[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[Tahar Joblis]

It looks pretty massive.

The more I read about this, the more I think this has little to do with Clinton vs Sanders, and much more to do with crooked politics on the state and local level. It's just that the national campaign has cast enough light on what's been going on in New York that we suddenly have an idea of the scope of the problem.

It is pathetic. We shouldn't be getting worse with access to voting, we should be getting better.

And even though I don't believe the "IT IS RIGGED BY HILLARY!", governments being this incompetent does not remotely help the Bernie Sanders crowds view on the whole thing.

Though I dunno if this affects everyone like in Arizona or not.

There actually is a trend towards state and local governments working to minimize voter participation. You see this in the proliferation of election times - more state governments are moving to off-year and even odd-year elections, and more municipalities and counties are moving towards holding various local elections (e.g., school board elections) at different times of the year to insure lower levels of voter participation.

School board elections are a great example, actually, of how this works. There are groups - e.g., teachers and other school system employees - with very strong interests in influencing who is on the school board. They will show up in large numbers to an election held on Wednesday at midnight sometime in April. If you work in the schools, who sits on the school board really matters, and if overall turnout is 5%, your vote goes a lot farther.

That pattern is duplicated all over the place. Special interest groups with the ability to direct members to key elections have an incentive to lobby for those elections to become less accessible, and so we've seen a proliferation of electoral inconvenience, with elections being held more often in more irregular ways.

[AiliailiA]

Anti-nuclear leftist here. Investment in renewables is simply the safer option, and the premium you pay is minimal.

The high investment cost of renewables is why we have so little renewable energy. A few places are lucky (like Iceland for geothermal, or Tasmania for hydro) but for most of the world renewables are a long hard slog and aren't keeping up with increasing global demand.

I don't need to tell you that outsourcing the energy-intensive industry to developing nations isn't reducing global emissions, do I?

Two massive accidents in a few decades is bad enough, considering we're speaking of an energy form for millennia to come. Right now, the proportion of dangerous US nuclear facilities is ridiculously high.

More Americans have died falling off wind turbines they were trying to install or repair, than have died in nuclear accidents.

But the true issue is that the risk of 'nuclear research' yielding weaponry is one that we've gone through way too many times.

That's the worst of all your bad points! The fission bomb was invented before the nuclear thermal plant, while the fusion bomb was invented over fifty years ago ... and we still haven't harnessed fusion for electricity generation.

What other horrible weapons were you thinking of?

And it's probably worth mentioning that the space programs of the superpowers began with converted missiles, and GPS was built by and for the US military.

The world is moving towards green, not nuclear. Many nations have pledged never to allow nuclear within their borders, while others are moving away from it (Europe, Japan).

Argumentum ad populum, pure and simple.

[Alien Space Bats]

Where does a ship's hair grow?

Just in front of its propellers.

[Maineiacs]

It's not that unorthodox.

Gallup has a slight majority of the public supporting nuclear energy. But that includes maintaining current levels.

Support for building new plants would be under:

U.S. Should Place "More Emphasis" on Each Source of Domestic Energy Production, by Party ID

	Republicans	Independents	Democrats
	%	%	%
Solar Power	70	83	82
Wind	63	69	81
Natural Gas	66	52	49
Oil	60	38	28
Nuclear Power	47	34	24
Coal	40	24	22
.
March 5-8, 2015

Democrats don't like Nuclear ... the only source Democrats like less is COAL. And Independents aren't much better!

Sadly, nuclear isn't sexy enough for environmentalists. Thorium fuel cycles deal with literally any concerns with nuclear, save perhaps the environmental impact of their secondary cooling loops.

It's my understanding that Thorium has some difficulties associated with its use as fissile material. How problematic is it? I'm afraid I know little about it.

[Ostroeuropa]

https://berniesanders.com/press-release ... -concerns/

Looks like Clinton may have rigged it in multiple ways.

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-hill ... n-finance/


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/d ... 8466243820

As Politico reported this weekend, the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF), which was designed to be a joint fundraising effort between the Clinton campaign and the DNC to help Democrats win down-ticket races, is unloading unusually large amounts of cash to Hillary for America (HFA) — Hillary Clinton’s official campaign account.

Deutsch pointed out that the money disbursed by the Hillary Victory Fund is disproportionately benefiting the Clinton campaign, rather than the Democratic Party as a whole:

So all that shit she peddled about helping democrats get elected was another self-serving lie.

