• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Touchdown

Banned
Macho Madness said:
Oh yeah Emerson did another poll

Clinton 55
Sanders 40
Click to expand...

oooooh YeeeeeeeeeeaAAAAHHHHH

image.php
 
U

User 406

Banned
sc0la said:
To quote our founding father, Abraham Lincoln, before crossing the Delaware river to murder illegal immigrants, "Give me Purplesaurus Rex, or give me death!"
Click to expand...

Considering the predilections of this thread, I would have expected Sharkleberry Gin to be popular.

I'm a fan of the strawberry Kool-Aid myself. Lime is great too.


I had like about a dozen posts multiquoted while catching up on the thread, and they all disappeared somehow. Pretend I posted some image macros or whatever.
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
Of all the polls taken since Wisconsin in NY, none have shown any major movement away from Clinton that couldn't be explained with margin of error. If the results end up around a 12-16 margin, it's been a very stable and predictable race for 3 weeks now.

*whispers* momentum
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Macho Madness said:
Of all the polls taken since Wisconsin in NY, none have shown any major movement away from Clinton that couldn't be explained with margin of error. If the results end up around a 12-16 margin, it's been a very stable and predictable race for 3 weeks now.
Click to expand...

That's what makes me nervous.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
NeoXChaos said:
How in the world does Trump clear 50% in his state but Cruz and Kasich were stuck to the mid 40's
Click to expand...

One has no eyebrows and the other is less pleasant to look at than Batman vs. Superman.

It would do my heart so much good if Cruz got second in NY just to put Kasich down. I can't be the only one who seriously is freaked out by him having no eyebrows. I mean look at this:

kasich-closeup.jpg
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, Idaho, and Nebraska will form the new Democratic coalition. Finally, no more reliance on these red, deep south states.

Wyoming doesn't count because of 7-7.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
Hey, guys, I want to bring up something important.

Bernie Sanders' official Facebook page posted this 3 hours ago.

13000370_10154733003702908_8990347784229421228_n.png.jpg


Wow! 22 power plants! So I looked up how many coal fired power plants there are in the United States.

It turns out that there are 1,308.

There are over a million gas and oil fracking wells in the United States, and yet somehow if you add all of those operations up, they only amount to the same greenhouse gas production as 1.7% of our coal operations. Coal is carbon dense; in fact, it's almost entirely condensed carbon. Burning it is so dirty that coal generated electricity accounts for 24% of all greenhouse gases in the entire country. Natural gas, while similarly creating 20% of greenhouse gases in the United States, is much more efficient. An electric power plant fueled by coal can usually reduce its emissions by half simply by switching to methane.

So by comparison, it is a happy day that natural gas extraction in the whole country would cause only 22 power plants worth of emissions. But that was actually a false comparison: the tracking number is for extraction, while the coal number is for power generation, i.e. combustion! The numbers are pretty good when you compare combustion to combustion. For an equivalent amount of electrical energy, methane produces 50-60% less carbon emissions than coal does! All in all, that sounds like an improvement.

Methane's not perfect. For one, it's still a carbon fuel. But it's a hell of a good step toward clean energy.

And then that reminded me of the debate on Thursday. Here's what Hillary Clinton said when she was asked why she supported fracking globally.

LOUIS: OK. Secretary Clinton, as secretary of state, you also pioneered a program to promote fracking around the world, as you described. Fracking, of course, a way of extracting natural gas. Now as a candidate for president, you say that by the time you're done with all your rules and regulations, fracking will be restricted in many places around the country. Why have you changed your view on fracking?

CLINTON: No, well, I don't think I've changed my view on what we need to do to go from where we are, where the world is heavily dependent on coal and oil, but principally coal, to where we need to be, which is clean renewable energy, and one of the bridge fuels is natural gas.

And so for both economic and environmental and strategic reasons, it was American policy to try to help countries get out from under the constant use of coal, building coal plants all the time, also to get out from under, especially if they were in Europe, the pressure from Russia, which has been incredibly intense. So we did say natural gas is a bridge. We want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible, because in order to deal with climate change, we have got to move as rapidly as we can.

That's why I've set big goals. I want to see us deploy a half a billion more solar panels by the end of my first term and enough clean energy to provide electricity to every home in America within 10 years.

