The more I think about this presidential election, the better I feel about it, really.
Now, everyone knows I'm quite conservative, and thus, I am fully in support of Bush's re-election. He even sent me a 5x7 photo of himself and his wife, and a card making me an official supporter, because I sent him a pittance of a donation.
Everyone also knows that I dislike Kerry quite a lot, and I think he would be an awful leader for America. Unfortunately, there are a lot of misguided people who hate Bush even more than I hate Kerry, and would put anyone in office as long as his name wasn't Bush.
The polls variably have both candidates even. This makes me very happy.
In May 1984, Walter Mondale led Reagan by several points. He went on to win a single state in the general election, suffering what I think is the most lopsided defeat in history. Now, I don't see Bush carrying 49 states, but I do see him winning this election, by a comfortable margin. There are several reasons why.
1. There is no Pro-Kerry crowd. I sincerely believe most democrats could honestly care less who was on their ticket, so long as he had a fighting chance at taking out Bush. Liberals LOVE Kerry, because his voting record is extraordinarly left of center, but his average constituency really doesn't care about him or his (lack of) issues. They want Bush gone. Historically, "Anybody but X" campaigns don't tend to do so well. Abraham Lincoln could testify to that.
2. Kerry's support is very fluid, and is almost totally dependent on how the Iraq war goes. The liberal media realize this and paint as terrible a picture as can reasonbly be painted about the war, but when you get past the sensationalism, the truth is, few wars in history have gone as smoothly and quickly as Iraq. His campaign lives or dies depending on how we do in Iraq. Kerry and the Democrats secretly love when something bad happens. They were cheering about Abu Ghraib. They raise their fists in the air every time one of our servicemen dies. It's another step forward for them. They are hoping the transfer of power on June 30th is a terrible disaster. Because, if it goes well, Kerry's bid for power is fucked. The economy is on the rebound, jobs are on the rise, and most people could care less about the traditional liberal causes right now.
On the flip side, Bush supporters by and large are far more loyal to the President. We are voting to keep Bush in, not to keep Kerry out (laudable as that goal is). We believe Bush is the better man for the job, we believe he has done well and will continue to do well. Most of us support the aims and goals of the war, and are confident in our ultimate victory.
3. Show of strength. And this is the biggest point, I think. As I said, the polls show a dead heat. But, what is important to note is that everyone who hates Bush is already in full force. They are already mobilized and doing their damnedest to get Bush out. Bush supporters have hardly begun to fully mobilize and form a solid base of support for George Bush. Simply put, the Democrats look very strong right now. But, unless Iraq goes sour, they are as strong as they can get right now. They are at their peak. And the Republicans are nowhere near theirs. And even with that being true, they enjoy a statistical dead heat with Kerry. Once the Bush campaign starts to shift into gear, and his supporters begin to rally, the gap between Bush and Kerry will widen, considerably I think. Again, a bad hand of cards in Iraq could jeopardize this somewhat, but it would honestly take a pretty incredible disaster to give Kerry a late surge, enough to win this election.
It doesn't really help Kerry that his voting record is far more liberal than most people tolerate, and that on many important current issues, he changes his positions constantly. He is a weak candidate, the strongest of a group of weak Democratic candidates, and I'm confident that he is going to see his hopes for victory diminish as November gets closer.
This isn't a rant, it's merely commentary. It's how I see things unfolding. I hope that this will not turn into an issue-based bickering, and that if you disagree with me, that you'll tell me how you think it will turn out and why it will turn out differently, instead of what it usually turns into.
With the economy rebounding the only major wild-card is Iraq. A shift for the better or worse could tip the balance in favor of one candidate or the other. I don't think there are any other issues out there that have that much impact.
Just thought I'd bring up one thing: What's up with Al Gore lately? You'd think the guy was running for President the way he's been going around screaming at the top of his voice that Bush is a traitor.
He let his lithium prescription run out.
