Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 229 posts

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#181

Post by khazhoux »

krapp wrote: post #73
khazhoux wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple: Biden should have never run for re-election. I loved the guy but his physical decline couldn’t be denied. A proper primary would have most likely resulted in a dem president (and most probably Newsom).

You don't hold a "proper primary" when you have the advantage of incumbency. You run the incumbent (especially against a candidate they've already beaten) or the VP - the two most famous people in the party. All Harris had to do was read the room and she would have won. Literally every other possible option would have been a nobody with none of the advantages Biden or Harris had and would have only risked splitting t…

> And I mean Trump's physical and mental decline is far worse than Biden's ever was

Incorrect. Trump 2024 was as looney as Trump 2016 and all the years in between, so that doesn't qualify as mental decline. He'd lost some spring in his step but overall was physically in much the same shape as 8 years prior. Meanwhile Biden went from active cyclist to a slow elderly gait. It was plain to see.

> You don't hold a "proper primary" when you have the advantage of incumbency.

Following that traditional playbook in the face of his obvious physical condition, is why we have today's SCOTUS, DOW, Trump Kennedy Center, ...

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#182

Post by mmooss »

overfeed wrote: post #133
julienchastang wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024. The problem is that there was no primary. That really (really) hurt Democrats not only for that election cycle, but for future ones too, where candidates could have made their names known even if they did not end up getting the nomination.

> The problem is that there was no primary. I think a primary would have led to worse results for the Dems: candidates snipping at each on the eve of an elections is a gift to the opposing candidate; who can add a final 5-seconds stinger to the end of the many intra-party attack ads against the nominee to say "I am _, and I approve of this message".

> I think a primary would have led to worse results for the Dems: candidates snipping at each on the eve of an elections is a gift to the opposing candidate

Ironically, that is an anti-democracy talking point. Primaries and the included competition weed out candidates who can't handle attacks.

Democracy works far better than governments that aren't chosen openly by their people. It's an extraordinary strength, not a weakness.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#183

Post by mmooss »

rayiner wrote: post #106
Kapura wrote: post #6

I grew up in Colorado, and a visit to NCAR was part of my elementary school education. I think it is so critically important to not only employ working scientists, but also share that science with the public. The republican machine vehemently disagrees, I guess. I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024.

> I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024. No, the damage was done before that. Harris ran the best campaign she was capable of running. We know that because she ran a terrible campaign in 2019, even with all the Obama people backing her. I went to the Iowa primary campaigning in 2019. I saw Harris several times, including at a small event focused at Asians. She’s an abysmal retail politician. W…

> the smart choice was to nominate Elizabeth Warren, who is a fantastic campaigner. But Harris was the choice to appease the identity activists.

That's the reverse: Warren wasn't nominated because she's progressive and beloved by people who care most about diversity.

The centrist Dems supported Harris - Biden's VP - and hate progressives more than they hate Republicans (they do everything to show how they work with Republicans) - look at the NYC mayoral race, where the Dem candidate was opposed or not supported by many Dem leaders.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#184

Post by mmooss »

rayiner wrote: post #130
sdenton4 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harris was the vice president, and was therefore the closest thing to a small-d democratic choice amongst the available options. Otherwise... Why Harris and not Newsom? The better choice would have been Biden stepping out earlier and having a real primary, of course.

That’s why Biden should have picked a vice presidential candidate who could run a good campaign in 2024. It’s not like Biden’s age was an unknown factor. Biden himself floated the idea of only running for one term back in 2020.

Agreed. If the incumbent doesn't run (term limited or retires), the next nominee is almost always the VP if they want the job. Just look at the history:

  Roosevelt -> Truman
  (not Truman -> Barkley: the exception)
  Eisenhower -> Nixon
  Johnson -> Humphrey
  Nixon -> Ford
  Reagan -> Bush
  Clinton -> Gore
  (not Bush -> Cheney, who retired)
  (not Obama -> Biden, who temporarily retired)
  Biden -> Harris
I can't fathom how a party can pick a VP who isn't an excellent future candidate. JD Vance?

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#185

Post by overfeed »

mmooss wrote: post #182
overfeed wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that there was no primary. I think a primary would have led to worse results for the Dems: candidates snipping at each on the eve of an elections is a gift to the opposing candidate; who can add a final 5-seconds stinger to the end of the many intra-party attack ads against the nominee to say "I am _, and I approve of this message".

> I think a primary would have led to worse results for the Dems: candidates snipping at each on the eve of an elections is a gift to the opposing candidate Ironically, that is an anti-democracy talking point. Primaries and the included competition weed out candidates who can't handle attacks. Democracy works far better than governments that aren't chosen openly by their people. It's an extraordinary strength, not a…

> Ironically, that is an anti-democracy talking point.

