green party candidates I'm pretty disappointed. Some of them are... well let's just say they give a bad name to the movement.

Edit: Jill Stein isn't all that bad to me though.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby Natural ChemE on June 26th, 2016, 7:45 pm 

zetreque,

Yeah, Stein's not as creepy as Trump because she has this very flowery, well-meaning tone behind her. It's just that her plan's economic plan's a logistical nightmare; she's got that I-live-in-a-land-of-unicorns feeling to her that Sanders had.

For example, the idea of transitioning to 100% renewable energy by 2030 is pretty impossible, and it doesn't make sense for her to object to nuclear power when the climate science community holds that nuclear power's an important part of a solution to hedge off global warming - not to mention our long-term solution.

The economic policies such as universal college education, raising the minimum wage, improved universal healthcare, and ending poverty - all at once - are similarly fictional. They sound great from an idealistic point-of-view, but they don't fit together in real life.

I mean, she sounds like she's sweet and means well, but her bullet points are plainly absurd. Which is kinda disappointing - I first saw that she had an MD from Harvard and was hoping that she'd be a Science-friendly candidate.
Natural ChemE
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2744
Joined: 28 Dec 2009


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby zetreque on June 26th, 2016, 7:50 pm 

Natural ChemE » Sun Jun 26, 2016 4:45 pm wrote:For example, the idea of transitioning to 100% renewable energy by 2030 is pretty impossible, and it doesn't make sense for her to object to nuclear power when the climate science community holds that nuclear power's an important part of a solution to hedge off global warming - not to mention our long-term solution.


I don't think that is far fetched at all. I'm all for it and I think we can do it without nuclear. We won world wars, put men on the moon, and many other tasks in short amounts of time. Just need good leadership. It sounds like she has enough motive and dedication to pull it off because she is clearly studying history like "the new deal"
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby Natural ChemE on June 26th, 2016, 8:05 pm 

zetreque » June 26th, 2016, 6:50 pm wrote:I don't think that is far fetched at all. I'm all for it and I think we can do it without nuclear. We won world wars, put men on the moon, and many other tasks in short amounts of time. Just need good leadership. It sounds like she has enough motive and dedication to pull it off because she is clearly studying history like "the new deal"

Switching to 100% clean, renewable energy is the first thought that everyone in climate science has. No one advocates it because it's prohibited by logistics.
Natural ChemE
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2744
Joined: 28 Dec 2009


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby zetreque on June 26th, 2016, 8:07 pm 

Natural ChemE » Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:05 pm wrote:
zetreque » June 26th, 2016, 6:50 pm wrote:I don't think that is far fetched at all. I'm all for it and I think we can do it without nuclear. We won world wars, put men on the moon, and many other tasks in short amounts of time. Just need good leadership. It sounds like she has enough motive and dedication to pull it off because she is clearly studying history like "the new deal"

It's plainly impossible. Switching to 100% clean, renewable energy is the first, most obvious thought that everyone in climate science has. No one advocates it because it's completely prohibited by logistics.

It's weird to think that this rhetoric probably sounds plausible to the great majority of the population.


Well then I guess we never went to the moon with that kind of thinking. Germany and other countries like Chili are on track to do it. It's entirely possible!
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby Natural ChemE on June 26th, 2016, 8:14 pm 

zetreque,

The Wikipedia article, 100% renewable energy, sounds a lot more optimistic than any of the research that I've heard before.

I'll take another look at the topic to see if there's not some big new development that I've missed. Dunno why I wouldn't have heard of such a development though; this is my Ph.D. field.


PS - Here's a good resource:The "Summary for Policymakers" has a lot of the major bullet points. I'll try to see if I can find ones that point out impossibility, rather than simply impracticality.
Natural ChemE
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2744
Joined: 28 Dec 2009


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby zetreque on June 26th, 2016, 8:46 pm 

Forgetting the 2030 date which shouldn't be set in stone because all those dates people set goals to are usually wrong, there are enough technologies out there where if someone came up with a good plan we could shift right into a clean energy society a lot smoother than other regions are doing it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-01/chile-has-so-much-solar-energy-it-s-giving-it-away-for-free

The plan must account for distributed energy, on site, transmission lines, and various fuel sources. Batteries, and hydrogen. Electrolysers, and solar thermal. Great emphasis needs to be on efficiency. We waste so much energy right now through transmission and the grid. If it wasn't for the battle between natural gas oil and coal against renewables it would be easier. Renewables could take over a lot easier if leadership was in place to transition the grid without listening to the corrupt powers that use the excuse that natural gas turbines are more efficient to run at full capacity than to ramp down to allow mandated solar to come online. That makes sense short term, but not long term. It's just bad planning and leadership. I'm not a fan of Tesla or Elon Musk, but even he is running into this Warren Buffet carbon fuel industry keeping out solar. Solar rooftops has the potential to severely cut dirty centralized fuel plants if the regulation was setup properly.

