Why Did Senator Clinton Lose?

Where have you gone, Joe Inevitable?

Lots of theories swirling around the Internets as to how and why Senator Clinton lost the Democratic nomination.  CBS has a good list, as does Chris Cillizza in the Post.

Here's a collection of theories from various news sources, listed in the descending order of probability:

Superdelegates lost the election for Senator Clinton, according to the New York Times.  And while this statement is ultimately true, I don't put that much into this idea because there had to be a trigger that put the campaign in a position to even need Superdelegates in the first place.  Thus, we arrive at...

Chasing battleground states and not delegates, as cited by the Washington Post.  In defense of the Clinton campaign, this approach has been one which traditionally pays off.  It worked for John Kerry, it even worked for Bill Clinton.  But this is an unconventional year, which means Hillary Clinton needed an unconventional strategy.  Which bring us to...

Skipping Iowa, as proposed by Deputy Campaign Manager Mike Henry in May of 2007.  Because Iowa was rendered irrelevant in the 1992 primaries, most candidates skipped the state.  As such, there was no Clinton history or organization there to rely on.  (Incidentally, I made a similar recommendation to Bill Richardson: pull out of Iowa, focus on Nevada).  Skipping Iowa would have also absolved Clinton from signing the early states pledge, which in turn might have compelled the other candidates to leave their name on the Michigan ballot.  That doesn't change the outcome of the Michigan election, but a Michigan and Florida win with all other candidates on the ballot helps give Clinton momentum heading into Super Tuesday.  Leading us to...

Super Tuesday, which proved that the strategy to win the nomination was not inevitable as written by ABC News.  The lack of a contingency plan to recover after an essential tie on Feb. 5th knocked the campaign off of its footing - and the rest of February turned out to be a bad month as Senator Clinton went on to lose in the neighborhood of 11 consecutive contests.  Not only did this give Senator Obama an edge heading into this stretch of contests, but it gave him a platform to further his message of...

Change.  The Associate Press writes that a "thirst for change trumped Clinton's experience," which is probably the single factor that is harder to alter in the course of a campaign than anything else.  Not matter how many staffers you have, or how many negative (er, comparative) ads all of the candidates put out - it's difficult to turn back tides.  Ironically, it's a similar tide that Bill Clinton rode into office in 1992.

Comments

[Joe]

> Where have you gone, Joe Inevitable?

...

:)

[Heidi]

I always said that her campaign staff planners did her absolutely no favors. Especially Mark Penn and his fighting with other campaign staffers and trying to force a 'tough guy' image on Hillary. She's tough enough without having to overdo it, like Penn suggested. When she finally ignored them and became herself, she found her voice.

And yes, Mr. Super, you're absolutely right -there was NO strategy after Super Tuesday and that, I feel, was an extremely grave error.

Her message of experience in a year of change? Yes, it may have hobbled her in the short term, but many people I know have been sick of hearing the word "change" since before Texas/Ohio and started to come around to her message of experience.

She just had really lousy campaign strategists to begin win. I feel that moving Mark Penn out of the key position definitely reinvigorated that campaign.

[Blame]

I agree.

Hillary was electable, but what we got was Mark Penn in drag.

[Joe]

And now for a lighter note:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jeALP1BoYpvb0BSRitTgiv2AxiuQD9143HCGE

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said, "I think it's worth remembering that President Bush's father didn't exactly emulate President Reagan."

[Yeah, I am taking his point out of context...]

[Joe]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/clinton-disavows-reports-that-she-wants-to-be-vp/?hp

Hopefully this is one more ugly rumor about Clinton that we can be put to rest.

[Blame]

I'm less than convinced that ether Change or Experience is the right messages.

Experience might seem a good keyword for Hillary against Obama but what if she had gained the nomination?

You can bet every time she used the word "Experience" it was being recorded by the Republicans, and would have been played back later in Republican attack adverts.

McCain has far more experience, and the bullets he dodged were real.

