Pick your poison. We aren't going to change consumption of resources and renewable energy isn't going to out do fossil fuels in any reasonable time to combat climate change.

Nuclear energy needs to be expanded to reduce the damage we are doing to the climate.

This is the kind of overreaction to every little event in a campaign that bothers me. It's so typical of the political press. There's still so much of the campaign left.



They should have stopped a long time ago with this, true, but not because of this. This type of analysis, just adding up raw vote totals from primary voting, is silly and it just leads to the kind of nonsense that led to so many of the dumb people earlier in the cycle peddling that "DEMOCRATZ R DOOMED!!!!!!" fairytale that called for Republcans having a decisive edge in November because the year-over-year growth of their primary turnout was higher. The people couldn't process the simple fact that Democrats were simply crossing over into their primary to vote against Trump, thus complicating the raw numbers.



Sadly yes. It's pitiful how "Trump has unique strength in the industrial Midwest because he appeals to blue-collar voters due to populist rhetoric" is a thing now. It's utterly laughable. Apparently Donald Trump can put Michigan and Pennsylvania and even New York in play when Mitt Romney failed to do so at 8% national unemployment, just a few short years after a massive recession. Absurd.

I mean, obviously Trump was never going to win NY over Hillary in November.

But sometimes you have to break it down in more simple terms like that to get the point across.

I doubt the cancer cases are going to be that high. Radiation decays exponentially from the source since it's a radial distribution. I mean, I agree it wasn't good, but you're overall per kilowatt hour nuclear is the safest way to go even after Fukushima.

Why not just: "New York has a PVI of D+11, meaning it's 11 points more Democratic than the nation as a whole?" or "New York was one of the few states that Obama '12's margin of victory was higher than Obama '08?" Either one of those should be more than enough to get the point across to someone who is dumb enough to think that Donald Trump, or any Republican, is winning New York in a general election. If you try to go too simple, you just open yourself up to other problems, specifically that the same dummy sees your example and turns around and tries to use it elsewhere and gets sloppy: "the Republican candidates combined for more votes in Wisconsin's primary, they're definitely going to win it in November!!!1111one"

This is the danger of dumbing it down, even if you know going in that you're dealing with a dummy.