The biggest energy use is in transportation. With more efficient houses that can generate their own power, many of them can also generate fuel for their vehicles. Centralized clean energy plants can make up the rest. A lot of things need to change, but it's entirely possible. Fuel cells such as solid oxide are proven to transform breweries and farms into being sustainable.

Just something as simple as educating builders to build their homes with the right southern aspect orientation has the potential to drastically reduce energy demand.

There will always be a demand for more energy. that's one problem with bringing more energy online be it solar, oil or whatever. People will always find a use for the energy, just like they find a way to spend their pay check no matter how much they make. Somehow that attitude needs to change or slow down while this transition is taking place. I think that should be incorporated into the plan as well.

It also has to get into other industries that ship goods unnecessarily. There are a lot of smart people in several fields that need to get involved in making it happen.

The plan needs to be all encompassing run by leadership who says we can do this and tells people how in a diplomatic way. It also has to get people on board with a threat. We had a threat or enemy in the world wars. We had a sense of pride to get behind when going to the moon. For a plan that ambitious to work, we need a leader who can bring people together, but I think it's entirely possible. Especially when we have so many poor and suffering in the world now that want change. Yes, let's "make America great again" and give it "a future to believe in."
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby Natural ChemE on June 26th, 2016, 9:16 pm 

zetreque,

Apparently researchers from Stanford claim that it'd be possible to do 100% renewable energy by 2050:
100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States, M. Jacobson et al. (2015) wrote:This study presents roadmaps for each of the 50 United States to convert their all-purpose energy systems (for electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and industry) to ones powered entirely by wind, water, and sunlight (WWS). The plans contemplate 80–85% of existing energy replaced by 2030 and 100% replaced by 2050. Conversion would reduce each state’s end-use power demand by a mean of ~39.3% with ~82.4% of this due to the efficiency of electrification and the rest due to end-use energy efficiency improvements. Year 2050 end-use U.S. all-purpose load would be met with ~30.9% onshore wind, ~19.1% offshore wind, ~30.7% utility-scale photovoltaics (PV), ~7.2% rooftop PV, ~7.3% concentrated solar power (CSP) with storage, ~1.25% geothermal power, ~0.37% wave power, ~0.14% tidal power, and ~3.01% hydroelectric power. Based on a parallel grid integration study, an additional 4.4% and 7.2% of power beyond that needed for annual loads would be supplied by CSP with storage and solar thermal for heat, respectively, for peaking and grid stability. Over all 50 states, converting would provide ~3.9 million 40-year construction jobs and ~2.0 million 40-year operation jobs for the energy facilities alone, the sum of which would outweigh the ~3.9 million jobs lost in the conventional energy sector. Converting would also eliminate ~62 000 (19 000–115000) U.S. air pollution premature mortalities per year today and ~46 000 (12000–104 000) in 2050, avoiding ~$600 ($85–$2400) bil. per year (2013 dollars) in 2050, equivalent to ~3.6 (0.5–14.3) percent of the 2014 U.S. gross domestic product. Converting would further eliminate ~$3.3 (1.9–7.1) tril. per year in 2050 global warming costs to the world due to U.S. emissions. These plans will result in each person in the U.S. in 2050 saving ~$260 (190–320) per year in energy costs ($2013 dollars) and U.S. health and global climate costs per person decreasing by ~$1500 (210–6000) per year and ~$8300 (4700–17 600) per year, respectively. The new footprint over land required will be ~0.42% of U.S. land. The spacing area between wind turbines, which can be used for multiple purposes, will be ~1.6% of U.S. land. Thus, 100% conversions are technically and economically feasible with little downside. These roadmaps may therefore reduce social and political barriers to implementing clean-energy policies.

So, I'll withdraw my claim that Stein's crazy for this particular reason alone. While the 2030 deadline is much closer than 2050 and I'm unconvinced that the study claiming 2050 has adequately considered the logistics, Stein's claim that she wants to move toward 100% clean, renewable energy by 2030 doesn't seem quite as bad as I'd originally interpreted it.