The keyword should have been Competance. Obama short on detail , and McCain too old to understand modern problems. It would have worked on both. How could they compete against the knowledgable Hillary?

Competance can still work for Obama. He already has a highly competant campaign team, but he must expand it to a full "President in waiting" team. Obama's greatest talent is managment. It should be showcased.

If Obama leads a highly competent team, and he is a good listener (he is) his inexperience matters little.

Just as important it makes him bullet proof, because people are no longer voting for him, they are voting for a team. A team that can not be Black Racist (most won't be black) or sexist (a fair share of women), or whatever other mud the Republicans can drag up or manufacture from Obama's past.

[Regina]

Why did Sen. Clinton lose? I don't really know. But this is a cool graphical display of all exit polls in 50 states by race, gender, income and education, showing the splits by state in the primaries:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/politics/20080603_MARGINS_GRAPHIC/margins.swf

[Joe]

I'm going OT again, but here's why I wish someone would question McCain on his role in championing the Iraq war:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/05/america/NA-GEN-US-Iraq-Intelligence.php

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june052008/wyden_rumsfeld_6-5-08.php

[Nate]

She lost my vote when she gave hers to Bush's War.

That, I think, deserves a mention.

[Joe]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/obama.interview/?iref=mpstoryview

In the wide-ranging interview, Obama said attaining universal health care -- the issue most prominently touted by Clinton -- and a new energy policy are the two domestic issues he is most concerned about.

"We are going to pass a universal health care bill; it is long overdue," he said. "The time is right."

On soaring gas prizes, Obama said, the only answer is a long-term energy solution.

"That means increasing fuel efficiency in our cars, investing in alternative fuels and drastically revamping how we think about clean energy."

[Joe]

So, perhaps he's listening? I don't think he would veto any expansions of health care that weren't exactly what he endorsed.

McCain, however, would never pass a real universal health care bill because that's "socialism" and I've heard all too many Republicans I know IRL rant about that.

[Allan]

She lost because she voted for the Iraq war. Period. If she had been anti-war from the start, Obama may not have even run.

John Edwards also voted for the war, but was backpedaling furiously by 2004. Clinton has said she was wrong to trust Bush, but has never repudiated the concept of preventive war.

And that's why she lost.

[Joe]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-qGLDs-gAnZiUXD2NU51ry3j3dwD914B1O00

Clinton & Obama meet.

[Dan_in_upstate_NY]

Some other factors worth mentioning:

Obama out-hustled Clinton in terms of grass-roots organizing, field organization, and use of the internet. She started to catch up toward the end, but by then it was too late.

Obama had a clear and consistent message throughout; Clinton didn't. Remember "the vision thing" discussed in '92? Ironically, Clinton lacked it in the earlier months of the primary.

Perhaps most importantly, however, Obama is one of the most gifted and inspirational politicians to have graced the stage in the last 40 years. Running against such a person would not have been easy for anyone, even Bill Clinton.

[Regina]

I think the question is wrong. Obama won, Clinton didn't lose in the sense of doing things wrong. Sure, there were things that could have been done differently. But Obama assembled just enough voters in certain states to get more delegates. It's pretty simple, even if it depresses me. I'm off for vacation this weekend, so I won't be posting and unfortunately will have to miss Sen. Clinton's speech Saturday. I'm videotaping it though, so I can see if when I get home. Can't wait to watch it!

[Gregory]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06tyson.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Interesting article.

There is little doubt that this is going to be a heck of a competitive race in Nov.

Why can't I shake the feeling that we have been expertly manipulated by the Republicans?

[suekzoo]

Gregory, the operative phrase in the first paragraph of the article you linked is this:

"if the general election were held today"

But, the GE is 5 months away. No need to panic yet.

Check this: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[J]

Barring voter fraud or an untimely death, Obama would easily get well over 300 EV.

[gregory]

suekzoo -
electoral-vote.com is an excellent website. I'm very familiar with it and will be referencing it often.

True, but the nomination and decisive sugerdelegate decisions were made now. The point being that we are fielding the less strong of our two candidates at this time.