(APPLAUSE)

So I have big, bold goals, but I know in order to get from where we are, where the world is still burning way too much coal, where the world is still too intimidated by countries and providers like Russia, we have got to make a very firm but decisive move in the direction of clean energy.
Click to expand...
Ok. Fracking is a bridge fuel to clean energy. That makes sense given what I've covered above. Sanders' response?

All right, here is -- here is a real difference. This is a difference between understanding that we have a crisis of historical consequence here, and incrementalism and those little steps are not enough.

(APPLAUSE)

Not right now. Not on climate change. Now, the truth is, as secretary of state, Secretary Clinton actively supported fracking technology around the world. Second of all, right now, we have got to tell the fossil fuel industry that their short-term profits are not more important than the future of this planet.

(APPLAUSE)

And that means -- and I would ask you to respond. Are you in favor of a tax on carbon so that we can transit away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy at the level and speed we need to do?
Click to expand...
Yeah, so, screw the bridge. It's all incrementalism! Bernie is convinced that we have to send a message to the fossil fuel industry. And he's got a point. Climate change is dire. But how do we get there?

Shortly after, Sanders was asked about fracking again.
LOUIS: I have a question for you. You've said that climate change is the greatest threat to our nation's security. You've called for a nationwide ban on fracking. You've also called for phasing out all nuclear power in the U.S. But wouldn't those proposals drive the country back to coal and oil, and actually undermine your fight against global warming?

SANDERS: No, they wouldn't. Look, here's where we are. Let me reiterate. We have a global crisis. Pope Francis reminded us that we are on a suicide course. Our legislation understands, Errol, that there will be economic dislocation. It is absolutely true. There will be some people who lose their job. And we build into our legislation an enormous amount of money to protect those workers. It is not their fault...

SANDERS: It is not their fault that fossil fuels are destroying our climate.

But we have got to stand up and say right now, as we would if we were attacked by some military force, we have got to move urgency -- urgently and boldly.

What does that mean?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator -- senator, jobs...

SANDERS: Yes?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- jobs are one thing, but with less than 6 percent of all U.S. energy coming from solar, wind and geothermal, and 20 percent of U.S. power coming from nuclear, if you phase out all of that, how do you make up...

SANDERS: Well, you don't phase...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- that difference?

SANDERS: -- it all out tomorrow. And you certainly don't phase nuclear out tomorrow. But this is what you do do.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: What you do do is say that we are going to have a massive program -- and I had introduced -- introduced legislation for 10 million solar rooftops. We can put probably millions of people to work retrofitting and weatherizing buildings all over this country.

(CHEERING)

KRISTOFFER: Bernie Sanders is laundering money through his nurses's union and disguising them as small donations.

SANDERS: Saving -- rebuilding our rail system.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Our mass transit system.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: If we approach this, Errol, as if we were literally at a war -- you know, in 1941, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we moved within three years, within three more years to rebuild our economy to defeat Nazism and Japanese imperialism. That is exactly the kind of approach we need right now.
Click to expand...
So we see two things here. First is that his plan is what you might expect: we solve the problem immediately with all of our willpower and that's how we'd going to get it done. The second is that, even though he just derided incrementalism, he admits that we would not phase out everything "tomorrow"! So much for the difference.

I'm just going to end this with a line Clinton said.

It's easy to diagnose a problem. It's harder to do something about a problem.
Click to expand...
 
T

Trouble

Banned
Kristoffer said:
Hey, guys, I want to bring up something important.

Bernie Sanders' official Facebook page posted this 3 hours ago.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of other reasons to hate fracking. For example it frequently contaminates aquifers and there is no way to fix that once it has happened.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
Trouble said:
There's plenty of other reasons to hate fracking. For example it frequently contaminates aquifers and there is no way to fix that once it has happened.
Click to expand...
http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...minate-drinking-water-yale-study-confirms.htm
Yale researchers have confirmed that hydraulic fracturing – also known as "fracking" – does not contaminate drinking water. The process of extracting natural gas from deep underground wells using water has been given a bad reputation when it comes to the impact it has on water resources but Yale researchers recently disproved this myth in a new study that confirms a previous report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted earlier this year.
Click to expand...
 
B

Bowdz

Member
Lol, Kristoffer, you thought no one would notice:

KRISTOFFER: Bernie Sanders is laundering money through his nurses's union and disguising them as small donations.