I should note that I might be biased on this one because I kinda want to be wrong. This is, it'd be really cool if we could use nothing but clean, renewable energy in the foreseeable future. However it's definitely against conventional wisdom; even the most optimistic scenarios at the IPCC considered something like 80% renewable energy by 2050, while most scenarios considered minority contributions.
Natural ChemE
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2744
Joined: 28 Dec 2009


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby TheVat on June 26th, 2016, 9:39 pm 

Globally, total conversion by 2030 is certainly an opium dream, but I think the techiest nations like Germany, US, Japan, et al could get there by 2050 if the right incentives are in place. Stein's a little flaky re getting there without some sort of nuke generation in the mix, unless we as a society get massively behind power conserving steps and deep efficiencies, as Zetreque mentioned. I expect, later in the century, when we're expensively scraping up the bottoms of our fossil fuel reserves, everyone's going to be in the Green party...or nearby.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7107
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby zetreque on June 26th, 2016, 9:46 pm 

But don't all politicians talk a lot bigger exaggerating what they can actually do?
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby zetreque on June 26th, 2016, 11:33 pm 

Might have to split this into a new thread but I would nominate Lester Brown for Green Party presidential candidate. He has huge political background. He travels the world talking to leaders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_R._Brown

He has a pbs special, and lots of lectures and youtube videos.

plan b mobilizing to save civilization

http://www.pbs.org/journeytoplanetearth/programs/plan-b-mobilizing-save-civilization/
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby zetreque on June 27th, 2016, 12:03 am 

At 16:36 he talks about converting to renewable energy.

Lester Brown: World on the Edge



He has an understanding of markets and connections between oil and agriculture. I think he would make an excellent president to lead us in a positive direction. He is one reason I really want my own garden and to learn skills to grow my own food. The groundwater reserves are shrinking and if the oceans rise or as he says we have a heat wave knocking out most of the worlds grain supplies one year, the world could go into chaos.

he also mentions nuclear and is exactly what I have been saying. Nuclear is not economic.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby SciameriKen on June 27th, 2016, 9:37 am 

zetreque » Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:07 am wrote:
Natural ChemE » Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:05 pm wrote:
zetreque » June 26th, 2016, 6:50 pm wrote:I don't think that is far fetched at all. I'm all for it and I think we can do it without nuclear. We won world wars, put men on the moon, and many other tasks in short amounts of time. Just need good leadership. It sounds like she has enough motive and dedication to pull it off because she is clearly studying history like "the new deal"

It's plainly impossible. Switching to 100% clean, renewable energy is the first, most obvious thought that everyone in climate science has. No one advocates it because it's completely prohibited by logistics.

It's weird to think that this rhetoric probably sounds plausible to the great majority of the population.


Well then I guess we never went to the moon with that kind of thinking. Germany and other countries like Chili are on track to do it. It's entirely possible!


The negativity of this country is at an all time high - Free college? Impossible, Single payer-healthcare? No way, can't do it!, Green energy? No, no no no no no!

The American can do attitude is lost. I wonder if our aging demographics are to blame? As we age we become more risk adverse, more fearful - but does this translate into the voting booth to affect national policy? Apparently so.
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby TheVat on June 27th, 2016, 12:38 pm 

Kind of ironic that a fearful and risk-averse mindset would keep people from backing the much-needed conversion to clean energy. Why aren't the well-established and dire hazards of heavy fossil fuel dependence tripping their risk alarms? You would at least think that you could hook these nervous Nellies with the promise of energy independence from foreign regimes that don't especially like us! Clean energy is local energy, which means it has enormous strategic benefits to our nation. Our nation passed its peak oil production around 1970 - we should be leading the pack on alternative energies. Green party candidates should be the anointed ones, not weirdo political pariahs.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7107
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby Lomax on June 27th, 2016, 12:46 pm 

Everything is upside down. I'm pleased that the chief country of the free world is coming out in support of somebody like Hillary Clinton as its leader. This is what politics can do to you.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3684
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby SciameriKen on June 27th, 2016, 12:50 pm 

Braininvat » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:38 pm wrote:Kind of ironic that a fearful and risk-averse mindset would keep people from backing the much-needed conversion to clean energy. Why aren't the well-established and dire hazards of heavy fossil fuel dependence tripping their risk alarms? You would at least think that you could hook these nervous Nellies with the promise of energy independence from foreign regimes that don't especially like us! Clean energy is local energy, which means it has enormous strategic benefits to our nation. Our nation passed its peak oil production around 1970 - we should be leading the pack on alternative energies. Green party candidates should be the anointed ones, not weirdo political pariahs.


