Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)K

Knightfox

@ Knightfox @lemmy.world

Posts
1
Comments
93
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi

    Jump

  • You're too hung up on the terminology. My point is that they need to put someone up now and begin pushing them, by the time we get to the primary that person should be such a forgone conclusion that the primary is barely necessary. This probably means the DNC would pick someone and it'll probably be a shit choice for leftists, but the alternative is that we get to the election and they are tripping over their own feet like the last couple primaries.

    I'm not fond of Newsome either, but I would much rather have him than Vance or somehow Trump. The last thing I want is for the Democrats to fumble the next election because they weren't organized and tried to decide who to support 7 months before the general election.

  • Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi

    Jump

  • It's tough to do this in the modern day because for them to have enough worthwhile experience they almost have to be in their late 40s. There are a few generally accepted routes to the presidency and legitimacy in them puts you at a fairly old person. You can go the executive route, someone who was a governor or military leader, or you can go the legislative route, Senator or Representative, or the third path of being generally unqualified.

    Obama is a good example, he had a career (law degree, became an attorney, taught at the University of Chicago Law School, got married, had kids) before he then ran for the state legislature at 35. After being in the Illinois Senate for 8 years he ran for the US Senate and held that position for 4 years before being elected president at 47.

  • Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi

    Jump

  • Agreed

  • Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi

    Jump

  • Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi

    Jump

  • I hate to say it, but 2008, 2016, and 2024 have left me unconvinced that Americans are ready for even a potential woman President. It's wrong, it's prejudiced, but there hasn't been sufficient evidence that American's will support a woman for president. Republican's predominantly seem opposed while Democrats are either unconvinced or insufficiently motivated. I think AOC could win her own state primary, but I'm not convinced she would beat Newsome or any male candidate in the conservative state primaries.

  • Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi

    Jump

  • Thanks for the feedback, I'll look into him!

  • Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi

    Jump

  • Oh cool, I'll look into him. We need informed voters to start talking about candidates now rather than in 2027.

  • Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi

    Jump

  • I agree with the statement about supervotes, but I think if Democrats wait until the primary to find out who is their go to candidate they will lose too much time in leading up to the election. The Democrats need to pick a successor now to begin laying into Trump and his campaign so that when we get to the primary they are already being attacked. Right now the GOP has 2 years to pump Trump or JD while Democrats need to be pumping their candidate.

  • Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi

    Jump

  • I'm just going to point to the AI here.

    "Bernie Sanders has a low success rate in passing sponsored legislation, with only 3 of his 421 sponsored bills (0.7%) becoming law during his career. While he has a high volume of cosponsored bills, indicating a willingness to work with others, his legislative record is often described as having minimal impact on Capitol Hill compared to his peers. Key details regarding Sanders' legislative record and success rate:

    Low Passing Rate: As of early 2020, only 0.7% of his sponsored bills became law, which is the second-lowest ratio for any current senator who has served across 10 or more sessions.

    Average Passage Rate: His average for passing sponsored legislation through at least one chamber is 1.9%, the third-lowest overall among senators with 10+ sessions.

    Cosponsorship Activity: Despite low passage rates for his own bills, Sanders has heavily cosponsored legislation, ranking in the 78th percentile for senators with over 10 years of service.

    High Missed Vote Rate: From 1991 to 2026, GovTrack.us reports that Sanders missed 12.9% of roll call votes, significantly higher than the 2.8% median for senators.

    Committee Action: In the 118th Congress, 9 of his bills made it past the committee stage for consideration.

    Alternative Success Metrics: Some analysis, such as that from Brookings, suggests that while his direct legislative impact is low, he has been a strong proponent of reform, often acting as a "reform warrior" in his political career.

    While he has not been highly successful in passing his own, original legislation into law, his career has been marked by a high volume of cosponsorships."

  • Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi

    Jump

  • I 100% agree, but in the world we live in it feels like there are no decent alternatives. It feels strange to live in a world where no one seems to be able to think of a good potential candidate and we're all just waiting for one to be shown to us.

  • Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi

    Jump

  • Eh, I don't think comparing 2020 to 2024 is a fair comparison. In 2020 she was extremely disliked due to her political past and her general demeanor. In 2024 she had had several years out of the lime light and a concentrated effort to improve her image. If, from the get go, Biden had stepped out of the way, and the Democratic political machine had been behind her, I believe she would have had a better chance.

    We're in a bit of the same situation now. Whoever is going to be the next candidate the party kind of needs to coalesce around now. They need to be having pre-primaries, they need to be publicaly building a candidate. If they wait until the primary season they will already be 3 years behind.

  • Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi

    Jump

  • To be fair, Trump has already said he spoke with Mike Johnson and agrees he cannot run for office. If Trump were to go for another term he already recognizes that he would have to use another means (such as the speaker of the house switcheroo).

  • Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi

    Jump

  • Bernie is the perfect example of why a person with good ideals doesn't see wide spread success. I like Bernie, but in congress he gets almost nothing done. It's the difference between being ideologically correct vs being ideologically functional. Success in US politics revolves around either convincing or bullying your own party or your allies into compliance. Democrats and progressives rely on convincing while Republicans rely on bullying. Unfortunately one is more effective.

  • Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi

    Jump

  • To be completely fair, Biden dropped out after almost all of the primaries had happened. Harris didn't get many primary votes because the person she was replacing dropped out after the primaries.

  • Kamala Harris might run for president again in 2028. Please, no | Arwa Mahdawi

    Jump

  • Who would be your alternative?

    EDIT: if you say Hillary is your alternative then you're smoking crack. This is an important question because the Democatic Party is the most likely group to succeed, so who then would you vote for if you had to decide? Geriatric Sanders? Centrist Newsome? Unlikely to be elected AOC? There's a lot of people who could be candidates, but few who I feel confident could win.

  • Just saying

    Jump

  • stop using chat gpt to argue

    I've never used ChatGPT in my life, you can shove your accusations where the sun doesn't shine.

  • Just saying

    Jump

  • 30 million acres of land is used to grow ethanol that is mixed into petrol

    The majority of ethanol based crop production comes from growing corn in the Midwest, specifically Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, and Indiana. Ranked by population density that's:

    • Nebraska #43
    • Kansas #41
    • Iowa #36
    • Missouri #28
    • Indiana #17
    • Illinois # 12

    By percentage of the US population that's

    • Nebraska @ 0.5%
    • Kansas @ 0.8%
    • Iowa @ 0.9%
    • Missouri @ 1.8%
    • Indiana @ 2%
    • Illinois @ 3.7%

    There are practical reasons why we typically try to generate power close to where it will be used. Yes, theoretically you can realistically supply power up to 3000 miles away, but most power plants only provide power to around 500 miles away. Yes we could cover the Corn Belt with solar panels and then wire it to the coasts, but doing so has it's own risks and drawbacks. Ethanol agriculture makes sense where it is because the population density is so low and both corn and ethanol can be shipped with relatively low loss.

    As for batteries, they are recyclable (as the video goes into). They do add to the cost of renewables but not so much that they cancel out having to constantly mine coal and set it on fire to never be used again

    I'm not arguing that they aren't recyclable but rather they aren't accessible at the volume needed. A quick google search said that current utility scale battery storage exceeds 26 GW (109), but only represents 2% of total generating capacity. To provide power for approximately half the day, based on our previous math, we would need need ~7x1011 W.

    Just so my math is clear from the beginning, 17x1012 W / 2 (half the day) / 12 (hours per half day) = 7x1011 W of battery which is 27 times more than we currently have.

    Renewables aren’t the “cheapest form of power generation”, they are the “cheapest form of new power generation”. It is cheaper to keep running existing gas-fired and nuclear power stations until they reach EOL than it is to tear them down prematurely and replace them with solar. A large number of power stations are rapidly reaching EOL and it’s very important that we don’t build any more coal-fired power plants right now

    I think this is a fair and nuanced point. In my opinion the solution is not one singular option, such as 100% solar, but a mix of options which might include some percentage of non-renewable energy. I think reduction of non-renewable should be the goal, but switching 100% to renewable does not seem feasible to me.

  • Just saying

    Jump

  • Yeah, the video is 1.5 hours long. I don't care how good you found it to be, I'm just not going to watch that long of a video, you need to convey what is important in the video through written dialogue or else you may as well not use it. While I did make a mistake in my math my fundamental point is still true, the video's point was entirely based on scaling renewable power usage for cars to all power usage and the math just doesn't provide a sound basis for it.

  • Just saying

    Jump

  • The extra electricity needed for EVs is zero or maybe even negative

    That's unlikely to be the case, the US already does use batteries in power production and the amount more we would need to switch all US power to solar would be astonishingly high.

    Power plants can’t react to the amount of power needed at any time and they get inefficient trying

    They can't react in the minute by minute basis, but they do react to usage. Most coal fired plants only operate at about 50% capacity most of the time and bring on reactors to match the predicted power usage curve. When building a power curve profile the power company typically takes into account constant power as a baseline (solar and hydro being always on during the hours it is active and the power output of a given number of reactors is relatively set). Power is then supplemented with smaller generation sites which might use natural gas or even petroleum products. The smaller sites are far less efficient and make less power, but the name of the game when making power is making sure you always have enough for demand.

    Let's say it's peak day, 25 solar farms are making 675 MW right now, each coal plant reactor can make 500 MW and the demand right now is 1250 MW. You start up your natural gas turbine plant to make up the difference during peak day, but as the sun goes down you start up reactor 2 and 3. As reactor 2 and 3 get going the power usage goes up to 1600 as people come home and the solar farms stop generating power so you continue using your turbine plant but also start drawing from your batteries. Once reactor 2 and 3 are up and running you might stop using your turbine and keep drawing from your batteries, but when people go to sleep the power usage drops to 700 MW. Now power usage has dropped but you keep the reactors going for a while or begin to shut them down (they will still make some power as they shutdown) to recharge the batteries.

    All these numbers are hypothetical, but it's a description of how the process works.