Well, although the polls shouldn't be taken into account too much this early it is never a good sign when an incumbent is behind or tied with his opponent in the polls this far ahead of the election. I think it's mainly because Kerry has been very quiet since he wrapped up the Democratic nomination, but in recent weeks he has finally been talking about policy and such.
You are right that there isn't a big pro-Kerry crowd, but most of those in the anti-Bush crowd aren't going to change their minds, and it is not just dependent on the war in Iraq. I didn't realize the full extent of the hatred there was of No Child Left Behind until I started working in a junior high in January. I have not found a single person who likes the policy. It has become a popular thing to bash if you want to get the people behind you during a presentation as our superintendent did today. Some staunch Republicans in the school have told me they will be voting for Kerry because Bush hasn't done anything to fix the policy. I'm just pointing out that there are other factors besides the war that are contributing to the Bush hatred.
In short, polls at this point are just about irrelevant. Yes, they show that more people than usual are interested, and that a lot of people have made up their minds about who they are going to vote for, and that does lead to a possibly large electorate but not that many votes actually in contention... but it's June 1. There are quite a few months until November. Anything could happen.
For instance, for a long time now Bush's satisfaction ratings have been dropping. And in the head-to-head polls Kerry keeps improving. But not for anything he's doing, but for the fact that Bush isn't doing too well... and, to be specific, Iraq. Iraq is a huge, huge factor. If we're doing better in Iraq in November, Bush has a much, much better chance of winning than if they stay like this or get worse. If the Iraqi situation is still this bad or worse, Bush has a very good chance of losing... the better we're doing, probably the higher Bush's chances because of how much he's staked his presidency to Iraq.
A key part of that is the attention span of Americans. Or, their lack of one -- bad events in the very recent past are forgotten if the current situation is different. Like the prison abuse scandal. Proof is coming out that the thing is not just "a few bad apples" like the idiots in charge would like us to think but is systematic throughout Iraq and Afghanistan and encouraged (or at least condoned) by the command structure. But for it to be a major campaign issue it'll have to extend for months, and I don't know if it will... a lot of people, including some who have said they have made up their minds, decide in the last few days and it'll be the issues then, not the ones today, that they decide on.
DMiller is also right, though... Bush's other policy is also alienating a lot of people. His economic policy is a disaster. Some parts of the economy are finally recovering, but more in spite of him than because of him I'm sure. Oh, and jobs don't seem to be going far, and the people aren't getting the message that anything's better -- confidence in the economy is still extremely low. Other than that, there's always things like No Child Left Behind (extremely unpopular in this state, for sure!), the PATRIOT Act, the environment, etc... good issues that will (or should) matter in this election. But Iraq is definitely on the list and Bush will do better if he's doing well in Iraq. The thing is that given the nature of the problem (that a lot of what is wrong is a direct result of actions Bush has (or more importantly hasn't) taken), I'm not too sure that Bush will get to the point he'd have to to greatly help his poll numbers by November... Bush started this war, Bush did the actions that got us to this incredibly bad position, and I very much doubt that Bush and his people will suddenly get smart after over three years of stupidity.
Oh yeah, and national poll numbers are irrelevant anyway. It's electoral votes that matter, not national numbers!
And finally, yes, it's not so much a 'Kerry is great' thing as it is a 'Bush is terrible' thing. Kerry is hardly the best candidate, but ANYTHING is better than Bush and an increasing number of people recongize that. I do have one thing to say here, though. Kerry just isn't that liberal. If he's elected I expect him to be more in the centrist-Bill Clinton line, not a true liberal. He just isn't that... he can pretend to be to make the base happy, but if you look at his actual policies he's proposing they're quite centrist. Like Clinton was.
I'm predicting a liberal majority. Many people on the west may be unhappy with Paul Martin and the Liberals, but I think all in all we just don't trust Stephen Harper and his shitty party.
If anyone shoves the fact that Kerry was a war hero in my face again, someone is going to die. You can't hear about Kerry without hearing about how he served in Vietnam and <i>served his country!</i>
*cue patriotic music*
They're just playing the "voting against Kerry means you hate America" angle. I'm not crazy about Bush, but Kerry just bugs the hell out of me. Besides, he looks like he's melting.