Fear of change perhaps? Why aren't we doing this?
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby zetreque on June 27th, 2016, 2:32 pm 

Braininvat » Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:38 am wrote:Kind of ironic that a fearful and risk-averse mindset would keep people from backing the much-needed conversion to clean energy. Why aren't the well-established and dire hazards of heavy fossil fuel dependence tripping their risk alarms? You would at least think that you could hook these nervous Nellies with the promise of energy independence from foreign regimes that don't especially like us! Clean energy is local energy, which means it has enormous strategic benefits to our nation. Our nation passed its peak oil production around 1970 - we should be leading the pack on alternative energies. Green party candidates should be the anointed ones, not weirdo political pariahs.


Last night I stumbled onto a debate between Bill Nye and Marc Morano (creater of anti-climate change documentary Climate Hustle). Even the news host of the debate asked Marc Morano what the big deal was being be risk adverse? What's the big deal with putting some money into clean energy that could potentially create energy independence, clean air, and overt natural disaster when the alternative is to have a little more money in the short term, do nothing and have the risk of disaster?

I guess I'm just happy someone like Bernie Sanders got as far as he did with a large portion of society voting for him. I recently realized that should give me hope because that movement isn't going away, it's only going to get stronger and I'm still not giving up the idea that something could still happen to Hillary giving Bernie the nomination :)
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby Lomax on June 27th, 2016, 2:55 pm 

zetreque » June 27th, 2016, 7:32 pm wrote:I guess I'm just happy someone like Bernie Sanders got as far as he did with a large portion of society voting for him. I recently realized that should give me hope because that movement isn't going away, it's only going to get stronger and I'm still not giving up the idea that something could still happen to Hillary giving Bernie the nomination :)

After the inauguration of Bill Clinton it seems to me that the liberal-Left became quite uncritical of any betrayal of its principles, if only because the traitor-in-chief couldn't really be said to belong to the Right. Real political progress generally happens by means of confrontation rather than compromise (why do people say "a source of heat rather than light"? Usually they come from the same sources, both literally and metaphorically), and I think we would have seen a positive decline in Leftism in the US had it continued to be run by triangulators rather than Bush administrations, just as the support for Corbyn had to wait out the rule of Blairism and strike during the Cameron years. It would be crediting too much principle and ideology to the Clintons to call them centrists when they are merely opportunists, but I think Hillary will concede just enough to the Left that the ideological support for people like Bernie dwindles, without really getting what it wants. I hope to be proven wrong.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3684
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby zetreque on June 30th, 2016, 3:52 pm 

I like the thought of this news, but something seems wrong. Maybe they are leaving out the transportation sector and obviously including nuclear because I find it hard to believe they are talking about just solar, wind, and geothermal for all of US energy use.

I imagine if trump were president however, the news would instead read something like "Trump calls Mexican and Canadian leaders idiots behind the drought and whaling conspiracy because they blocked his plans to build resorts up and down coasts of North America fueled by whale blubber which is an unlimited free source of energy."

http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/29/12059044/clean-energy-plan-announced-us-canada-mexico-leaders-summit

In a joint statement, U.S. President Barack Obama, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged to bring 50% of North America’s energy production over to "clean power generation", which includes renewable sources by 2025. The plan also calls for government operations to run entirely on clean energy sources in the same amount of time.


Presently, North America draws 37% of its power from renewable sources. The White House rolled out the plan emphasizing the economic benefits of reducing carbon emissions, citing job growth and the economic consequences of climate change.


http://time.com/4384765/barack-obama-cl ... da-mexico/
In a press call Wednesday, White House officials acknowledged that the announcement has come on the tail end of Obama’s last term in office, but projected confidence that climate-friendly policies would continue under the president’s successor.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby Hendrick Laursen on July 5th, 2016, 6:38 pm 

I wonder how many would vote for "Nobody for President", as Harrison Ford says.

Image
User avatar
Hendrick Laursen
Member
 
Posts: 562
Joined: 12 Mar 2014
Location: God's Green Earth
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: US Presidential Opinion Poll - 2016-06-26, WP-ABC

Postby zetreque on July 5th, 2016, 6:41 pm 

Harrison Ford announced he is moving to Vermont because he is sick of the LA lifestyle and he likes the people in VT. Speculators think there is a political side to what brought him to this decision.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)



Return to Science News Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

cron