Should Obama not be successful this Fall, one of the inevitable cries will be how Hillary didn't do enough to help. I would like to reserve the right to point to these kinds of analyses to refute those claims.

I've already previously stated that I will now do everything that I can to work for an Obama victory in Nov. It's just that looking at electoral-vote.com with an Obama victory dependent on a 1% win in OH just reinforces by belief that we are in for a heckuva fight.

[Truth]

Gregory, Clinton would have had a cakewalk over McCain. Obama will have to fight for every vote. Expect a temporary bump in national polls for Obama that, if following all past trends, will be self-corrected shortly thereafter.

The scary part is John Kerry also had a bigger lead and all his states under 5% went Bush before all was said and done. Clinton had already taken most of her 327 EV states past the 5% mark. In fact, only HI (4 EV) & MO (11 EV). MO was trending her way sharply and HI didn't have a poll since Feb. Huge mistakes by the Democrats no matter how you cut it.

I think the Bush 3rd term concept is going to backfire as those that are Republican and Independent will tire of it come November. Obama would be wise to spend a lot of time in the Senate sponsoring/co-sponsoring bills with the top leadership on some of his top issues. That would quiet the "is it just talk?" argument against him. The reason this question is valid is because his history of action isn't there. Unfortunately passing or just writing bills "taint" easy.

I don't just vote along party lines (especially since I'm an Independent), so Obama does not have my vote as of yet. If he loses my state, he is guaranteed to lose the election.

There are many reasons why Clinton lost but the two biggest were her last name was Clinton (per Obama 2007 no less) and Obama refused to debate her after the media took a closer look at him. He basically ran out the clock over the course of 3 months.

[Blame]

gregory

Generaly speaking Obama has been ahead in the national polls during recent months. More so than Hillary.

But just supose he was behind. Who would you bet on. The one who frittered away a 20 point lead to loose, or the unknown outsider who beat her?

This time he has the enthusiastic loyalty of grass root activists, masive financial backing, a small but genuine lead in the polls and the greatest campaign team on earth. McCain has none of those things.

There is no place for complacancy, but I am feeling quite good.

[J.R.]

I agree with Gregory. It is clear Sen. Clinton is getting behind Obama. I am also afraid it is going to be a very tough fight in November with Obama. I think it is worth noting that Clinton is by far the stronger general election candidate at this point too. Not to rub it in to Obama. But to note, Obama's election will be difficult (but possible). If he loses, we can point to many things his campaign didn't do. But it certainly is not going to be blamed on Sen. Clinton (if people are being fair).

[suekzoo]

The "difficult but possible" argument was used about Bill Clinton in 1992. At this point then (June '92) he was 17 points behind Bush, and even running 3rd to Ross Perot.

[gregory]

Truth - your comments are incredibly well researched and thought out. Very defensible, thank you. It is amazing to look at the states that HC put into play, I would add strong victories in WV and ARK that we are esentially forfeiting. NC (my home state) was trending strongly for HC.

Blame -
I fear your good feelings are not justified.
PA will be a real battle this Fall, forcing Obama to spend enormous money and time there. Gov. Ed Rendel is jewish and the jewish vote is very important in PA (as well as FL). Rendel will say the things that he will need to say now, but his job just got a lot harder.

[Blame]

Gregory

I have looked at the map too.
It looks good to me.
More safe Blue than safe red, and lots in between.

There are LOTS of battleground states, and because of the unusual nature of the combatants it is going be tough to call the close ones. And what makes it realy fun is that McCain must win most of them.

This is the sort of election that needs loads of money, activists, and inspired planning. Guess who that favours?

[Jen]

I think everyone is forgetting all the dirt that the Repubs would be throwing at Hillary if she were the nominee. She essentially has had a free pass from them, the media and Obama since it was clear that Obama was going to win the nomination. Obama may be an unknown, but Hillary is very known, which is not a good thing with as much baggage as she carries. I think Obama is much more electable in reality than Clinton.

