Report by conservative Wall Street Journal in June, 25% of Sanders supporters were in favor of Stein or Johnson instead of voting for Clinton. This week those numbers are soaring. Sanders supporters do Not want Clinton to be President.
June figures
Stein 15%
Johnson 8%
Trump 7%
Clinton 60%
The chart starts at 58 seconds on the video.
What Sanders supporters think of Clinton.
Johnson is for renewables. He just doesn't want corporate subsidies for them. And he is fine with with cutting carbon use by simply not using carbon.
I'm not voting for Johnson, but I find that approach attractive. I live in Portland. I made a conscious economic decision to rent an apartment close to a workplace where I can ride my bike regularly. My question to democrats is, where is my tax credit? Why are electric car owners getting a $7,500 credit that I pay for with my taxes, when I'm doing just as much for the environment as they are. Johnson actually rewards my green living more than Hillary because he taxes consumption. Therefore, when I don't consume gasoline, I'm getting a tax deduction.
I was just looking at the polls on the realclear politics website. A couple sources do polls that both exclude the 3rd party candidates (Johnson and Stein) and include them. They show that Trump does slightly better when the 3rd party candidates are included. The real interesting thing is that Johnson is polling a lot better than Stein. What that tells me is that there are indeed Sanders voters and progressives in general who are voting for Johnson. A previous poster was right about that.
edward teach wrote:
Nope. Best a 3rd party candidate can hope for this time around is over 5% of the popular and that would be a stretch. I'm voting green though.
Thank you for your support for the Republican ticket. Sig Heil.
ryan foreman wrote:
Johnson is for renewables. He just doesn't want corporate subsidies for them.
The fossil fuel industry is heavily subsidized. If the playing field were level, renewables would be in the forefront by now. Basically he wants to keep things as they are.
And he is fine with with cutting carbon use by simply not using carbon.
Anyone is welcome to do that, but when renewables are not available then people don't have any choice.
Johnson actually rewards my green living more than Hillary because he taxes consumption. Therefore, when I don't consume gasoline, I'm getting a tax deduction.
A tax on consumption doesn't help people who don't consume. I probably consume less grid energy of anyone who lives in a city with a house, and get no monetary benefit or credit by doing so. In fact I am penalized, as all of the utility companies have penalties for minimal consumption, charge me a much higher than average rate, and my water bill is almost $100 when I have 0 hcf of use on the meter. However if I use 1 hcf instead of 0, the rate is only $3 more.
I get zero credit for conserving, but instead of that am penalized.
Using the grid as storage is a lot cheaper than batteries. The power companies built the grid--they deserve to recover their investment. If you don't agree, buy batteries and cut the cord. Having lived both ways-I can tell you batteries are more expensive to maintain, and you have to disconnect the heater circuit from your dishwasher if you want your batteries to last through a winter night.As far as corporations making solar cells more expensive-they are cheaper now than they've ever been-by a lot. 20 years ago when my brother in law and I built a system-it powered lights, a microwave, a TV, and a small water pump. Retail would have cost us 5 grand.Same size system can be bought at Harbor Freight now for about 500 bucks.
Renewable energy wrote:
Another right winter wrote:Johnson is another right winger like Trump.
He's for renewables, but wants the corporations to own all of them.
tse wrote:
What does own them all mean?
The corporations want to charge you and profit from your use of renewables, by driving up material prices, making it difficult for you to obtain them, and therefore not affordable for you to use vs buying the energy from them at greatly inflated costs. An example is PG&E building giant inefficient and costly solar farms in the desert, while putting high priced tariffs on consumer materials and trying to make off grid rooftop solar illegal for individual homes to have in their areas. They even want to control rooftop solar, have the power put back on their grid, and then charge consumers for that, which is totally ridiculous.
Johnson doesn't support subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.
Renewables are available. But there is also the option of cutting fossil fuels by simply not using fossil fuels.
A tax on consumption does help people who don't consume. They are not paying taxes, and the tax on those who do consume a lot finances the elimination of income taxes. If you quit taxing jobs there will be plenty of jobs.
I'm surprised more Sanders fans haven't jumped to support Jill Stein. My wife voted for her last election. I haven't looked to see if Steins views have changed but I would think it'd draw a similar group.
ryan foreman wrote:
A tax on consumption does help people who don't consume. They are not paying taxes, and the tax on those who do consume a lot finances the elimination of income taxes. If you quit taxing jobs there will be plenty of jobs.
Why isn't income considered consumption of money and therefore taxable under these plans?
Do these types of plans treat every last dollar of income as identical? Specifically, would Johnson say the Walton family and the business they own derive more value out of and causes more wear on the infrastructure than the average person? Is there a mechanism in Johnson's tax plan to account for that if the Walton's lived in a small house (maybe Buffet is a better example)?
No. No chance.
MSME wrote:
Using the grid as storage is a lot cheaper than batteries.
That is not the case, but please explain why you think that it is.
The power companies built the grid--they deserve to recover their investment.
Wrong, the grid was built with heavy government subsidies which came from the people, thus we own the grid and deserve to recover our investment.
ryan foreman wrote:
Johnson doesn't support subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.
Please show some proof of this, such as links to his statements etc.