Basically:
Hilary has been raising money for her campaign. She can't accept over $2,700 from any one person. So the rest goes to a fund that's supposed to help other Democrats, but is actually being used to buy advertisements encouraging people to donate to HFV, "transforming" previously illegal money, since it went over the limit, into legal money since it's from new donors. (You know. Kind of like money laundering.)

In addition, the HFV campaign has been paying Hillary For America campaigners and staffers their wages and a number of other expenses, which allows Hillary For America to spend more on advertising and lobbying. The workaround being that so long as HFV doesn't spend money on advertising for Clinton, that it's okay in their eyes.

They're basically saying she's taking those "downticket fundraising events" and using the money for her own campaign to circumvent campaign finance laws.

So much for getting other democrats elected and such. She's leeching donations people made to elect other democrats into her own campaign.

They are using the “dirty” above the contribution limit money to raise new “clean” small donation money. Any money raised by Hillary Victory Fund from an individual over $2700 cant be used directly for her campaign. Instead they buy ads with it seeking additional donations for HVF. Since this money comes from other, new donors, it is “clean” and can be sent to the campaign. This action doesn’t even have to be profitable. If $100,000 from George Clooney that the campaign cant touch is turned into $50k for the campaign then that is a win for them! This is similar to how you might launder money by gambling it. You’re likely to lose some of it, but you dont care because you now have a valid place to say it came from.

"Here's 2,800 bucks."

"Thanks, ima give the legal maximum of 2,700 of it to my presidential campaign and spend 100 bucks of it..."

"Electing other democrats?"

"No! Asking for more donations to this fundraising effort "

"Oh... okay."

Rinse, repeat.

The allegation is that this has become a blatant con job, and the large amounts of money being sent to the Clinton Presidential campaign by HFV far exceeds the amount sent to other democrats.

[Ashmoria]

There's also the fact that Sanders wants to outright ban nuclear energy

Hold the fuck up. What? He does? Why is that being ignored?

If that's true, honestly, that's a colossal problem. Nuclear energy, fission or fusion, is one of the most important tools we have in the fight against climate change and just in general is a great source of power, and the safety of modern reactors is extremely good (unscientific fearmongering about OMG CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA THREE MILE ISLAND aside, of course).

it is a common democratic stance.

[Guy]

Anti-nuclear leftist here. Investment in renewables is simply the safer option, and the premium you pay is minimal.

The high investment cost of renewables is why we have so little renewable energy. A few places are lucky (like Iceland for geothermal, or Tasmania for hydro) but for most of the world renewables are a long hard slog and aren't keeping up with increasing global demand

Except that's not really true, is it? Germany is going all-in for wind and phasing out nuclear, France is doubling its renewables by 2030 to 40% (in place of nuclear, which is currently almost 80%), Norway is already completely in hydro, Scotland is already at 60% renewables and hoping to get to 100%, California is supposed to increase solar three-folds or something like that in 10 years... This is all just off the top of my head. Sure, there are some places where renewables might not work as well, but to say that their potential is limited to a couple of places is factually wrong.

Two massive accidents in a few decades is bad enough, considering we're speaking of an energy form for millennia to come. Right now, the proportion of dangerous US nuclear facilities is ridiculously high.

More Americans have died falling off wind turbines they were trying to install or repair, than have died in nuclear accidents.

I'm sorry, I think this is quite a terrible argument. Workplace deaths as a terrible thing we seek to minimise, but they're not going to be debilitating on a national level. A serious nuclear accident, however, is.

Put another way: I'd rather the energy form of the future cause some deaths on an ongoing basis, than have a risk for a massive incident. We know that this risk exists with nuclear -- all that it took is a not-at-all-extraordinary earthquake, the type that happens every number of years, not centuries. This isn't what I'd like to risk every single time we have a serious earthquake.

But the true issue is that the risk of 'nuclear research' yielding weaponry is one that we've gone through way too many times.

That's the worst of all your bad points! The fission bomb was invented before the nuclear thermal plant, while the fusion bomb was invented over fifty years ago ... and we still haven't harnessed fusion for electricity generation.

What other horrible weapons were you thinking of?

The point isn't that the research will lead to the discovery of weaponry. Rather, that it gives rogue nations (Pakistan, North Korea, Iran) an excuse to build nuclear weaponry, under the guise of civilian research. No civilian research, no guise.

The world is moving towards green, not nuclear. Many nations have pledged never to allow nuclear within their borders, while others are moving away from it (Europe, Japan).

Argumentum ad populum, pure and simple.

The point is that it's happening, therefore it's possible.

[54e]

Today's prediction: Clinton by 13.4%, finally effectively ending all mathematical possibility of a Sanders nomination.

(Hoping & praying for a Michigan-esque upset, but I can't see it)

[Khadgar]

Today's prediction: Clinton by 13.4%, finally effectively ending all mathematical possibility of a Sanders nomination.

(Hoping & praying for a Michigan-esque upset, but I can't see it)

Michigan polling was flawed because the polls took into account the last election which for Michigan didn't count because the state party moved their primary up the the DNC smacked them down for it, so most people didn't bother to vote. No such thing has happened in NY. Furthermore the fact it's a closed primary really hurts Bernie. Additionally the deadline to change your party identification was back in August or thereabouts. No way for Bernie fans to vote unless they're registered as Democrats and Hillary leads among registered Democrats 53 to 40.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Sadly, nuclear isn't sexy enough for environmentalists. Thorium fuel cycles deal with literally any concerns with nuclear, save perhaps the environmental impact of their secondary cooling loops.

It's my understanding that Thorium has some difficulties associated with its use as fissile material. How problematic is it? I'm afraid I know little about it.

Ah, that's a common misconception, but understandable enough; the thorium cycle relies on u-233 enriched from thorium-232, whereas conventional uranium reactors rely on u-238 enriched from u-235. Uranium-233 is highly radioactive, and almost spectacularly unsuited to creating a nuclear weapon with- amusingly enough, the projects that were assessing its viability back in the 60s and 70s as a weapon were shut down rather precipitously after initial results indicated the trace uranium-232 made any warheads created prone to explode at any time. Even the most insane terrorist can't really build a 233 bomb without dying of radiation or making his own lab in to the site of a failed nuclear explosion, like North Korea.

However, thorium reactors also put out fissile plutonium, weapons grade. That's the main issue with proliferation; plutonium, obviously, is an excellent warhead material. That said though, the quantity of plutonium produced by a thorium lifecycle is negligible, somewhere around 2% of the plutonium produced by a conventional uranium reactor in a similar period of time.

The difficulties you're thinking of are probably those associated with nuclear reprocessing. With appropriate technology and intent, spent radioactive fuels of either thorium or uranium reactors can be made fissile. That's why we probably shouldn't let Pakistan or Iran have reprocessing facilities, to be on the safe side. Even so, the reprocessing of thorium byproducts is significantly less viable as a source of fissile materials when compared to conventional uranium byproducts, so switching to thorium would reduce the global risk from reprocessing.

[AiliailiA]

It's my understanding that Thorium has some difficulties associated with its use as fissile material. How problematic is it? I'm afraid I know little about it.

Ah, that's a common misconception, but understandable enough; the thorium cycle relies on u-233 enriched from thorium-232, whereas conventional uranium reactors rely on u-238 enriched from u-235. Uranium-233 is highly radioactive, and almost spectacularly unsuited to creating a nuclear weapon with- amusingly enough, the projects that were assessing its viability back in the 60s and 70s as a weapon were shut down rather precipitously after initial results indicated the trace uranium-232 made any warheads created prone to explode at any time. Even the most insane terrorist can't really build a 233 bomb without dying of radiation or making his own lab in to the site of a failed nuclear explosion, like North Korea.

However, thorium reactors also put out fissile plutonium, weapons grade. That's the main issue with proliferation; plutonium, obviously, is an excellent warhead material. That said though, the quantity of plutonium produced by a thorium lifecycle is negligible, somewhere around 2% of the plutonium produced by a conventional uranium reactor in a similar period of time.

The difficulties you're thinking of are probably those associated with nuclear reprocessing. With appropriate technology and intent, spent radioactive fuels of either thorium or uranium reactors can be made fissile. That's why we probably shouldn't let Pakistan or Iran have reprocessing facilities, to be on the safe side. Even so, the reprocessing of thorium byproducts is significantly less viable as a source of fissile materials when compared to conventional uranium byproducts, so switching to thorium would reduce the global risk from reprocessing.

Your post is mostly informative, a bit debatable but that would get technical. I'm most curious about the highlighted part.

Pakistan already has a nuclear arsenal. What's your concern about them building more, particularly since Pakistan's enemies are mostly internal and not practical for Pakistan to nuke?