BUT I READ THE TRANSCRIPTS BRO.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
Kristoffer said:
Okay, let's all come to terms with something right now.

Hillary's got a white people problem. They don't like her. They're not voting for her. She's losing big to blue collar white folk and that's why she lost Michigan tonight.

Detroit voted for her. Everywhere else didn't. So I think when California rolls around, or New York, there's a chance she might lose either of those two. And if she does, that's it for her.
Click to expand...
Lol! I thought she was going to lose New York.

Trouble said:
And here's one of many studies saying the exact opposite.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-04-15/fracking-contaminates-groundwater-stanford-study
Click to expand...

Sheiße!
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
The coefficient of interest for my girlfriend's first year Ph.D. project has a p-value of .43 :mad:

On the other hand, her professors pushed her into doing this idea over others, so not her fault on the choice of subject!
 
R

royalan

Member
Kristoffer said:
Hey, guys, I want to bring up something important.

Bernie Sanders' official Facebook page posted this 3 hours ago.

13000370_10154733003702908_8990347784229421228_n.png.jpg


Wow! 22 power plants! So I looked up how many coal fired power plants there are in the United States.

It turns out that there are 1,308.

There are over a million gas and oil fracking wells in the United States, and yet somehow if you add all of those operations up, they only amount to the same greenhouse gas production as 1.7% of our coal operations. Coal is carbon dense; in fact, it's almost entirely condensed carbon. Burning it is so dirty that coal generated electricity accounts for 24% of all greenhouse gases in the entire country. Natural gas, while similarly creating 20% of greenhouse gases in the United States, is much more efficient. An electric power plant fueled by coal can usually reduce its emissions by half simply by switching to methane.

So by comparison, it is a happy day that natural gas extraction in the whole country would cause only 22 power plants worth of emissions. But that was actually a false comparison: the tracking number is for extraction, while the coal number is for power generation, i.e. combustion! The numbers are pretty good when you compare combustion to combustion. For an equivalent amount of electrical energy, methane produces 50-60% less carbon emissions than coal does! All in all, that sounds like an improvement.

Methane's not perfect. For one, it's still a carbon fuel. But it's a hell of a good step toward clean energy.

And then that reminded me of the debate on Thursday. Here's what Hillary Clinton said when she was asked why she supported fracking globally.

Ok. Fracking is a bridge fuel to clean energy. That makes sense given what I've covered above. Sanders' response?

Yeah, so, screw the bridge. It's all incrementalism! Bernie is convinced that we have to send a message to the fossil fuel industry. And he's got a point. Climate change is dire. But how do we get there?

Shortly after, Sanders was asked about fracking again.
So we see two things here. First is that his plan is what you might expect: we solve the problem immediately with all of our willpower and that's how we'd going to get it done. The second is that, even though he just derided incrementalism, he admits that we would not phase out everything "tomorrow"! So much for the difference.

I'm just going to end this with a line Clinton said.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the great post. I'm actually going to borrow some of this for my Facebook page (fuck it, PA votes soon, so I'm going HAM for the Queen on my Facebook), so I will credit you here since I can't on my FB page. lol

Anyway, this was one of the more frustrating moments of that debate. Hillary gives the fantastic answer that takes into account the complexity of the issue. Bernie goes for the cheap soundbite. Gets the applause.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
I'm also gonna be borrowing some of that on FB for a post about it, because I'm sick and goddamn tired of people posting misinformation about that specific subject matter (though I'm in Ohio and we're about 5 1/2 months from being ultra-relevant again). Fantastic post, Kristoffer.

(also sweet Jesus I was outside for a while today - 10 hours in downtown Cbus, all told)
 
H

hawk2025

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
The coefficient of interest for my girlfriend's first year Ph.D. project has a p-value of .43 :mad:

On the other hand, her professors pushed her into doing this idea over others, so not her fault on the choice of subject!
Click to expand...

Which field?

First year projects are typically litmus tests on the basics of writing a simple paper. I wouldn't worry about it.
 
H

hawk2025

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Marketing.

She already did really good work on her Masters Thesis so she knows how to write a paper, she just wished it was more interesting.
Click to expand...

Quant or Behavioral, if you don't mind me asking?

FWIW, I've followed four people that were on the Marketing job market this year that did fantastic -- if I recall right, ALL of them had non-results as their first-year paper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom