Quote :

"California is currently reporting in about 70%, looks like Clinton is up 53% to 40% right now... and apparently 5% of voters (about 150,000 right now) in the state are stubborn/dumb/apathetic enough to do a write-in for Edwards. "

Maybe most of them were absentee voters that voted a month ago.

2/6/2008 7:42:53 AM

I don't know how it works for California, but for the general election, the absentee ballots are only counted if the number of absentees exceeds the margin by which the race was decided.

So if the margin was 10 votes, and only 9 people voted absentee, then their votes would literally not count.

2/6/2008 8:40:00 AM

Quote :

"I don't know how it works for California, but for the general election, the absentee ballots are only counted if the number of absentees exceeds the margin by which the race was decided."

They must have already counted absentees in California yesterday because when the first precincts were coming in from there, Giuliani had 15% of the vote on the Republican side. (And he was pushing people in states like Florida and California to go ahead and vote absentee.)

2/6/2008 8:55:28 AM

Quote :

"More like what is there to actually like about Willard Romney? He is the only one that I have heard openly laud the idea of drilling in a wildlife refuge which I find revolting. Also his concept of just letting the "free market" fix everything which sounds pretty lazy considering I am sure he or his cronies would profit somehow. Oh and the flip-flop pandering should make anyone . "

Well thanks for answering. I like romney bc he actually has experience running something and being successful. He has successfully run a business, which I feel is VERY important right now. He is very strong on illegals. Drilling in Anwar is a good idea and helps get us off foreign oil quickly. He understands that if the market is dictating a price increase you must increase supply. So that one surefire way of doing just that. Really, what has the democrats done to lower gas prices like they promised in 06? Against the free market? After last night and reading some of these comments this country is lost.

Stein, he gives you the creeps? How so? More so than a socialist agenda? I guess they make you feel good, so that is all that matter right?

Anyone see Obama's sermon, err speech last night? My god. I love the no longer will the govt sit by while people cant afford healthins and cant afford thier mortgages. LOL. Whose fault is that. What other mistakes can taxpayers bail people out of? Then at the end, everyone chanting, YES WE CAN... over and over, then he says its time to go to work... I LOVE YOU!!!!. Even my wife, who doesnt follow this shit, said did he just say I lOVE YOU? haha. But he will be the next american prez. If he holds onto what he states are his policies he will ruin this country, yes moreso than bush.

2/6/2008 9:11:37 AM

Ever get the sense that the pundits are telling the only story they know, instead of the one that is actually happening? They keep trumpeting the myth that Obama is only getting black votes in the South, when in fact in the South he is getting blacks and white males. Hilary is winning white females, particularly older white females. White males are voting for Hilary in the Northeast.

I also don't get the criticism all the pundits are levying that Obama is getting a high percent of his support from people that went to college. If the numbers were the same you might worry, but since the turnout is increasing that would indicate more younger voters and moderates coming to vote for him.

The story Obama's campaign needs to push is that his candidacy is the one that could reshape the electoral map, and bring many more states into play. He is getting solid support from the deep South, Midwest, and West (northern plains and rocky mountain states). Hilary is winning states that have been reliably blue. I don't think Obama would have any trouble carrying most of the states Hilary is winning in the general, but could also bring others into play that have been red for awhile.

Early voting seems to have really helped Clinton in some states, namely California.

On the Republican side, I don't see how anyone could be surprised that Southerners do not like Romney. In some people's fantasyland he was going to get votes because this year he is a conservative. Southerners tend not to vote for phony Northeasterners, and the Mormon thing is unlikely to help.

[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 9:50 AM. Reason : .]

2/6/2008 9:43:38 AM

Quote :

"Drilling in Anwar is a good idea and helps get us off foreign oil quickly."

That’s some grade A ignorance right there and shows that you have no grasp of commodity markets. Do you really think that a corporation is going to sell oil only to the United States in order to get us off foreign oil? No, they're going to sell it on the global market at market prices, thereby slightly increasing the oil supply and maybe driving down the cost of oil temporarily. That is, of course, assuming that OPEC doesn't contract its supply just slightly to keep prices high.

Capitalism, in this sense, is the enemy of energy sovereignty.

2/6/2008 10:03:48 AM

Quote :

"Drilling in Anwar is a good idea and helps get us off foreign oil quickly."

There is no way to know how much oil is under ANWAR... that being said, it is worth the excavation just to check and see how much is under there? It will disrupt one of the most pristine environments in the country.

Its like saying, lets dig up parts of the Grand Canyon because there's a chance there might be oil underneath it

2/6/2008 10:13:02 AM

Quote :

"That’s some grade A ignorance right there and shows that you have no grasp of commodity markets. Do you really think that a corporation is going to sell oil only to the United States in order to get us off foreign oil? No, they're going to sell it on the global market at market prices, thereby slightly increasing the oil supply and maybe driving down the cost of oil temporarily. That is, of course, assuming that OPEC doesn't contract its supply just slightly to keep prices high. "

Wow, the best part is you called me ignorant. Ok, let me try to follow your reasoning. So since a corporation would do the drilling of oil, on american soil, we would have no control over where the oil went to. Is that what you are saying? but then you mention OPEC, which unless they changed the last C to mean companies instead of COUNTRIES, you contradict yourself.

At the least you increase supply which will drive down cost, and I do think we would have control over it.

2/6/2008 10:19:49 AM

I fail to see how I contradict myself. OPEC is a cartel, the enemy of the free market, and most of the countries in OPEC run government owned oil producers. Their decision to control their oil production doesn't mean we control our oil corporations. Since the United States operates under a free-market system, we cannot (without violating that system) control how the oil drilled in ANWAR is distributed.

Are you arguing that the government should control the business affairs of a publicly traded corporation?

Now I'm just calling you a hypocrite.

Quote :

"There is no way to know how much oil is under ANWAR... that being said, it is worth the excavation just to check and see how much is under there? It will disrupt one of the most pristine environments in the country."

There is an argument, not often articulated, that the threat of drilling in ANWAR is more useful than actual drilling. If we treat it as our ace in the hole we can always fall back on the threat. If we drill, and there is less than we expect, then we lose that trump card.

Either way, energy independence in the United States will not come from petroleum, and anyone who thinks that has buried his head firmly in oil-country sand.

2/6/2008 10:27:32 AM

Quote :

"Drilling in Anwar is a good idea and helps get us off foreign oil quickly. "

No.

If we made the decision today to drill in ANWR, it would still be 5-7 years before we'd get any production out of it. That's just how long it takes.

Also, ANWR has oil, but the expected production from oil analysts is a small amount and would only make a dent at best at what foreign oil we import.

But drilling in ANWR is inevitable, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the person that opened it up is a Democratic President. But regardless, the Democratic Party of Alaska itself supports drilling, and it's Alaskan land, not North Carolinian land, so I say let them decide what to do.

[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 10:28 AM. Reason : /]

2/6/2008 10:28:03 AM

cash, you are under the delusion that we operate under a freemarket as such that the govt doesnt dictate things? Yes, I think we could dictate where the oil goes. We have private companies that drill uranium, im sure we have some control over that too.

I do 100% agree with you about oil not being the answer, but it is our current means. If we can increase supply shorterm without losing focus on alternatives I think that is the best course.

I never considered the threat of anwr as an issue,thats a good point. From what I understand we are the mideast of coal. WHile anwr might have enough peto to fuel us for 40 yrs. We have enough coal to fuel us for 100s. But like most things our enviro policies limit most attempts for more energy.

Where is it, off the coast of florida or california that we have rejected drilling for oil, but the chineses is going to do it. Typical huh. Im sure china has better regulations on driling than they do for dog food or toys. LOL.

2/6/2008 10:51:14 AM

Quote :

"cash, you are under the delusion that we operate under a freemarket as such that the govt doesnt dictate things? Yes, I think we could dictate where the oil goes. We have private companies that drill uranium, im sure we have some control over that too."

No, not really.

First off, uranium vs. oil isn't a very good comparison. Oil is consumed, in some form or another, by the majority of the world. Uranium is limited to a very few consumers with large amounts of capital.

Either way, the amount of oil in ANWAR is not significant enough to make a difference in the global price of oil. In reality, it is an emotional debate, with environmentalists (sometime acting irrationally) on one side and oil companies (acting in the rational self-interest of their profits) on the other. Exxon could give two shits about American energy-independence. Cheap oil is their enemy, do you think they're going to let go of that power that easily? You done lost your mind son.

Still, for a guy who is all about getting government to quit interfering with business, you're all about them doing it here. Again, hypocrisy at its finest.

2/6/2008 10:59:20 AM

how about this one then. Govt regulates the sale of alcohol and cigs between STATE lines. You still dont think they would have a say over where oil goes? Come on man. DO you need more? Let all try to sell widgets to cuba..oh wait.

Im all for govt to get out of business,healthcare, retirements, etc. Its just not happening. Americans seem to want MORE govt involvement. Which I just cant understand.

You keep mentioning profits like its a bad thing. why?

2/6/2008 11:06:55 AM

^ Individual states do because they tax them differently.

2/6/2008 11:19:39 AM

^^ le sigh.

2/6/2008 11:33:34 AM

Quote :

"ANWR has oil, but the expected production from oil analysts is a small amount"

Why do people continue to believe in this myth? Only an idiot could believe that an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil is a "small amount".

By comparison, a new oil field was discovered and tapped recently in South America (I forget the country, not Venezuela), and it was described as an absolutely massive oil field, the biggest discovery in a long time. The estimated amount of oil? 8 billion barrels.

[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 11:47 AM. Reason : 2]

2/6/2008 11:46:41 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

Quote :

"Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department. The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025. But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market."