There's always a cost/friction between internal democratic competition and external adversarial competition. This is why the US didn't (and doesn't) have direct voting on war declaration - hell, a handful of recent presidents decided that even Congress is too slow for them. You could argue that the lack of a referendum before declaring war is an "anti-democracy talking point"

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#186

Post by tempodox »

Kapura wrote: post #6

I grew up in Colorado, and a visit to NCAR was part of my elementary school education. I think it is so critically important to not only employ working scientists, but also share that science with the public. The republican machine vehemently disagrees, I guess. I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024.

The war on facts continues.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#187

Post by krapp »

khazhoux wrote: post #181
krapp wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't hold a "proper primary" when you have the advantage of incumbency. You run the incumbent (especially against a candidate they've already beaten) or the VP - the two most famous people in the party. All Harris had to do was read the room and she would have won. Literally every other possible option would have been a nobody with none of the advantages Biden or Harris had and would have only risked splitting t…

> And I mean Trump's physical and mental decline is far worse than Biden's ever was Incorrect. Trump 2024 was as looney as Trump 2016 and all the years in between, so that doesn't qualify as mental decline. He'd lost some spring in his step but overall was physically in much the same shape as 8 years prior. Meanwhile Biden went from active cyclist to a slow elderly gait. It was plain to see. > You don't hold a "prope…

Both Trump and Biden had their issues, but Trump has lost far more than "some spring in his step," the man is sundowning publicly, barely coherent, and it's obvious some serious medical condition is being covered up by his staff. Anyone seeing him can tell he's far worse off than Biden ever was. "Active cyclist to a slow elderly gait" versus "appeared to have a stroke on camera." Trump literally shat himself in public.

Again, it's baffling that it's only a problem when it's Biden.

>Following that traditional playbook in the face of his obvious physical condition, is why we have today's SCOTUS, DOW, Trump Kennedy Center, ...

Trump's SCOTUS picks happened during is first term. It seems like you're just ranting now.

The fact is Kamala Harris could have won. At the end, the race came down to a fraction of a percent difference between her and Trump. Following the traditional playbook would have worked if only Kamala Harris would have walked away from supporting an active genocide. The lesson of Trump is as much about the right's success as the left's failure. Not of policy, but strategy. The right simply holds the line as the left constantly self-sabotages, giving up real power for the sake of moral victory.

It doesn't help that the "Leftist" party in American politics (at least the only relevant party) is anything but. The success of leftist politics in the US requires a complete restructuring of an inherently fascistic and white supremacist system and culture to break the two party system, campaign finance reform, ending first past the post and the electoral college, and tons of other things. Years-long projects laying out the political and cultural infrastructure. That isn't something you can solve with a panic vote for a third party candidate a couple of months before the election, or by just opting out.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#188

Post by softwaredoug »

TOMDM wrote: post #151
softwaredoug wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like what?

The department of education for one. It's been crippled essentially without anything being passed by Congress

Every statutory requirement is still being fulfilled. There’s a lot of talk, but we still have a Dept of Education, even if it’s reduced in staffing 50%

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#189

Post by rayiner »

mmooss wrote: post #183
rayiner wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024. No, the damage was done before that. Harris ran the best campaign she was capable of running. We know that because she ran a terrible campaign in 2019, even with all the Obama people backing her. I went to the Iowa primary campaigning in 2019. I saw Harris several times, including at a small event focused at Asians. She’s an abysmal retail politician. W…

> the smart choice was to nominate Elizabeth Warren, who is a fantastic campaigner. But Harris was the choice to appease the identity activists. That's the reverse: Warren wasn't nominated because she's progressive and beloved by people who care most about diversity. The centrist Dems supported Harris - Biden's VP - and hate progressives more than they hate Republicans (they do everything to show how they work with R…

> Warren wasn't nominated because she's progressive and beloved by people who care most about diversity.

No, look at Warren’s performance on Super Tuesday, which includes many of the states with the largest minority populations. 79% of Warren voters were white, in an electorate (Democrats in places like Texas and South Carolina) that’s majority non-white: https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/c_fill,g_aut...

However, nominating Warren as the VP would have fixed that problem. Racial conflict plays a large role within internal Democratic politics. However, the non-white factions will usually line up behind the selected candidate in the general election.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#190

Post by rayiner »

mmooss wrote: post #184
rayiner wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why Biden should have picked a vice presidential candidate who could run a good campaign in 2024. It’s not like Biden’s age was an unknown factor. Biden himself floated the idea of only running for one term back in 2020.

Agreed. If the incumbent doesn't run (term limited or retires), the next nominee is almost always the VP if they want the job. Just look at the history: Roosevelt -> Truman (not Truman -> Barkley: the exception) Eisenhower -> Nixon Johnson -> Humphrey Nixon -> Ford Reagan -> Bush Clinton -> Gore (not Bush -> Cheney, who retired) (not Obama -> Biden, who temporarily retired) Biden -> Harris I can't fathom how a party…

> JD Vance?

JD wasn’t picked for having the best chances of winning in 2028. He was picked to cement MAGA within the GOP after Trump dies.

Post reply on HN