...by market traders thinking there will be supply disruptions.
If those disruptions do not occur, the price of oil will be higher than it should be, and large profits will then occur.
The ethanol comment is correct. The demand for ethanol has increased due to the phase out of MTBE, while the supply has not kept up. When demand increases and supply is constant, price increases. Econ 101.
Also, enviromental reasons are a factor in why oil is more expensive. Probably not a large factor, but if unlimited drilling was allowed in ANWR and off the Florida and California coasts and elsewhere where it's banned, oil and gasoline prices would be lower. How much lower is quite unclear-probably not much.
I have some reasons for not supporting him, but it's clear in my mind that if both Feingold and Gore run, neither will win-for the most part, they go after the same voters. And I want Feingold to win. In fact, if I can see this, Feingold can too. If Gore declares before Feingold, Feingold will not run-he has said if he can't win, he will not run.
They vote for us 90-99% of the time anyways. Therefore, thier opinion is worthless in chosing a nominee. I don't like this any more than anybody else does, but it's the hard truth. We already have them, so, to quote Bulworth, what are they going to do, vote for the Republican? We need white people to vote for our guy to win. Mentioning Jesse Jackson is perfect example of this-no way he could have won the general election, not in a million years.
New Hampshire and Iowa deciding our canidate is perfect, in that they are swing states (each state went for Bush one time out of two-you don't get any swingier than that). Nevada is an okay choice too.
Main problem with Alabama having any say at all is not because of the fact that it has a lot of blacks, but that there is no way Alabama goes our way, unless it's a total freaking blowout.
My point works both ways-in Rhode Island, the best the Republicans can hope for is Lincoln Chafee. Getting a Republican senator in a very blue state is as hard as getting a Democratic senator in a very red state.
...however, I saw a bit on immigration in the first few minutes of KTTV's (Fox Channel 11 in Los Angeles) 10 PM news Monday I believe. They showed Ted Kennedy at a pro-immigrant rally in DC, Mayor Villagrosa (a Democrat) speaking at a rally in downtown LA, and one other Democrat (Kerry maybe) speaking in favor of it. Then they showed a generic Republican House member speaking on the other side. The five minute clip was more than enough to tell me, or anybody else watching, which side each party was on the issue.
That is, if you think you can completely eliminate the Democrats and have your party replace them, then, yeah, that will work. Thatn strikes me as highly unlikely. Basically, the Dems (or the Reps, for that matter) would have to implode from within, as well as being actively attacked from the third party which would become one of the dominant two.
He voted against the war in Iraq (only Rep senator to do so). If he wished to be a Dem, he would fit in with the (fiscally) conservative part of the party. Socially, and on things like the enviroment, he is actually fairly liberal, or as liberal as a Republican can be these days. That was basically my point-he is the mirror of Ford or either Nelson or most any other red-state Democrat.
This in no way makes it possible for a Ted Kennedy type to be able to be elected in a red state-that is a absurd notion.
The way the American government is set up, two, and only two, dominant political parties is guaranteed. Therefore, any attempt to go outside the two-party system (on a large scale, excluding single canidate "cults of personality" like Perot or Jesse Ventura) will fail. Guaranteed.
The only way to change this is to completely throw out the consitution of the United States and reform the country as a Parlimentary system, where seats are assigned based on party, so if the Greens get 10% of the vote, they get 10% of the seats.
This is not going to happen.
Like it or not, we are stuck with Democrats and Republicans. Either work with that system, or don't bother to try, because it will be merely wasted effort. I know you don't want to hear this, but it's the truth. The place to fight Vichy Democrats is via a primary.
I mean, currently, the state has the only independent Senator and the only independent House Representative (who says he's a Socialist). However, keep in mind that the indie Senator used to be a Republican. I think the state is very lefty, but not very blue (Democrat). That is, thier party loyalty is the weakest in the nation, so a moderate running as a Republican could easily win. I hope our canidate is strong-we can't expect to win on party makeup alone.
...a series of very good attack ads by a disposable 527 that nobody seems to know anything about. I saw them on the Internet before the election, but the website to the 527 disappeared afterwards. I don't live in the state, so I can't say how often they aired, but it is my understanding that they were the cause for her underperforming in 04. That is, unless the 527 or somebody else reappears and spends money on the race, Musgrave's low numbers may not be duplicated.
It's on the same ballot. Arnie is basically unchallenged on the R line, but the D line has two strong canidates, Westly and Angelides. So D turnout should be higher than R turnout for this reason alone.