[Valaran]

Pakistan already has a nuclear arsenal. What's your concern about them building more, particularly since Pakistan's enemies are mostly internal and not practical for Pakistan to nuke?

I'd rather Pakistan didn't get more. It certainly doesn't help the situation, and in the event of a collapse, it would mean more that the US had to secure.

And Pakistan's reasoning to get nukes is to deter India, so there is still an external issue of significant size.

[Senkaku]

Anti-nuclear leftist here. Investment in renewables is simply the safer option, and the premium you pay is minimal.

Two massive accidents in a few decades is bad enough, considering we're speaking of an energy form for millennia to come. Right now, the proportion of dangerous US nuclear facilities is ridiculously high.

You say "safer" because of those two accidents. I can only presume you mean Chernobyl and Fukushima. So let's go over them and review why they're silly reasons to oppose construction of new reactors.

At Chernobyl, the Soviets basically were running an experiment on the reactor, and they fucked up. Chernobyl was an old reactor without many modern safety mechanisms, and yes, the Chernobyl disaster was catastrophic. But it was essentially induced by its operators.
At Fukushima, the most powerful earthquake to ever strike Japan hit, and all of the reactors survived. Then a thirteen meter tsunami broke the five point seven meter sea wall, and the reactors still survived. The problem was that the diesel generators that ran the pumps to keep cooling them were flooded- so the reactors switched over to emergency battery systems. The Japanese then couldn't get there fast enough to get new diesel generators running (because the roads were basically gone/submerged), which meant the reactors overheated and released a bunch of hydrogen and then exploded. Fukushima was hit by one of the largest earthquakes in recorded history, and still almost survived.
Modern reactors are safer and better-designed than Chernobyl and aren't fucked around with, and we can build them to withstand even earthquakes as powerful as the Tohoku quake. Using thorium or liquid salt/fluoride reactors only enhances their safety.

But the true issue is that the risk of 'nuclear research' yielding weaponry is one that we've gone through way too many times.

*whispers* The United States already has nuclear weapons!

But seriously, you can build reactors that don't have the potential to enrich bomb material. We have the technology.

The world is moving towards green, not nuclear.

When in fact nuclear is a damn sight greener than many renewable energy sources.

Many nations have pledged never to allow nuclear within their borders, while others are moving away from it (Europe, Japan).

Because of a shortsighted fear of a few disasters.

[Senkaku]

Hold the fuck up. What? He does? Why is that being ignored?

If that's true, honestly, that's a colossal problem. Nuclear energy, fission or fusion, is one of the most important tools we have in the fight against climate change and just in general is a great source of power, and the safety of modern reactors is extremely good (unscientific fearmongering about OMG CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA THREE MILE ISLAND aside, of course).

it is a common democratic stance.

And therefore it's right?

[G-Tech Corporation]

Pakistan already has a nuclear arsenal. What's your concern about them building more, particularly since Pakistan's enemies are mostly internal and not practical for Pakistan to nuke?

I'd rather Pakistan didn't get more. It certainly doesn't help the situation, and in the event of a collapse, it would mean more that the US had to secure.

And Pakistan's reasoning to get nukes is to deter India, so there is still an external issue of significant size.

Basically the above- it's not that I find Iran or Pakistan particularly abhorrent, but Pakistan isn't necessarily the most stable or accountable of countries. Their ISI folks are pretty much aligned with militants in some cases. Sure, Pakistan has nukes now, but more fissile material probably isn't wise to spread around the region. Ditto Iran.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

I'd rather Pakistan didn't get more. It certainly doesn't help the situation, and in the event of a collapse, it would mean more that the US had to secure.

And Pakistan's reasoning to get nukes is to deter India, so there is still an external issue of significant size.

Basically the above- it's not that I find Iran or Pakistan particularly abhorrent, but Pakistan isn't necessarily the most stable or accountable of countries. Their ISI folks are pretty much aligned with militants in some cases. Sure, Pakistan has nukes now, but more fissile material probably isn't wise to spread around the region. Ditto Iran.

I, for one, do find the Iranian regime inherently abhorrent.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Does anyone know when the results of the New York primary come in?

[Khadgar]

Does anyone know when the results of the New York primary come in?

Probably the earliest 8-9pm.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Basically the above- it's not that I find Iran or Pakistan particularly abhorrent, but Pakistan isn't necessarily the most stable or accountable of countries. Their ISI folks are pretty much aligned with militants in some cases. Sure, Pakistan has nukes now, but more fissile material probably isn't wise to spread around the region. Ditto Iran.