Renewables are available. But there is also the option of cutting fossil fuels by simply not using fossil fuels.
Okay, so you're agreeing with me. Johnson is for keeping things as they are.
A 3rd party needs organization & $$$$$$. No current "3rd party" has either.
They have had 200 years to get their sh*t together.
Renewable energy wrote:
Another right winter wrote:Johnson is another right winger like Trump.
He's for renewables, but wants the corporations to own all of them.
tse wrote:
What does own them all mean?
The corporations want to charge you and profit from your use of renewables, by driving up material prices, making it difficult for you to obtain them, and therefore not affordable for you to use vs buying the energy from them at greatly inflated costs.
As someone else pointed out, they need to recoup their investment (which is often a defined rate of return since utilities are a weird hybrid form of a corporation and allows for greater flexibility for renewables penetration)
[/quote] An example is PG&E building giant inefficient and costly solar farms in the desert, while putting high priced tariffs on consumer materials and trying to make off grid rooftop solar illegal for individual homes to have in their areas. [/quote]
PG&E is a utility. Who would you suggest own renewable, or fossil-fuel, energy generation? I haven't heard of a utility trying to make rooftop/resi solar illegal. You may be thinking of "on-grid" resi solar, which most states and utilities are currently reviewing the cost structure of. Solar utilizes the grid, and in most regions "the grid" compensates you at the full retail electricity rate for the power you place back on the grid. There needs to be a compromise as that relationship greatly favors the consumer and hurts the utility and that is what the industry is currently debating.
[/quote] They even want to control rooftop solar, have the power put back on their grid, and then charge consumers for that, which is totally ridiculous.[/quote]
Again, it seems like your twisting current happenings in the market. They don't want to control anything. They provide the infrastructure rooftop solar uses. And they do want some compensation for providing that service, but in terms of net cost to the consumer I haven't seen evidence of a utility trying to charge the homeowner for electricity sold back to the grid.
FWIW, I work in the renewables industry.
can't use letsrun apparently...
As someone else pointed out, they need to recoup their investment (which is often a defined rate of return since utilities are a weird hybrid form of a corporation and allows for greater flexibility for renewables penetration)
PG&E is a utility. Who would you suggest own renewable, or fossil-fuel, energy generation? I haven't heard of a utility trying to make rooftop/resi solar illegal. You may be thinking of "on-grid" resi solar, which most states and utilities are currently reviewing the cost structure of. Solar utilizes the grid, and in most regions "the grid" compensates you at the full retail electricity rate for the power you place back on the grid. There needs to be a compromise as that relationship greatly favors the consumer and hurts the utility and that is what the industry is currently debating.
Again, it seems like your twisting current happenings in the market. They don't want to control anything. They provide the infrastructure rooftop solar uses. And they do want some compensation for providing that service, but in terms of net cost to the consumer I haven't seen evidence of a utility trying to charge the homeowner for electricity sold back to the grid.
FWIW, I work in the renewables industry.
Gary Johnson has a good chance of coming in second. Clinton will be indicted. Trump wins. Gary Johnnson gets over 30 percent of the vote. If he gets in the debates and has an incredible performance, he can do better. Typically, he talks like he doesn't care. Most people want to vote for someone that sounds a bit more engaged. That being said, I'm definitely voting for the guy. He's been a Governor of a state which is the best practice to be president. I have no faith in the other two.
in need of another option wrote:
Have both major parties provided us with such terrible candidates that a third party candidate might actually have a decent shot of grabbing the presidency? I don't know much about any of the other candidates, but most people I know would welcome an alternative at this point.
With the ongoing implosion of the GOP, it seems like the Libertarians should be licking their chops to replace the Rs as the party of small government.
aaadfa wrote:
I'm surprised more Sanders fans haven't jumped to support Jill Stein. My wife voted for her last election. I haven't looked to see if Steins views have changed but I would think it'd draw a similar group.
Sanders supporters are flocking in droves to the Green Party and Jill Stein.
tse wrote:
They don't want to control anything. They provide the infrastructure rooftop solar uses.
You're totally wrong on all levels. Rooftop solar does not need any infrastructure and is least expensive when totally independent of the grid. The only reason PG&E and other giant companies want rooftop solar is to control and profit from it, while keeping people from going off grid.
And they do want some compensation for providing that service
They want huge compensation, for preventing people from being independent of them. PG&E now charges $10 a month for people who use zero electricity, a $100 fee for the "right" to send excess energy back to the grid, and they want a six times compensation for energy from the grid, vs 1/6 compensation for energy that goes back to the grid.
If you think that's a service, you're delusional.
but in terms of net cost to the consumer I haven't seen evidence of a utility trying to charge the homeowner for electricity sold back to the grid.
Well then you haven't been paying attention.
FWIW, I work in the renewables industry.
I figured that was the case. In other words you are profiting by setting up rooftop solar for the grid, using people's rooftops for free, that consumers are locked into paying for to both you AND the grid, a deal that is good for you and the giant utility crooks, but is expensive and totally sucks for consumers.
messi wrote:
A 3rd party needs organization & $$$$$$. No current "3rd party" has either.
They have had 200 years to get their sh*t together.
Johnston and Stein in the last few weeks have been receiving some major political donations.