# Will The Republicans ever figure out why they lost? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 26, 2012, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224 "2012-12-26T21:33:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 95
**Author:** ![Typo\_Knig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1881 "2013-07-29T03:43:08Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > … The switch to natural gas, due to cheaper methods of extracting it, has done more to reduce carbon emissions than anything the government ever did. … On the one hand, How Stuff Works says that natural gas burning yields 45% less CO2 than coal. I did not know that - ignorance fought! On the other hand, the same web site says when you account for fracking and the rest of the NG lifecycle, it may not be advantageous over coal. Cite: [Are there CO2 emissions from natural gas? | HowStuffWorks](http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/emissions-natural-gas.htm) On the gripping hand, we’re still dumping a boatload of CO2 and other green house gases into the atmosphere. Does the GOP want to lose Florida’s electoral votes to the Atlantic Ocean? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1882 "2013-07-29T03:44:29Z")
Innovation is great, when innovators do it. When bureaucrats do it, not so much. Thomas Friedman-types like to cite the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program. Those are great as far as they go, but it should be noted that both were extremely expensive and have still not led to widespread commercial application. So if one compares modern attempts to make solar viable with those accomplishments, then we can expect to spend $100 billion for an investment that will pay dividends maybe 100 years down the road. The idea that we’ll spend a few billion and solar will be the wave of the future by 2020 is nonsense. We’ll know solar has potential when private investors flock to it the way they have with natural gas. I’d also add that with the space program, the government simply won’t be able to take credit for eventual commercialization of space. The private sector hasn’t been building on what the government developed, they are pretty much starting from scratch as if NASA never existed. You kinda have to when the best NASA can come up with is to send a few guys into space for $80 billion. To do it for a few million doesn’t take just making their technology more efficient, it takes making totally new technology. Which is what the private sector is now attempting to do. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1883 "2013-07-29T03:55:48Z")
Private industry going into space may be more efficient(maybe) but can it come up with benefits [like this?](http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html) Most likely not, no profit. The cost of a shuttle mission was 450 million each, not 80 billion. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1884 "2013-07-29T04:07:03Z")
That’s the shuttle, and the cost of the shuttle and its development has to be included, as well as the danger factor. If the shuttle had been privately run,they’d be paying out some serious lawsuit cash. The main advantage of the government is that it need not be accountable when it screws up. Also, the shuttle is what NASA came up with 25 years after Gemini. I’d bet that the private industry in spacecraft is going to advance a lot further in 25 years, at a fraction of the cost. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1885 "2013-07-29T04:12:42Z")
What’s Gemini got to do with it? Are you forgetting that Apollo missions flew after that, followed by the Shuttle? Also, there were 135 shuttle missions, an average of about 592 million(based on your 80 billion) per flight. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1886 "2013-07-29T04:16:02Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There’s a difference between lesser of two evils, and adoration. Lefties of all stripes adore Liz Warren. There’s just no reason for that unless they believe she’s on their side: mainstream liberals because that’s how she portrays herself, socialists, because they think she’s one of them. Socialists, because they think she might do something about Wall Street hegemony, which they want, and which you don’t have to be a socialist to want. Pat Buchanan wants the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1887 "2013-07-29T04:20:10Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Thomas Friedman-types like to cite the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program. Those are great as far as they go, but it should be noted that both were extremely expensive and have still not led to widespread commercial application. Hell **yeah** they’ve led to widespread commercial application! WTF are you talking about?! Spinoffs from both nuclear-fission and space-exploration technologies are countless! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1888 "2013-07-29T04:20:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Innovation is great, when innovators do it. When bureaucrats do it, not so much. > > Thomas Friedman-types like to cite the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program. Those are great as far as they go, but it should be noted that both were extremely expensive and have still not led to widespread commercial application. So if one compares modern attempts to make solar viable with those accomplishments, then we can expect to spend $100 billion for an investment that will pay dividends maybe 100 years down the road. > > The idea that we’ll spend a few billion and solar will be the wave of the future by 2020 is nonsense. We’ll know solar has potential when private investors flock to it the way they have with natural gas. > > I’d also add that with the space program, the government simply won’t be able to take credit for eventual commercialization of space. The private sector hasn’t been building on what the government developed, they are pretty much starting from scratch as if NASA never existed. You kinda have to when the best NASA can come up with is to send a few guys into space for $80 billion. To do it for a few million doesn’t take just making their technology more efficient, it takes making totally new technology. Which is what the private sector is now attempting to do. This is really just showing ignorance. Again, acting like if all the released CO2 in the meantime will not be bad in the long run is folly. You show only show ignorance by not looking at what even conservatives report it should be done. And most of the spacex projects depend of contracts from NASA, that is tax payer money. And most of the communications still depend on ground control from NASA. More than $753 million a year is going for the effort (that is not just a few millions, and I do not oppose that project BTW, it is just that it was not also just “a few guys” into space. And the cost you mentioned included huge cargo loads and astronauts for the space shuttle during more than 10 years. [http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20110419](http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20110419) ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1889 "2013-07-29T05:47:09Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Those things help with low hanging fruit. Back then, it was easy for industries to pollute less, they just didn’t want to because it was cheaper to pollute. Which is why it’s hogwash to say that free enterprise has done more to solve pollution than government regulation. Natural gas may produce less CO[sub]2[/sub] than coal (and that may be debatable), but that’s not why it has become so popular. We use it because it’s cheaper. If a new energy source is discovered tomorrow that’s cheaper than natural gas, but pollutes more, free enterprise would flock to it (CO[sub]2[/sub] be damned) unless the government gives them a reason not to. > [@](#): > > A regulation that says, “Install this $10,000 widget to reduce your pollution by 80%” makes sense. A regulation that says, “Reduce your carbon footprint by 80% by 2050. How? we don’t know, you figure it out!” is stupid. Unless that widget is a rocket, in which case the government widget is stupid and business needs free reign to develop their own. > [@adaher](#): > > Also, the shuttle is what NASA came up with 25 years after Gemini. I’d bet that the private industry in spacecraft is going to advance a lot further in 25 years, at a fraction of the cost. Gemini flew in 1965 and '66, the shuttle in 1981. (First orbital flight in 1981; drop tests were in 1977.) That’s 15 years. Do you even bother to look this stuff up? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1890 "2013-07-29T05:51:07Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > What’s Gemini got to do with it? Are you forgetting that Apollo missions flew after that, followed by the Shuttle? > > Also, there were 135 shuttle missions, an average of about 592 million(based on your 80 billion) per flight. So **adaher** ’s posts show the same tenacious grip on math and history as they do on statistics and predictions? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1891 "2013-07-29T11:32:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Hell **yeah** they’ve led to widespread commercial application! WTF are you talking about?! Spinoffs from both nuclear-fission and space-exploration technologies are countless! But not commercial space flight. The whole point of green energy investments isn’t to create spinoffs, it’s to have viable green energy. Thus comparisons to the Manhattan project or the space program are invalid. The ambition is actually greater than those programs, and thus the expected payoff is probably lesser, or will take much, much longer and cost far more than our leaders think. Although really I think they are more interested in subsidizing campaign contributors than actually achieving a specific result. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1892 "2013-07-29T11:34:33Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Which is why it’s hogwash to say that free enterprise has done more to solve pollution than government regulation. Natural gas may produce less CO[sub]2[/sub] than coal (and that may be debatable), but that’s not why it has become so popular. We use it because it’s cheaper. If a new energy source is discovered tomorrow that’s cheaper than natural gas, but pollutes more, free enterprise would flock to it (CO[sub]2[/sub] be damned) unless the government gives them a reason not to. The motive is irrelevant. Markets work despite the players not having the purest of motives. Government, on the other hand, can have the purest motives and yet do horrible things. Or more often, just stupid and ineffective things, like the now 40-year quest to reduce dependent on oil, which I’m sure has only failed because not enough money has been thrown at the problem. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1893 "2013-07-29T11:41:06Z")