The thing is canada never had a single good conservative leader ever,The best was Malroney who we have to thank for creating our incredibly awful taxing and he also was a big liar and maybe even some what corrupt.
Then you got Definbaker , Who was probaily the biggest dumb ass to set foot on canadian soil ,He killed the avrow arrow and drove the canadian aviation advancements into the ground on purpose and believed the bull shit that airplanes wont matter anymore in military combat. He was duped so many times in unfair and even rediculous trade and energy projects with the U.S that he had canadians screaming for 20 years after he left office, It was so easy to trick him into selling his soul a child could dupe him.Oh finally he nearly made our flag into a blue piece of shit that was worse then some public toilets ive seen.
I Harpers plan for the military is good ,We could be flying F33's and all that cool shit.The sea kings will finally be put into museums were they belong.
Its to bad he is a dick , Biggot,racist,Idiot and a dooche bag on all levels.
Bush would be better since atleast he of all the stupid things he said he never made fun of a ethnic minority group like the aboriginals.
The Liberals , They have been in power way too long so much so that the idea of democracy is fading and the liberals are getting cocky in embeciling money since they know the other parties suck and they can do whatever they want.
NDP , Besides being incredibly liberal , I think Jack Layton makes alot of sense,Seems to know what he is talking about and isnt wishy washy.I am some what concerned with being anti Bush , Sure who likes him? But there is a chance he will be relected and we cant afford anymore to be overly snubish about Bush since he is the leader of our closest neighbor.Jacks recent comment about PM Paul Martin killing homeless people scares me.
Block Q , They are not running for office they are a thorn in the side of canada ,They are no use to their cause if the PQ dont control quebec, They are all fucks who need to be shot.
Quote:If anyone shoves the fact that Kerry was a war hero in my face again, someone is going to die. You can't hear about Kerry without hearing about how he served in Vietnam and served his country!
*cue patriotic music*
They're just playing the "voting against Kerry means you hate America" angle. I'm not crazy about Bush, but Kerry just bugs the hell out of me. Besides, he looks like he's melting.
Yeah, I respect Kerry for serving his country in 'Nam, but do we really need to hear about it every single day?
Quote:His economic policy is a disaster. Some parts of the economy are finally recovering, but more in spite of him than because of him I'm sure.
Over 600k jobs were created in like 2 months, but of course it was because Bush's economic policy is really bad. People are just creating jobs because they don't like him, that makes sense right?
You know, one current malady has an easy solution, and that's gas prices.
1. Dramatically increase domestic oil drilling and refining.
2. Junk the very expensive environmental fuel additives.
Not that any Democrat would go for that. Kerry would "Stand up to the Saudis". Good thinking, moron. OPEC isn't responsible for this, liberals are.
OPEC isn't going to suddenly increase oil production just because we ask them to, Saudi Arabia said they'd increase production a little bit but the recent terror attack could put a stop to that. So the only way to lower gas prices is to find new places in America to drill, which is a hard thing to do if your also trying to appease enviromentalists.
Did you know that the Saudis are blaming our refinery capacity for why we have this problem, not their prices?
The prime ministry who didnt buy Alaska when the russians were selling it needs to be shot.
What I think is that all of you who want to turn alaska into a giant oil plug , need to ask them Alaskans if its ok to wreck their scenary and beautiful country side.I completely understand why alot of americans dont give a shit about the enviroment in alaska since it is so far away it wont effect you in your little suburban homes in Virginia.
A simple thing is to reduce need on fossil fuel , The less you need the less you will need to pay. The high prices are because of soaring demand them damn Saudis can do whatever they want now that they got you by your pants.
Well of course they're going to blame someone else, you think they'd come out and say "Hey, you have such gas prices because we cut production! That's right, it's all our fault because we love money so much!!"?
Saudi arabia is in huge dept , Building them damned palaces made out of pure gold and all,All the saudi embassies look like movie star mansions.