I voted for Obama in the primaries for one reason only: I wanted a different last name in the white house than Bush or Clinton. I do not believe in dynasties; this is not the ancient regime. However, I would have sucked it up and voted for Hillary in the general, because a dynasty is better than 4 more years of Republican misgovernment.

For electoral college maps, I really like fivethirtyeight.com. I find it way better than electoral-vote.com.

[George]

Why I supported Obama:
A President isn't just a leader, a commander, or an executive. A President should inspire us. And Senator Clinton, a person whose name we know solely because she was married to a President, does not inspire me in the least. The message she sends to my daughter is "Marry well, and maybe someday, after your husband has his turn, you can coast to greatness on his name." I'd rather she look up to a Jennifer Granholm, a Sarah Palin, a Barbara Mikulski... basically, any other female elected official I can think of.

[Truth]

suekzoo - your comparison to Clinton 1992 is irrelevant because the true comparison would be if Jerry Brown was polling much better than Clinton in the General Election during a virtual tie in the Primary.

1992 Primary results:
Bill Clinton 3372
Jerry Brown 596

[suekzoo]

"I think everyone is forgetting all the dirt that the Repubs would be throwing at Hillary if she were the nominee. She essentially has had a free pass from them"

She got way more than a free pass, Jen. The Repubs were actively working for her candidacy until just recently.

[suekzoo]

More evidence McCain will be Bush III:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/us/politics/06mccain.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1212771655-D082/ci1c6sV5L4feqY51g

[Truth]

Looks like Jen & George proved my thoughts on why Clinton lost (last name).

Free pass eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du0wJzA9JfM&feature=related

The Republicans played you guys, you just don't realize it.

[Blame]

Who cares about the Clinton/Obama electability debate?

The primary is closed, finished, over, history, yesterdays news. Hillary is conceeding already. Anybody not got my drift yet?

If there is something wrong with Obama's electability, then let's debate what can be done about it. Winging about what might have been is booring.

If Obama looses there will be plenty of time for recriminations.

[J.R.]

I care about the Clinton/Obama electability argument for the reasons Gregory mentioned. This is the only time it is worth assessing that Hillary Clinton could have changed the map by adding in W. Va., Arkansas, Ohio and possibly NC, KY, and NV and even MO (though losing CO and maybe WI, which is the only state Obama does super well in that Dems lost in '04). Obama will compete, just not in many of these states. And I think it is very important that we realize that Sen. Clinton would probably wrap this thing up easily, and bring in a major Dem. House and Senate. Obama can to, but there is MUCH work to do.

[Blame]

J.R.

OK. That is a start. Now to get positive. What do you think Obama should do?

Or for that matter, what do you think Clinton should do to help him?

My vote is to firmly place Hillary on Florida with a large pot of paint & tell her not to leave untill it is blue.

[Gregory]

McCain will plant Lieberman in FL and not even Hillary will turn FL blue.

What doesn Obama need to do...not pick a woman VP other than Hillary. That would really piss women off. It's not her gender, it's her.

If not Hillary as VP, probably Ed Rendel or Ted Strickland.

If Obama loses FL, PA and OH its over.

[Blame]

Gregory

Now that does confuse me.

Do you mean that they love Hillary so much that all other women will forever be hatefull because they are not Hillary. And these women will vote for Obama if only he makes it an all male team?

Sorry if I am a little doubtful but my guess is that women that fanatical will never vote for Obama no matter what he does.

I do hope you are wrong about these women because that level of obsesion sounds dangerous. Hillary gave up on their dream.

As for the rest a female VP might be seen as a positive step. Not perhaps what they wanted but, hey, this time the VP next time the presidency.

We have female ex-Clinton supporters here. We should ask them.

[Gregory]

Sorry buddy, you're on your own here.

If you don't see how condescending your comments are to many women, I'm not going to throw you a lifeline.

[Truth]

Blame, I already told you guys what Obama could do (Numerous examples – including in this very thread before you had whined). Pick some major points of his platform and get them going in the Senate NOW to combat his "talk only" stigma. You guys are talking power political plays. I'm talking Obama giving himself proven depth.