I’m pretty unimpressed with private manned space flight. Their first “space” flight in 2004 was riskier and less impressive (less altitude) than what NASA did in 1961 with the first Mercury flight. Simply saying that private enterprise must always be better and more efficient than government programs is a theology not supported by facts. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1894 "2013-07-29T11:47:09Z")
The government was willing to throw unlimited funds at the problem and did succeed in their objective, but did not produce commercial space flight. Their attempts to achieve commerical solar or wind power is going to fail as well, for the same reason: being willing to spend lots of money doesn’t mean you get an end product that will compete with fossil fuels. There’s a giant solar plant being built in Arizona. Amazing accomplishment: too bad it doesn’t produce nearly as much power as a fossil fuel plant. And you get this reduction in power at a higher price. A fantastic technological achievement, and a complete commercial failure. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1895 "2013-07-29T11:53:47Z")
Yeah, that [ARPANET](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET)boondoggle never amounted to anything either. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1896 "2013-07-29T11:53:54Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The motive is irrelevant. The motive is entirely relevant to your argument. If lower pollution is an incidental side effect of market forces and pollution levels could just as easily increase again (and more so) as the market changes, then you cannot claim that market forces will inevitably lead to lower pollution. > [@](#): > > Markets work despite the players not having the purest of motives. Sorry - where have you been for the past six or seven years? _Well-regulated_ markets work. Unfettered capitalism is volatile and destructive in its boom-and-bust cycles. > [@](#): > > Government, on the other hand, can have the purest motives and yet do horrible things. Or more often, just stupid and ineffective things, like the now 40-year quest to reduce dependent on oil, which I’m sure has only failed because not enough money has been thrown at the problem. What the government has spent is a pittance compared to what the oil industry has spent to make sure that nothing changes. Let’s not pretend this all happens in a vacuum. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1897 "2013-07-29T11:55:10Z")
You can’t assume that everything worth doing must necessarily be profitable. If you care only about economics, fossil fuel plants are always going to win. But responsible governments make investments in alternative energy sources that may never be profitable but will reduce carbon emissions. The almighty dollar isn’t everything. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1898 "2013-07-29T11:57:18Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > You can’t assume that everything worth doing must necessarily be profitable. If you care only about economics, fossil fuel plants are always going to win. But responsible governments make investments in alternative energy sources that may never be profitable but will reduce carbon emissions. The almighty dollar isn’t everything. More to the point, the fossil fuel industry offsets a lot of costs onto the taxpayer; specifically, the effects of carbon emissions. If they had to pay for the effects of their pollution (and no, I’m not proposing a plan for this) they’d be a heckuva lot less profitable. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1899 "2013-07-29T13:45:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Markets work … I’m glad we have an economics expert in the thread. What’s your position on [emissions trading](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading), Professor? Free market philosophy at its best? Or worst? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224/1900 "2013-07-29T14:32:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The idea that we’ll spend a few billion and solar will be the wave of the future by 2020 is nonsense. We’ll know solar has potential when private investors flock to it the way they have with natural gas. Do socialist liberals like [Warren Buffet](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/warren-buffett-solar-power_n_2398816.html) count? And if private investors aren’t flocking to solar and related industries, how do you explain [this](http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2013/07/energy_efficiency_and_solar_lead_alternative_energy_stocks_skyward.html)? > [@](#): > > Alternative energy stocks are up over 30% on average for the year, reflecting impressive gains off of widely oversold lows in 2012. Almost three-quarters of stocks have been gainers, and two-thirds have seen double-digit price growth in the past 12 months. Solar and energy efficiency stocks in particular have done extremely well, both up over 50% annually. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224.md?page=94) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-ever-figure-out-why-they-lost/645224.md?page=96)