Saudi Arabia: We spend more money on one birthday party for the royal family than whole nations do on food!
Which is why they said they'd raise production if OPEC allowed it? I think it was the rest of OPEC that killed that plan, not the Saudis...
As for more domestic production, that's just a drop in the bucket. A few barrels from Anwar won't make much of an appreciable difference either way. What we need is to work on getting OFF oil. Like encouraging every homeowner in the US to get solar panels on their roof, or something like that. And more hybrid cars (and higher gas milage standards), for a start.
Well actually, there's enough heat in Texas alone to generate enough energy for the entire country, it's just that the initial investment for such a massive solar power plan would cost an enormous amount of money, even though it would save us a lot down the road. It has to be done on a smaller level, with each town or city putting enough of an investment into solar energy to help power themselves. It's cheaper to continue down the road we're already on, but in the long run we'd save a lot of money.
And more importantly for the people in charge, big oil doesn't make much off of solar panels and high gas milage.
I remeber a guy in canada , Who wanted to save money from his power bill and had himself disconnect from public energy, He built solar panels and wind mills all around his property. He now runs his house completely on his own homemade energy supply without having to pay any crummy monthly bills or fees.Its not entirely perfect somtimes he has to go out and peddle to boost the energy supply , But hey it can lower your cholesteral and give you free energy.
Ugh, another "the oil companies rule the land" mindset. Honestly, do you really think the government is biased against alternative energy sources? Is THAT why they openly support hydrogen fuel cell technology? Fortunatly, the chemical there can be bought from just about any store where children's science kits are sold, and is ridiculously cheap to make, yes MAKE, and buy. The fuel cell makers won't be able to hold a monopoly on the technology OR the ingrediants for it, nor will it even be possible, AT ALL, to artificially raise the prices of that. That would be about as hard as raising the price on water. Though, a few companies will market their's as "better". :D
(I wonder how long it will be before rival electric companies start saying their electricity is better than the other guy's...)
The vice president was the head of a oil company until just before he accepted the nomination. The president is friends with many such people. Hmm, no reason at all that this administration would want to give big oil what it wants, nope!
As for hydrogen fuel cells, for one thing they know that practical use of it is years off. Developing the fuel cells themselves, in a form that can work in cars, has to come first... and then they have to deal with how to get enough hydrogen. There isn't an easy way and the most common one uses a lot of power to make it... there are a lot of problems to work out before it becomes practical and the administration knows it. It's a long-term project. It's one we should be working on, but it's a long term project. Unlike something like supporting solar cells on homes or raising fuel efficiency standards.
Thats why we start pulling out our own egineering and scientific skills , Power our own houses and build our own homemade fuel efficient vehicles.My great Uncle used his old vaccum tube made a few refinements and turned it into a muffler that lasted untill the day he died.
I'll tell you if there ever was a way to make your car more efficiently consume gas that anyone who is skilled mechanics could do the modifications himself, The car Manufactorers would have made sure it was impossible , Why do you think cars only last 2-3 years and in case its a jap 5 years before you start having problems that need to go the shop? Its not because are technology isnt advance enough , Weve been abled to make longer life spans of vehicles without the need of repair for decades. The reason manufactorers dont do it is because its bad for business since the average person wont buy new vehicles very much if his car last such a long time without dieing.There was a company in the 70's that made cars garanteed to last 10-15 years before they needed major repair work or started to corroid, But they went bankrupt because after the first few years their car sales decline dramaticaly since everyone who would have bought one did and waisnt going to need to replace it untill the next decade.Another reason was cost and they couldnt keep slashing prices to increase the dwindeling sales because their vehicles cost more to make , I can tell you going back to my uncle story ,I know for a fact Vaccum tubes are made with stronger materials then the average car muffler.
I think we need to give the goverment the finger and tell them to fuck themselves , Lets do it ourselves. Look at those clever Inuit they are leading canada in Wind and Solar power and clean air technology in our entire country,They are a people known for being primitive and eating uncooked meat yet they are ahead in such clean air progress, Since Global warming and climate change effect them alot more then the rest of us,Pollution from the states and mainland canada is hurting those poor inuit who live a natural spiritual life because of our ignorance.