-----------------

Social Security cap removal for instance. I already mentioned how he can turn the Republican negative view of this into an offer they can’t refuse. Change 6.2%/6.2% to 4.2%/4.2%. This puts dollars back into the pockets of people making less than $150,000 with an actual smaller tax liability. The employers will love it because their matching funds go down as well. And with the cap being removed, those above $150,000 would be picking up the slack and more. But people making over $150,000 are almost always employers so they have their more personal taxation offset with less employee matching.

I don't think it would take much work to have statisticians, economists and capitalists weigh in to fine tune that 4.2% number to something they can all agree upon.

Social Security solvency helped - check
Economic stimulus with employers - check
Economic stimulus for employees - check

I actually consider what I just stated "too general" and yet it already has more detail on the issue than any candidate.

----------------

Energy / Environment / Cutting off terrorist funds

Put in a major purchase order for the Chevy Volt to revamp the federal vehicle line. Have a deadline so they put full R&D into it. Fed essentially pays for expedited R&D allowing much cheaper & faster intro to consumers.

Stimulate an American car company (Michigan problem?): check
Help with gas prices: check
Help with farmers (ethanol): check
Foreign oil independence slashed big time: check

I want to see this “walk on water” Obama that supporters portray. If he is just another politician, then it will just be “another” election (Repubs win).

[Truth]

Gregory, it is the new Obama supporter role.

Obama Supporter: Why do we bring up Hillary? She lost cuz she was a b*tch. Let's talk issues.

Clinton Supporte: Ok .. issue, issue, point made, issue

Obama Supporter: but Hillary also did this ..

Talk about missing the point. We picked Hillary because she knew the issues and the Clintons have a perfect track record. That is what it is going to take for us to move 100% to Obama.

So in a not-so-perfect circle, we are back to Hillary. Get used to it. I don't see it changing any time soon.

[Blame]

Gregory

Funny that. I don't

But no matter. My experience is that if the females on this site do, they will let me know.

Me, I am betting that most women don't give up just because they failed the first time.

I doubt they will apreciate "You didn't get what you wanted so now we should close the door. No reason to groom a future female candidate in the VP slot".

[Gregory]

Truth - d*mn you're good.

Outstanding proposals.

How about major R&D into Nuclear Fission - can we improve on the French model i.e. safe next gen reactors AND not trash the environment (like the French are doing).

Controlled Nuclear Fusion - is it feasible...power a city on a teaspoon of water. I remember a major super collider was being built in Texas but was abandoned...revive the project...major funds for Texas...hey!

[J]

Contrary to popular belief, PA aint really a swing state. Fortunately, Philly and Pitt more than make up for the hicks in between. And Rendell would be a horrible VP choice.

[suekzoo]

Blame: "Me, I am betting that most women don't give up just because they failed the first time."

You're correct, we don't.

[Angry Vet]

I'm sorry, but some of you people are absolutely nuts.
1. I've never seen anywhere where NC was "trending strong for HC" in the GE in comparison with Obama.
2. Refusing to commit to Obama because your chosen candidate lost to him in the primary, and having to decide between Obama and McCain? Are you NUTZ? There was infinitesmal policy difference betweem Obama/Clinton, at least when compared to Obama/McCain. Do you people know how old JJ. Stevens and Ginsburg are? What about the war?

Isn't the idea of voting for McCain instead of Obama because Hillary of her not being nominated cutting off your nose to spite your face? I'm absolutely confounding by some of these Hillary supporters who continue spouting this line.

-A Democrat who would have voted for either Clinton or Obama in the GE

[Joe]

Truth:
> The Republicans played you guys, you just don't realize it.

They play everyone. Get used to it. It's why I don't trust them or McCain.

Gregory:
> How about major R&D into Nuclear Fission - can we improve on the French model i.e. safe next gen reactors AND not trash the environment (like the French are doing).