I, for one, do find the Iranian regime inherently abhorrent.

*shrug*

I think we'll get more done encouraging reformists than feeding the ayatollahs and hardliners fuel for their hatred.

[Valaran]

I'd rather Pakistan didn't get more. It certainly doesn't help the situation, and in the event of a collapse, it would mean more that the US had to secure.

And Pakistan's reasoning to get nukes is to deter India, so there is still an external issue of significant size.

Basically the above- it's not that I find Iran or Pakistan particularly abhorrent, but Pakistan isn't necessarily the most stable or accountable of countries. Their ISI folks are pretty much aligned with militants in some cases. Sure, Pakistan has nukes now, but more fissile material probably isn't wise to spread around the region. Ditto Iran.

Yeah, though I do note the US is quietly investing in the stabilisation of Pakistan (finally realised that might be a good thing).

I, for one, do find the Iranian regime inherently abhorrent.

I think G-tech was just saying that to mark that his point was primarily concerned with the practicalities (rather than the ethics) of fissile material being created in such places. Wasn't necessarily a comment on how nice the Iranian regime may or not be.
(he/she can correct that if they want - just my impression).

That being said, sure, they're bad.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Does anyone know when the results of the New York primary come in?

Probably the earliest 8-9pm.

Thanks.

[54e]

Today's prediction: Clinton by 13.4%, finally effectively ending all mathematical possibility of a Sanders nomination.

(Hoping & praying for a Michigan-esque upset, but I can't see it)

Michigan polling was flawed because the polls took into account the last election which for Michigan didn't count because the state party moved their primary up the the DNC smacked them down for it, so most people didn't bother to vote. No such thing has happened in NY. Furthermore the fact it's a closed primary really hurts Bernie. Additionally the deadline to change your party identification was back in August or thereabouts. No way for Bernie fans to vote unless they're registered as Democrats and Hillary leads among registered Democrats 53 to 40.

Are you saying Michigan polls used data from 2008? Because that's definitely not accurate. What you're talking about is entirely unrelated. And yes, I realize the other stuff, which is why I predicted Clinton to win. Did you see that?

[Khadgar]

Strange, 538 lays some of the blame on precisely what I said, which makes it odd that you say it flatly didn't happen. There were several factors but the one I specifically mentioned was certainly one of them.

Pollsters had little recent history to work with. Michigan’s Democratic primary was weird in 2008 (Barack Obama wasn’t on the ballot), and the state party held caucuses in 2000 and 2004 that weren’t really competitive. So relying on voter history could lead pollsters astray. “Remember, we haven’t had a real Democratic presidential primary in Michigan lately,” said Matt Grossmann, director of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University, which showed the tightest race of any late polls, with Clinton leading by 5 percentage points.

So yeah, Michigan's history made the pollsters adjust their numbers incorrectly. Don't go hoping for that kind of thing anywhere else. Michigan has been taken on as some kind of talisman for Bernie supporters "The polls underestimate us!". It's nonsense.

[Napkiraly]

Nuclear power is one of the things that makes me not want to see Sanders the nominee. At least his position on GMO's isn't entirely horrible.

[54e]

Strange, 538 lays some of the blame on precisely what I said, which makes it odd that you say it flatly didn't happen. There were several factors but the one I specifically mentioned was certainly one of them.

Pollsters had little recent history to work with. Michigan’s Democratic primary was weird in 2008 (Barack Obama wasn’t on the ballot), and the state party held caucuses in 2000 and 2004 that weren’t really competitive. So relying on voter history could lead pollsters astray. “Remember, we haven’t had a real Democratic presidential primary in Michigan lately,” said Matt Grossmann, director of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University, which showed the tightest race of any late polls, with Clinton leading by 5 percentage points.

So yeah, Michigan's history made the pollsters adjust their numbers incorrectly. Don't go hoping for that kind of thing anywhere else. Michigan has been taken on as some kind of talisman for Bernie supporters "The polls underestimate us!". It's nonsense.

Yeah, 538 is wrong here. The only nonsense is to suggest that Michigan was ever Sanders territory. It was a huge upset, and trying to scramble for excuses to downplay it is pathetic.

ALSO

DID YOU SEE THAT I PREDICTED CLINTON TO WIN. BY A LOT. YOU INSUFFERABLE SANDERS-SUPPORTER GENERALIZING HACK