If the Solar Panels On Roofs Of Houses craze of the last few decades proved anything, it's that you can make your house look ridiculous, destroy it's resale value, and do nothing appreciable to generate electricity.
Wind and Solar energy, in a perfect world, would be great. Unfortunately, they are also very unpredictable, not to mention, way too low-yield, and to base our major power supply on them is foolish.
That's not true at all, and you'd be very surprised if you knew just how far solar energy technology has come along. The little solar panels people use in their homes is ancient technology, even older than the panels used to power my building at work. The main hurdle is that setting up solar panels to power more than just a neighborhood is very expensive and the community wouldn't start seeing money saved for a while.
Except that you're out of luck if you get long periods of cloudy/rainy weather.
Haha, this isn't calculator technology we're talking about. It doesn't take bright sunlight for it to work, you could easily have a good solar power setup even in Seattle.
Weltall Wrote:If the Solar Panels On Roofs Of Houses craze of the last few decades proved anything, it's that you can make your house look ridiculous, destroy it's resale value, and do nothing appreciable to generate electricity.
Wind and Solar energy, in a perfect world, would be great. Unfortunately, they are also very unpredictable, not to mention, way too low-yield, and to base our major power supply on them is foolish.
Wind and Solar are not the only ones ,The Hoover dam proves it.
If you think it hurts property value, Look at the Swedes , Almost every new home is being equiped with new modern solar panels.Having a solar panel is a fasion statement since it says you live in a modern high tech state of the art house .
Ive even heard of Tv's,Radio's powered by patatoes'.:)
Quote:Except that you're out of luck if you get long periods of cloudy/rainy weather.
Thats were that wind torbine kicks in.
Yes. And having decent hydroelectric power requires a large, moving source of water, making it practical only to areas within a certain distance of rivers. Solar power is spotty, because sunlight is a requirement. Thus, for at least half a day, you are completely unable to receive fuel, and direct sunlight is needed for maximum efficiency. Wind? You need wind. You're not always gonna get wind.
The largest problem is that America has an extraordinarily large and complex power grid in place, and it is just far too impractical to ever transform it to unreliable and costly sources such as solar and wind. Now, having solar and wind as a supplementary source is a great idea, but to totally rely on them as a main power source is simply not feasable.
Now, widespread nuclear energy is definitely something we should strive for, and I'm all for the development of fuel cell technology. But until one of these two take place, our current energy scheme is really the only one that is practical for America. This is why Sweden does not concern me. I live in America, and having solar panels on my home here is murder on my property value.
Solar and wind power wont replace the current system , It will merely act as suppliment for the over burdened energy system.
That property value thing is just crap , I know your joking, You just dont like it so fine dont ever have it.Having Solar panels may actual boost property value unless its made horribly ugly and unstylish, But having panels makes you seem like you live in some high tech home of the future.When you move or sell the house you just remove them and bring them with you.
Some places like high elevations such as mountain tops are always windy , If I remeber there is a mountain in the U.S had the highest wind record in recorded history and its always high on average , Thats a pontential region to exploit into gathering large amounts of energy from wind power.
Nuclear energy is dangerous and I dont think people especially in the U.S will like having big time bombs that only need terrorist to set off.You have trouble keeping the ones you have from being shut down because of terrorism fears.
Hydrogen cells ,cold fusion , Is the future but its not ready yet.
It is not crap. It's very hard to sell a home with pre-installed solar panels on a roof, because they are very ugly. When you sell a home, you don't market it as a high-tech Star Trek home of the future in the middle of a normal neighborhood. Normal sells. Any real estate agent will tell you that it is easiest to sell a home that, in addition to being well-kept, maintained and clean, has neutral coloring on walls, carpet and siding, is designed with practicality in mind, and, for all intents and purposes, is pretty plain without looking utilitarian. People like a blank slate to sculpt. What you don't want is something visibly obtrusive and eyecatching. Like, solar paneling.
