:lol: Hicks
http://swampland.time.com/2012/05/09/this-man-cant-vote-in-west-virginia-but-lots-of-people-voted-for-him/ (http://swampland.time.com/2012/05/09/this-man-cant-vote-in-west-virginia-but-lots-of-people-voted-for-him/)
QuoteKeith Judd, a.k.a. Inmate #11593-051 at the federal correctional facility in Beaumont, Tex., is a modern Renaissance man: a Rastafarian-Christian, a former member of something called the "Federation of Super Heroes," a musician and NRA member who has bowled a "sanctioned" perfect game. His favorite book is Stephen King's The Stand. His favorite President is Richard Nixon. And on Tuesday night, he notched 41% of the vote in West Virginia's Democratic presidential primary, carrying eight counties despite being incarcerated more than 1,000 miles away.
Judd, an ostensible crazy person who passes the time in federal prison (he's serving a 210-month sentence for extortion, and won't get out until next year) by habitually running for office. Getting on the ballot in West Virginia is quite simple: Judd filed a notarized certificate of announcement and paid a $2,500 filing fee, says Jake Glance, a spokesman for the West Virginia Secretary of State's Office.
Despite being a federal inmate from another state, Judd's protest candidacy racked up some 70,000 votes, crushing President Obama in the heart of West Virginia's coal country. The rebuke to Obama by conservative Democrats (West Virginia's is a closed primary) isn't entirely surprising — the President was trounced in 2008 by Hillary Clinton — but it is an embarrassment for the President that underscores his weakness in rural Appalachia.
According to reports, Judd — who would not be eligible to vote in West Virginia, as in 16 other states, until he finishes his prison term and is no longer on parole or probation — qualifies for a delegate at this summer's national Democratic Convention on the strength of his showing. A call to West Virginia's Democratic Party headquarters was not immediately returned.
Has mocking rednecks gone out of style here?
Had to be a protest type vote. Plus it's in heavy coal country and the admin has been at war with coal, doing a number on the coal industry, apparently.
I believe Appalachia was an area that psephologists think Obama's race was a significant negative. That could be part of it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2012, 08:19:13 PM
I believe Appalachia was an area that psephologists think Obama's race was a significant negative. That could be part of it.
What are psephologists? :huh:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=psephologist
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 09, 2012, 08:53:03 PM
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=psephologist
Don't you start.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2012, 08:19:13 PM
I believe Appalachia was an area that psephologists think Obama's race was a significant negative. That could be part of it.
Hmmm, Deliverance demographic don't dig darkies. Film at 11.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 09, 2012, 07:31:44 PM
Has mocking rednecks gone out of style here?
Do we get to mock Puerto Ricans as well?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2012, 08:55:21 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 09, 2012, 08:53:03 PM
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=psephologist
Don't you start.
Lettow does have a point. Tim is the laziest fucker here.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2012, 08:19:13 PM
I believe Appalachia was an area that psephologists think Obama's race was a significant negative. That could be part of it.
His desire to cripple the coal industry doesn't seem to help.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 09, 2012, 08:31:59 PM
What are psephologists? :huh:
People who study elections.
QuoteHis desire to cripple the coal industry doesn't seem to help.
Things can have multiple causes. Tim appaled.
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2012, 09:43:14 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2012, 08:19:13 PM
I believe Appalachia was an area that psephologists think Obama's race was a significant negative. That could be part of it.
His desire to cripple the coal industry doesn't seem to help.
It kinda deserves some crippling, dude. At least a decent hobbling.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:20:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2012, 09:43:14 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2012, 08:19:13 PM
I believe Appalachia was an area that psephologists think Obama's race was a significant negative. That could be part of it.
His desire to cripple the coal industry doesn't seem to help.
It kinda deserves some crippling, dude. At least a decent hobbling.
:yes:
It's not the 1890s anymore.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 09, 2012, 10:33:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:20:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2012, 09:43:14 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2012, 08:19:13 PM
I believe Appalachia was an area that psephologists think Obama's race was a significant negative. That could be part of it.
His desire to cripple the coal industry doesn't seem to help.
It kinda deserves some crippling, dude. At least a decent hobbling.
:yes:
It's not the 1890s anymore.
Some people still like living there, though. :(
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2012, 09:43:14 PM
His desire to cripple the coal industry doesn't seem to help.