Congratulations, we've gone from importing 70% of our oil to only 66.6%. Well done.

2/6/2008 11:49:16 AM

Quote :

"Individual states do because they tax them differently. "

Its a FEDERAL law that restricts alcohol and the Jennkins Act restricts the cigs.



Cash, why the sigh? You do know that we have restricted our oil exports in the past.

ANWR is the largest single untapped source of American oil. The US Geological Survey estimates that it contains 5.7 to16 billion barrels of recoverable crude oil. Assuming the middle of this range, ANWR could provide nearly a million barrels per day, every day it is in operation, for several decades. This drilling would occur on only 2,000 acres of ANWR’s 19 million acre expanse and only during the time of year when the ground is frozen.

2/6/2008 12:02:40 PM

Just read the link I just posted.

2/6/2008 12:11:17 PM

Quote :

"Congratulations, we've gone from importing 70% of our oil to only 66.6%. Well done."

LOL, I think that would be quite an accomplishment. No one oil field can meet all of our oil demands.

The idea that ANWR has a "small amount of oil" by comparing it to global oil demands is the kind of specious logic that exists on this message board, but I would expect better from the media and the EIA.

The reality is that ANWR is a massive oil field, and there are several other large oil and LNG fields off the coast that are not accessable due to a national ban on offshore oil drilling in the US. Accessing these reserves, combined with alternative and nuclear energy, higher efficiency and strict emissions standards, is the easiest way to become energy independent.

[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 12:27 PM. Reason : 2]

2/6/2008 12:23:36 PM

5 Myths About Breaking Our Foreign Oil Habit
http://tinyurl.com/2rbmxl

From the article:

Quote :

"In a speech last year, former CIA director R. James Woolsey Jr. had some advice for American motorists: "The next time you pull into a gas station to fill your car with gas, bend down a little and take a glance in the side-door mirror. . . . What you will see is a contributor to terrorism against the United States." Woolsey is known as a conservative, but plenty of liberals have also eagerly adopted the mantra that America's foreign oil purchases are funding terrorism. But the hype doesn't match reality. Remember, the two largest suppliers of crude to the U.S. market are Canada and Mexico -- neither exactly known as a belligerent terrorist haven."

Quote :

"Fans of energy independence argue that if the United States stops buying foreign energy, it will deny funds to petro-states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Hugo Ch¿vez's Venezuela. But the world marketplace doesn't work like that. Oil is a global commodity. Its price is set globally, not locally. Oil buyers are always seeking the lowest-cost supplier. So any Saudi crude being loaded at the Red Sea port of Yanbu that doesn't get purchased by a refinery in Corpus Christi or Houston will instead wind up in Singapore or Shanghai."

Doesn't it suck when a good political issue runs headlong into facts?

2/6/2008 12:37:00 PM

if we stop depending on oil as a whole then it should definitely improve our global position strategically

also, back to super tuesday:

interestingly, (as reported on the diane rehm show earlier), nationally both obama and clinton received ~6.6 million votes, whereas mccain only got 3.? million and trounced his republican rivals for the most part.

[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 12:49 PM. Reason : .]

2/6/2008 12:47:26 PM

In fairness, that is equally unrealistic. I just think looking for more oil as anything more than a stopgap is looking backwards. It isn't the fuel of the future, and yet, most people don't realize that without it, the industrial revolution would have been severly retarded if not downright impossible (assuming no other source was discovered).

We've got Thomas Jefferson's wolf in our hands.

2/6/2008 12:57:48 PM

Anyone that wants to listen about oil from experts and the future, listen to this podcast published last Friday. Especially listen to the part about ExxonMobil's company reports and financial statements, and where they are finding this future oil to feed us. The part about oil starts at 29:20 in.

http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2008-0202-1.asx

And here's a roundtable from last Friday as well on our future with energy.

http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2008-0202-2.asx

Quote :

"In fairness, that is equally unrealistic. I just think looking for more oil as anything more than a stopgap is looking backwards. It isn't the fuel of the future, and yet, most people don't realize that without it, the industrial revolution would have been severly retarded if not downright impossible (assuming no other source was discovered)."

I've been reading an okay book called "American Theocracy". It is written by a former member of the Nixon Administration. He talks about how certain world powers were always tied to certain resources that they used to better effect than their rivals. The Dutch were the world power because they were great sailors and cause of their whaling fleets, which gave them much needed oil. Then the great world power became the British off the backs of coal after whaling declined. When coal declined and oil took its place, America was able to muscle the British out of the way post-World War I and became the world power. Think of how this country would change if there was not cheap oil in the last 80 years? Would the Eisenhower Interstate System exist? Would the typical American family have bought three cars? Would we have been such a wide-ranging world power "whose flag never sets"? Now cheap oil has gone away and regardless of how many oil fields we open up, it's never coming back. How does that affect American society and its status?

[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 1:43 PM. Reason : /]

2/6/2008 1:35:41 PM