Then, of course, you have the resulting complications that arise if your home is shaded by trees.
I think the best answer to this is the best answer to many problems: Responsibility. Turn your shit off when you're not using it. If everyone did that, I'm willing to bet energy savings and consumption would tilt in a noticably more positive direction.
The biggest wasters are children , Since they have no idea at how much it costs.
Solar panels can be like having a spare generator in your house in case of a black out. You realize now solar energy can be stored for later use, Its like charging a battery.
Your right about real estate wanting plain clean slates, But in reality its hard to get.
Solar panels are not nearly as bad alot of tacky colors ,ornaments,Alot of junk built straight into the home.
When my family and I moved back to quebec , Are new house that was previously owned by a really bitchy old lady, We got stuck with built in yard ornaments some which were planted with electric wires and concrete. We had this little Black guy holding a Lantern dressed up like one of them cotton picking slaves in the old west, It was Shameful and embarrasing to have such racist junk laying on my lawn , We couldnt just pick it up and move it, It was solid in the ground with iron rods and concrete and that pesky electrical wiring for the latern. My freinds would come over to my place and say "Whats up my Niggah" to the statue.
My dad wanted me to paint him into a white man, But he was ugly and such a eye sore, I went into my garage grabed a sledge Hammer and smashed in his face untill he looked like a flat faced cat, My dad thought Vandals had trashed it, Untill I told him, So we got our tools and chiped away untill it was nothing but a big crater in the ground.
Solar panels wouldnt have been so bad,They look like windows.
Weltall, I am sure that there are a lot of people who would pay extra to get a house with solar panels on it... you're using very bad logic. Doing things that would dramatically lessen our power usage and help the environment a whole lot are bad because ... in your opinion they are ugly? What in the world?
Solar power isn't very feasible if you live in a very small town [like me] and don't have a whole lot of money [like me]. Sooo I'll just have to wait until I'm rich to get solar energy [it won't be long now!!].
Most of the people who I have seen who have Solar panels and wind mills live in the country. Since the wind is better out there.
GR, isn't that why I said that the government should have some kind of reward for putting up solar panels? :)
A Black Falcon Wrote:Weltall, I am sure that there are a lot of people who would pay extra to get a house with solar panels on it... you're using very bad logic. Doing things that would dramatically lessen our power usage and help the environment a whole lot are bad because ... in your opinion they are ugly? What in the world?
I think "dramatic" is far too strong a word. "Supplement" is far more accurate.
And it's not just that they're ugly. It's that by being ugly, they make your house harder to sell. Guess it's okay if you never plan to sell, but if resale value is important to you (and you live in a normal neighborhood), it's best to stay away.
I wouldn't put it as an absolute like that, you know... because it's not true... sure some places, but all? Absolutely not, I am sure.
That's why I said "normal neighborhoods". In wierdo places like San Fran, something like that probably adds to property values, and makes you the toast of the Homosexual-Progression Expresso Tuesdays at the local corner coffee shop.
Edit: No matter what anyone thinks of racial slurs, making fun of gays is always FABULITH!! :gay:
Actually, San Francisco has a city program to encourage the use of solar panels, I believe. Only one in the country, I'm pretty sure...
Gee, what a surprise!
When does California break away and drift into the Pacific again? *checks watch*
We need to reduce our energy dependance on oil. Not just foreign oil, all oil. There's only so much of it and it's running out, and we can't wait until it's realy expensive to do anything because by then it might be too late. And not in several decades if fuel cells work. And not just with nuclear power, which creates a lot of waste that essentially are extremely hazardous forever. Solar panels won't do the whole job, but they'd help more than you think. Same with raising fuel efficiency standards... that would help immensely.
Okay.
Let's make all cars as streamlined as possible to reduce coeffecient and drag.
Then, we'll raise the speed limit to 100 on all public access roads, as you move more and more on momentum the faster you go.