They should worry more about natural gas than anything Obama does.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2012, 08:30:47 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2012, 09:43:14 PM
His desire to cripple the coal industry doesn't seem to help.
They should worry more about natural gas than anything Obama does.
Disagree. If natural gas ends up being a cheaper, cleaner competitor to coal, there's ultimately not much you can do about it (and guess what-- WV has significant natural gas deposits). Federal regulation is something you can actually fight.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 09, 2012, 10:57:09 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 09, 2012, 10:33:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:20:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2012, 09:43:14 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2012, 08:19:13 PM
I believe Appalachia was an area that psephologists think Obama's race was a significant negative. That could be part of it.
His desire to cripple the coal industry doesn't seem to help.
It kinda deserves some crippling, dude. At least a decent hobbling.
:yes:
It's not the 1890s anymore.
Some people still like living there, though. :(
Generally speaking, coal mining is not an economic activity that makes nearby areas more desirable places to live.
The only people that enjoy living in Martinsburg, West Virginia are the federal employees, since they fall under the Washington DC GS rate.
Can you imagine even being a GS-11 or more, making DC money with an Appalachia cost of living? Talk about a kingship.
"Yes, I'm a second-tier accountant for the United States Government. Now if you don't mind, I have to pick out the Italian marble I'm going to line the in-ground pool patio with."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 10, 2012, 07:41:21 PM
The only people that enjoy living in Martinsburg, West Virginia are the federal employees, since they fall under the Washington DC GS rate.
Can you imagine even being a GS-11 or more, making DC money with an Appalachia cost of living? Talk about a kingship.
"Yes, I'm a second-tier accountant for the United States Government. Now if you don't mind, I have to pick out the Italian marble I'm going to line the in-ground pool patio with."
Yeah, and since there are so many federal employees living there now, and they're dependent on Amtrak to get to work, there's more political support for Amtrak in the eastern panhandle of WV than probably anywhere else in the country.
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2012, 07:35:48 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 09, 2012, 10:57:09 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 09, 2012, 10:33:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:20:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2012, 09:43:14 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2012, 08:19:13 PM
I believe Appalachia was an area that psephologists think Obama's race was a significant negative. That could be part of it.
His desire to cripple the coal industry doesn't seem to help.
It kinda deserves some crippling, dude. At least a decent hobbling.
:yes:
It's not the 1890s anymore.
Some people still like living there, though. :(
Generally speaking, coal mining is not an economic activity that makes nearby areas more desirable places to live.
I meant the 1890s.
FWIW, West Virginia was highly deforested in the 1890s, IIRC. Landscape was pretty ugly. Nowadays they have a shitload of trees.
Anyway, coal is still the way to go IMO as far as fulfilling our energy needs. Find something that's cleaner *and* cheaper and I'll sign on. But nobody should bitch about our dependency on foreign oil if they're also trying to squeeze coal out of the picture.
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 09:50:03 PM
Anyway, coal is still the way to go IMO as far as fulfilling our energy needs. Find something that's cleaner *and* cheaper and I'll sign on. But nobody should bitch about our dependency on foreign oil if they're also trying to squeeze coal out of the picture.
I do not get the connection. Oil is used for fuel, coal is used for power.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 10, 2012, 07:41:21 PM
The only people that enjoy living in Martinsburg, West Virginia are the federal employees, since they fall under the Washington DC GS rate.
Can you imagine even being a GS-11 or more, making DC money with an Appalachia cost of living? Talk about a kingship.
"Yes, I'm a second-tier accountant for the United States Government. Now if you don't mind, I have to pick out the Italian marble I'm going to line the in-ground pool patio with."
Hell yeah. Huntsville, TX is like that too (they fall under the Houston rate).
I don't think even the prospect of living like a god-king would make me want to move there though.
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 09:50:03 PM
FWIW, West Virginia was highly deforested in the 1890s, IIRC. Landscape was pretty ugly. Nowadays they have a shitload of trees.
Anyway, coal is still the way to go IMO as far as fulfilling our energy needs. Find something that's cleaner *and* cheaper and I'll sign on. But nobody should bitch about our dependency on foreign oil if they're also trying to squeeze coal out of the picture.
Pretty much everything is cleaner than coal.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 10, 2012, 10:18:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 10, 2012, 07:41:21 PM
The only people that enjoy living in Martinsburg, West Virginia are the federal employees, since they fall under the Washington DC GS rate.