I agree with you, but I'm not sure Truth would after our debate over it in another thread. Suffice it to say, we NEED some new reactors, especially ones that produce medical isotopes. Unless you LIKE being dependent on a single Canadian reactor that's already on its last legs.

Alas, Sen. Reid would tend to be in the way on this one after the decision that we need a 1,000,000 year plan instead of a 10,000 year one. Still, we do need fuel reprocessing both so that the uranium doesn't run out and so that we can bury waste that doesn't stay radioactive for nearly as long.

But nuclear is going to be necessary and I just hope that people aren't scared due to ancient and terrible reactor designs like Chernobyl that didn't even have a containment vessel. There are modern types _can't_ go into meltdown because there isn't sufficient fissile material for it in the first place.

If you want to say that I'm exaggerating, you'll have to explain how someone can take the ceramic 'pebbles' out of a pebble bed reactor, extract and refine them to get out the fissile material, and subject them to pressures usually reserved for a neutron star to make it go critical. It's not what one might think of as a likely failure mode, after all... :)

[Truth]

I was sticking to issues that Obama has already talked about. Obama is not a nuclear proponent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R52J2D5QQU&eurl=http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/01/barack-obama-on-nuclear-energy.html

He's talked about the social security cap and mpg (Chevy Volt). I actualy think these two items would be easier to pass than some of his other ideas and have an immediate and far ranging effect. Those two things put money in employers pockets, employees pockets, drove down oil indendence, created jobs, etc, etc.

Even if Obama was a nuclear energy proponent, it would take a huge "propoganda" campaign before it even can be discussed without fear of massive public backlash.

I was going to type a message earlier stating I yield my floor time to the honorable Senator Joe, but it might have came as blowing Gregory off so I chose not to. Now that Joe showed up, I can say it.

Besides, I don't want to get tagged a terrorist for researching nuclear energy when I am 100% positive I will not be the person to move it forward.

[Truth]

"1. I've never seen anywhere where NC was "trending strong for HC" in the GE in comparison with Obama." angry vet

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun03.html

There you go.

I haven't committed to either Obama or McCain. I think the McBush argument is for people with very low IQs. Barack Carter, there you go. Did that just blow your mind? Of course it didn't

I decide on my candidate by researching them. I haven't had to research McCain that deeply yet. In reality, I'm waiting for McCain and Obama to implode (even more) so I can finally vote for a 3rd party candidate and have it means something.

[Joe]

Well, Obama may not be strongly pro-nuclear and you have a point that people are too scared of it. But I think that we'll see more environmentalists pushing nuclear as time goes on, thanks to global warming.

As for McCain, make sure you know when he said the things he said, because he's had sudden changes of heart on a number of things, like Hurricane Katrina...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/mccain_forgets_his_own_votes.html

Or were you comparing me to McCarthy in that quote? :)

Maybe we should go with health care. There's some merit to McCain's plan, but do you think he'd ever pass Hillary's plan if the Democrats have a good year (except for the presidency)? I don't. Universal health care is "socialism" as far as any of them are concerned.

Obama definitely would. He's using a wedge strategy to move towards universal health care which may blunt the Republican's ability to kill it (think "Senator, what do you have against health care for children!?"). Hillary won't vanish. Whether she's VP or a Senator, she'll be pushing for universal health care. We know she won't quit, no matter what. Period. So if she can get universal health care through, do you honestly think Obama would veto it? I don't. I think it's the long term goal, but one he doesn't think is feasible just yet.

And yes, he has moved towards Hillary's view on that. I posted that article if not that quote just the other day and he specifically said universal health care.

Maybe it's 'just talk', but I think Hillary will hold him to it even if it was. I don't think she has much leverage to hold McCain to anything, particularly not 'socialism' (which, I assure you, is exactly how conservatives frame that issue, having been personally lectured on that).

[Blame]

Maybe Obama knows that nuclear power is not the cheap option.

At first it looks like unlimited power for nothing. Fuel for peanuts.

But factor in safety, security and waste disposal and there are questions.

