Next election and the future of electric cars

[AySz88]

I guess you are convienently ommiting the first EV bill was signed into law by Bush? It was just enhanced under Obama, but even under the Bush credit, we wouldnt even have used 1/4 of it up yet. I guess you also forgot to mention Bush signed into law the first Hybrid tax credit of 2006? And correct me if I am wrong, but I 'think' when the law was passed, the Republican's controlled ALL of congress and the presidency.

I am under no illusion that great change happens with any change in party. Not any more. There may be shades of change, but nothing dramatic.

Don't mistake changing platforms and priorities for there being no difference between parties - a year is a long time, and two election cycles is even longer. In this environment, if you think the Republicans are afraid to run counter to Bush-era anything, you might be in for a nasty surprise in '13-14 if the Republicans make any strong gains.

And, there's a distinction between what ends up accomplished with split power vs. what the goals are. The difference between '09-10 Congress and '11-12 Congress is a "sometimes veto" for the Republicans before (via 40 in the Senate) vs. a full veto power now (via majority in the House), and you can definitely tell that the tenor of Washington has shifted. All branches in one part vs. all branches in the other would be a huge shift.

Those you disagree with will almost always get some power, usually enough to throw some hurdle in front of what you'd like from politics. You have to work towards what you want anyway.

[AySz88]

I liked ZeroHedge's comment a year or so ago that politicians ought to have to wear decals like in NASCAR to show who is sponsoring them. All becomes quite clear when you follow the money. The thing is, a mere human has only so many square inches to put those on, and for most of 'em - they wouldn't all fit.

This is why they work so much on the divide and conquer wedge issues, as if the real big problems were all solved already. On the big stuff, there really is no difference - make the oligarchs richer, no matter what - judge that tree by its fruit, follow the money, it's all very obvious when you do that (but it's too much work for most of the sheeple, I happen to have to do it for my living anyway). .......

...
Nuclear power. Heck, if I ran it, I'd like it. But I have my doubts if the current structure, taking the effects of human nature into account, is responsible enough to do fission. As a scientist, most of the problems are political, but trivial scientifically. But to make things work, you have to do them right, and those are things that demand doing right at all times - no breaks to have a party.
Can humans pull it off? Well, they mostly do, but sometimes don't, and the effects of getting that one wrong are large. Again, a problem of structure (and ignorant human nature issues), not party.

I have to point out that if you ran for office, the nuke folks would be shoveling money to you too. "Follow the money" is still too simplistic. It's useful to see who's providing the megaphones - "why the heck is this what we're talking about?!" - but it's not that useful for causation: once you're past that stage, you have to tease out the fine details, and judge people on their priorities. For example, there's no evidence that Romney cares much about abortion or gay marriage, but he'll without a doubt personally defend private equity if that becomes a primary issue. Similarly, you could tell that Obama's support for cap and trade was much based upon his political ideal of being "bipartisan"/"centrist"/etc., and once cap-and-trade stopped being "bipartisan", he lost the will to fight too hard for it.

In other words, if you follow the money, you shouldn't be surprised if all you see is rich people with their personal agendas. Even at the most cynical, what you need to really get to know is the candidate's personal agendas, and not just what they're paying lip service to for the sake of alliances/money/support.

[Tumblebug]

As for the question about VP for Romney, I really don't know who would be the best for EVS. I think anyway one looks at it, Obama will be better for alternative energy.
That being said, I am not as worried about Romney as I am about some of the right wing wingnuts in Congress. In order to get what he wants, he may have to give in to the wingnuts. Yes, I know there are leftwing wingnuts also.
In this world of globalization, the American middleclass will suffer in the near future. So what I look at is who will help the middle class.
By developing cheap renewable energy, is one way to protect what is left of our middle class. Things like the Volt is a big step in the right direction.

[mikeg3]

I think the ethics of politicians can be summed up in Darryl Issa, a Republican committee chairman who invented the story about exploding Volts out of nothing.

While no politician is totally pure, there are real differences and elections do matter.

While I care about the economy - it affects my kids - nothing will matter if oil money keeps pouring into the Middle East like gasoline on hot coals. Electrifying transportation is one of the few nonlethal global initiatives that can keep us from a nuclear war with terrorists.

Governor Romney's only answer is drill baby drill. High cost US production will not affect global oil prices in the face of rapidly rising Asian demand. We need to cut global demand for oil. President Obama understands this.

So I care about the effect of the election on EVs but I care a lot more about the effect of the election on our national security. Again, I think there is a clear choice and it matters a lot.

[sinnombre]

Let’s see, Nixon started the energy independence movement. Bush initiated the $7,500 tax credit , Tesla owner Elon Musk is an ultra conservative Libertarian , but somehow more of the same Democrats in Congress and the Senate who destroyed the economy is going to help us with the electric car .
If we keep electing clowns like Obama , Barney Frank , and Nancy Pelosi , instead of people who understand economics, we won’t have an economy that can afford to invest in ideas like EV’s .

[Voltastic]

If we keep electing clowns like Obama , Barney Frank , and Nancy Pelosi , instead of people who understand economics, we won’t have an economy that can afford to invest in ideas like EV’s .

Coffee out my nose. Thanks for the laugh!

BTW, I'm Canadian and don't have a dog in that fight.