Can you imagine even being a GS-11 or more, making DC money with an Appalachia cost of living? Talk about a kingship.
"Yes, I'm a second-tier accountant for the United States Government. Now if you don't mind, I have to pick out the Italian marble I'm going to line the in-ground pool patio with."
Hell yeah. Huntsville, TX is like that too (they fall under the Houston rate).
I don't think even the prospect of living like a god-king would make me want to move there though.
That's what I loved about being a rural Alberta Crown. There was no differential in pay between rural and urban - but there sure as hell was a differential in terms of cost of living. :cool:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 10, 2012, 10:53:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 09:50:03 PM
FWIW, West Virginia was highly deforested in the 1890s, IIRC. Landscape was pretty ugly. Nowadays they have a shitload of trees.
Anyway, coal is still the way to go IMO as far as fulfilling our energy needs. Find something that's cleaner *and* cheaper and I'll sign on. But nobody should bitch about our dependency on foreign oil if they're also trying to squeeze coal out of the picture.
Pretty much everything is cleaner than coal.
Okay, now do cheaper.
I thought gas was cheaper than coal.
Nuclear and Hydro are both cheaper but not really good replacements for coal for obvious reasons.
Gas used to be dirt cheap but not anymore.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 11, 2012, 10:30:37 AM
I thought gas was cheaper than coal.
Coal gets a lot of subsidies. IIRC oil gets the most. Not sure about natural gas.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 11, 2012, 10:54:42 AM
Coal gets a lot of subsidies.
I assume you're talking about clean generation tech R&D?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 11, 2012, 11:07:55 AM
I assume you're talking about clean generation tech R&D?
If he is talking about R&D than Nuclear would be #1 at least historically. I think he means things like tax credits and the like. Those big energy corps, like all big job creators, always have states falling over themselves to give them tax credits and other goodies.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2012, 11:10:52 AM
If he is talking about R&D than Nuclear would be #1 at least historically. I think he means things like tax credits and the like. Those big energy corps, like all big job creators, always have states falling over themselves to give them tax credits and other goodies.
That makes no sense. Manufacterers get those breaks because they can go anywhere people have hands. Coal companies have to go to places that have coal.
Coal power doesn't have to store its waste.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 11, 2012, 11:13:39 AM
That makes no sense. Manufacterers get those breaks because they can go anywhere people have hands. Coal companies have to go to places that have coal.
Feel free to address your puzzlement to the state governments.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2012, 11:10:52 AM
Those big energy corps, like all big job creators, always have states falling over themselves to give them tax credits and other goodies.
The current energy sector companies like the coal industry is not a substantial job creator. New energy sectors and the regulatory industry are where the jobs are being created: by synergy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2012, 11:29:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2012, 11:10:52 AM
Those big energy corps, like all big job creators, always have states falling over themselves to give them tax credits and other goodies.
The current energy sector companies like the coal industry is not a substantial job creator. New energy sectors and the regulatory industry are where the jobs are being created: by synergy.
Solyndra!!!!
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2012, 11:30:43 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2012, 11:29:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2012, 11:10:52 AM
Those big energy corps, like all big job creators, always have states falling over themselves to give them tax credits and other goodies.
The current energy sector companies like the coal industry is not a substantial job creator. New energy sectors and the regulatory industry are where the jobs are being created: by synergy.
Solyndra!!!!
That dog won't hunt, son.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2012, 11:35:40 AM
That dog won't hunt, son.
No shit. Talk about a boondoggle :P
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2012, 11:37:35 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2012, 11:35:40 AM
That dog won't hunt, son.
No shit. Talk about a boondoggle :P
Well, you don't ever have to worry about it happening again. The solar production industry is now squarely locked up by the Chinese. HAPPY NOW
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2012, 11:49:22 AM
Well, you don't ever have to worry about it happening again. The solar production industry is now squarely locked up by the Chinese. HAPPY NOW
Yeah, actually. I just bought a solar charger for my cellphone for dirt cheap. Direct from China with free shipping :D
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2012, 11:52:05 AM
Yeah, actually. I just bought a solar charger for my cellphone for dirt cheap. Direct from China with free shipping :D
Stop hating America.
Gas is cheaper than coal right now, I've heard places with natural gas power plants are paying sometimes as low as $0.035/kWh, around here with coal plants rates are as high as $0.06-0.11/kWH.