Then we'll get rid of all SUVs, cause most of them are ugly.
Hell, we'll just give everyone motorcycles.
Let's get the fuel cell research into high gear, baby. Then, we'll bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia once we don't need them anymore.
You don't need to go that far. You just say that because it's a standard right-wing reaction. But even a increase of just a few miles a gallon would have a huge amount of oil!
No, I'm just saying that because I'm talking to my girlfriend and I love her and that makes me not in the mood to get serious with you at three in the morning.
Quote:Gee, what a surprise!
When does California break away and drift into the Pacific again? *checks watch*
Why exactly does that bother you? Would you rather they be dependent on oil?
I'd rather they float away. Then sink.
Now relax about nuclear power. While fission does involve a lot of waste, which is very hard to dispose of, FUSION has no waste! It actually produces stuff useful to us! I mean, hydrogen fuel cells ARE a sort of fusion, of oxygen (easily obtainable from the air) and hydrogen (harder to get, but hydrogen is actually just a single proton remember (if you're talking a positive ion of it anyway) so I'm sure eventually a great way of obtaining it will be found, and methanol does work pretty good anyway) into water to make electricity. They don't release it as pure heat energy like actual nuclear fusion mind you, but fusion is involved. Nuclear fusion reactors, once we get the hang of it, will never have the risk of meltdown and don't use highly unstable materials like fission does. It's still a ways off, the average scientist estimates the first useful reactors will arrive in about 15 years, but it's fully within our life times that it's expected to happen. Once it's figured out, you could plug in a fusion battery and keep that thing running longer than you will. Fusion is the holy grail, but until then... many electric sources need to be found...
Sheer battery power is actually a VERY likely solution. Electric cars as they are NOW just don't cut it. While an electric engine of a certain level of force will totally outclass an equal strength gas engine (instant power as opposed to working up to it, and constant, and so much simpler than normal cars so you could likely fix it all by yourself when the only real part breaks down), unfortunatly, getting engines to that level of power is tough. Not really tough if you have the electricity mind you, but there's the problem. Shove it into an outlet, you can get a spinning fan blade that will knock down houses and can be used to test wind flow over cars and such (wind tunnel), but ya can't drive it. Batteries however just don't hold enough for long enough and take too long to charge.
However, the latest batteries sure seem to be helping that along. The fuel cell battery is one solution that just needs the methanol to get going (converting it into hydrogen, though "dirty" hydrogen right now, hence why it doesn't work very good yet). An alternative is the lithium-ion batteries, which basically are just long strips of lithium stacked one on top of the other that are filled with electrons. Those things, as you have noticed from your GBASP, are VERY nice. However, you need to fill an entire car with them before it can outclass a gas engine. As such, these cars some have made with that in mind are the size of a normal car, can go just as fast as a normal car, have NO gear changes, instant acceleration and decelation in the same pedal, will go about 300 miles or so on a single charge on highways (sorry I didn't catch the km's on this show), and longer in the city due to a method of recharging a little bit of power whenever you release the pedal to break, and due to the weight of the batteries have normal car momentum.
BUT, they are VERY expensive to make. Prohibitively so. Not only that, you look like a jackarse recharging that thing somewhere for about 4 or so hours. For normal living, they would be fine so long as you plugged it in at night, but for the long trips, they are about to get much longer... People won't want that (I can imagine if they DID tolerate it, gas stations would fade out, and um, movie theaters would fade into those locations with all the parking lots having pay-to-charge outlets or something :D). So, getting the charge time and price down is the key issue. One tech exists, but is still too expensive yet and has charge time, the other could easily solve that, but would eliminate one plus (being able to refill from your own outlet would no longer be an optinon) and on top of that, doesn't exist yet.
Two options that are GETTING close to replasing gas for good, but aren't there yet. Lithium-ion says give them 5 years, fuel cell says give them 10. (And fusion is a very long way off, requiring 15 years just to get a very unusable by the average person reactor going.)
Unless we could all drive with nuclear reactors under the hood! :)