Remember that once a nuclear power station reaches the end of its useful life the entire facility (and probably the soil it stands on) is nuclear waste.

Can you convince me that a nuclear power station is safe if somebody crashes a plane into it? If not every commercial jet is in effect a nuclear bomber.

How about the theft of nuclear material to make a dirty bomb?

Are you convinced that all waste will be disposed of in a way that is safe forever?

As best I understand it international policy has been to store the stuff on site, and plan to get around to it one day. A serious recession could lead to it just being abandoned. Don't laugh. That is just what is happening in the former USSR.

Now I know there are potential solutions to all these problems, but what I have to ask is has the cost been factored in? Do those who operate power stations set aside sufficient funds for the safe decommissioning that must one day follow?

Look around you. When the factory closes or the mine plays out what happens? We find that the profiteers are gone but the polluted land remains.

As for the idea of "clean nuclear power" breeder reactors create long term nuclear waste just like any other. We were told that the first generation was clean too. Call me a cynic.

Fusion reactors could solve the problem and I am desperate for their development, but it will be slow. We need a more immediate solution. Had the USA made them a priority, rather than going to the moon (yes the development of fusion does go back that far) things might have been different.

All told I am with Obama. Wind turbines will provide a huge number of jobs, and of just the sort needed in the rust belt. No doubt when they wear out we will have a lot of concrete & rusting steel pillars uglifying the landscape, but at least they won’t be radioactive.

[Joe]

There's no such thing as perfectly safe. You're overestimating the risks because you don't know how dirty things like coal are (hint: coal has released more radiation than nuclear ever will due to the radioactives in coal).

Cheap is a matter of capacity and, yes, some of the overengineering required. Sadly, we need the capacity, or will very soon.

The idea of breeders is to keep the stuff from being dangerous forever. Fusion sounds nice, but that's only because you don't know about the problem with neutrons or why neutron-free processes take more energy than they give.

Anyhow, everything has a level of background radiation. People act like it's all or nothing, but cosmic rays blast you all the time. I also hope you don't have any granite in your house :)

You're right that there are risks, but none that are unmanageable. Dirty bombs are primarily a weapon of fear; they might be expensive in terms of contamination, but they wouldn't get many kills other than those who were killed by the blast itself. Yet the media knows that "slightly increased risk of cancer and expensive cleanup" doesn't sell papers when describing them as a threat. Living next to a coal plant is more dangerous to you in terms of radiation exposure.

As for disposal, we need to reprocess it first (and we need reactors for that). Then we'll have to talk to Harry Reid again :)

Our biggest obstacle, bar none, is fear. So long as the engineers (and not business types) have full control, things would be fine. How many nuclear plant accidents can you name other than Three Mile Island and Chernobyl? That's because there haven't been any worthy of note (yeah, back in the 50s & 60s, there were other incidents while making weapons, but those are a completely different animal--I think we should get rid of as many weapons as possible, anyhow).

France is really big on nuclear. They have an issue with all the Arabs immigrating there. And yet they still haven't been blown to smithereens :)

Doubtless it helps that no one would *ever* design a plant that can be exploded like a bomb, or even one that *can* melt down.

Crashing a plane into a cement cooling tower probably wouldn't do anything. Those suckers are pretty solid, and the nuclear material isn't in them, anyhow. You *might* cause a coolant leak, and the coolant generally isn't radioactive. Repairs and fixing the plant would be the hard part.

Even the twin towers *were* designed to withstand an airplane crash, just not the huge fire. That failure mode doesn't happen with concrete (which doesn't get weaker when hot), and the cooling towers aren't nearly as tall (so they can't pancake like the twin towers did with higher floors collapsing into lower floors, crushing them like dominoes).

In short, yeah, they can take care of all of those problems now. But people still fear nuclear because they don't understand it.

But you're right that good renewables like wind are important, too. The thing about energy is that we can't get all of it from just one source. Even with coal, the dirtiest of the lot, we're going to be stuck using it for a long time :)