Gas is cheaper than water right now. :P
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 11, 2012, 01:14:03 PM
Gas is cheaper than coal right now, I've heard places with natural gas power plants are paying sometimes as low as $0.035/kWh, around here with coal plants rates are as high as $0.06-0.11/kWH.
Cool-- I've always been a fan of natural gas & would like to see it compete naturally with coal. I do not want to see coal killed off artificially.
I actually own some shares in some natural gas wells and a natural gas storage company. The wells have been very disappointing lately, but the storage company was extremely undervalued when I bought it so I'm hoping it is a long term gain.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 11, 2012, 02:21:53 PM
I actually own some shares in some natural gas wells and a natural gas storage company. The wells have been very disappointing lately, but the storage company was extremely undervalued when I bought it so I'm hoping it is a long term gain.
Yeah production isn't the best way to play it. It's storage and transport. The guys who make money on the volume, not the price. I like Kinder Morgan for the pipes and Cheniere once they get their LNG export facility up.
Our generation assets are getting killed by gas, but the commodities operations locking in the futures are seeing the results.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 11, 2012, 02:25:33 PMYeah production isn't the best way to play it. It's storage and transport. The guys who make money on the volume, not the price. I like Kinder Morgan for the pipes and Cheniere once they get their LNG export facility up.
Yes, and something that's really going good for the storage companies is the glut of extra production has actually lead to us having a bit of a storage shortfall.
Not sure if you've been following the news lately about Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon, but it looks like Chesapeake has essentially made a massive bet that the price of natural gas is going to go up again, and substantially.
That isn't unreasonable. Obama has essentially prohibited new coal plants from opening, new natural gas plants are opening all the time increasing demand, and you're seeing chemical industries moving back to the United States which demand natural gas and its derivatives as raw inputs, then you also have plans to start turning natural gas into ethanol (which is actually probably a more effective means of getting it into cars than CNG autos.)
But where I think McClendon has made a mistake is I think cheap natural gas is a generational thing, I think the price will go back up, but a lot slower than McClendon was hoping--and it won't go up as much as he was hoping.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 11, 2012, 02:47:24 PM
Not sure if you've been following the news lately about Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon, but it looks like Chesapeake has essentially made a massive bet that the price of natural gas is going to go up again, and substantially.
That isn't unreasonable. Obama has essentially prohibited new coal plants from opening, new natural gas plants are opening all the time increasing demand, and you're seeing chemical industries moving back to the United States which demand natural gas and its derivatives as raw inputs, then you also have plans to start turning natural gas into ethanol (which is actually probably a more effective means of getting it into cars than CNG autos.)
But where I think McClendon has made a mistake is I think cheap natural gas is a generational thing, I think the price will go back up, but a lot slower than McClendon was hoping--and it won't go up as much as he was hoping.
All of them are making that bet on gas; hell, that's why Constellation opted out of the 3rd reactor at Calvert Cliffs with EDF, and Exelon has begun decommissioning their ComEd nuke plant in Illinois--they expect to make more of a mid-range profit on the gas forecasts.
Yes, I had a position in CHK that got stopped out because of this mess. I think McClendon's bet is a good one, he just had too short of a timeframe on it. But they've been running that company like a prop desk apparently with all sorts of trading shenanigans, so the market is crushing them right now.
Edit: CHK May 15 put up 450% today. Damn.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 11, 2012, 11:13:39 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2012, 11:10:52 AM
If he is talking about R&D than Nuclear would be #1 at least historically. I think he means things like tax credits and the like. Those big energy corps, like all big job creators, always have states falling over themselves to give them tax credits and other goodies.
That makes no sense. Manufacterers get those breaks because they can go anywhere people have hands. Coal companies have to go to places that have coal.
Coal mining operations have to go to the places that have coal. Coal-fired power plants, however, can have the coal shipped to them.
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2012, 02:16:13 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 11, 2012, 01:14:03 PM
Gas is cheaper than coal right now, I've heard places with natural gas power plants are paying sometimes as low as $0.035/kWh, around here with coal plants rates are as high as $0.06-0.11/kWH.
Cool-- I've always been a fan of natural gas & would like to see it compete naturally with coal. I do not want to see coal killed off artificially.
Agreed.
McClendon and Chesapeake are a bunch of lying conniving douche bags
So far Obama's opponent got 42% in Arkansas with 43% of the vote in and in Kentucky 42% voted uncommitted with 99% of the vote in.
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/Primary/AR