Replies

Ya, the long term contracts were on Davis' watch, but predicting markets is always dicey. I grant you Simon will be able to bitch slap Davis with it a bit, although at the time Davis did it, I hadn't read much predicting that spot prices would implode back down. Davis will claim he helped facilitate that. No one will understand any of it.

My prediction of the election is based on the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, as I have perceieved them, not current polls. Yes there is dissatisfaction with Davis. Maybe that will recede a bit as the economy picks up, but he is not loved, and a lot of liberals dislike him. But I don't see those folks voting for Simon, unless they want to perform some kind of coup for long term effect, and warn future Dems that a failure to hew the liberal line will be punished.

Ya, the long term contracts were on Davis' watch, but predicting markets is always dicey.

Moronic statement, as moronic as Freeman and the goons who did the contracts. They felt they had to do the long-term contracts so they could get the *average* price down. why? so they didnt have to pay it all at once. They coul dhae saved billions if they only did 2 year instead of 10-year, but the FULL COST would have shown up on Davis' watch, and that would not be good "PR".

All the analysts who know energy markets were saying that you DONT do a long-term deal then the price has spiked up like that. They all knew it was not sustainable on supply-demand basis.

What was the *right* answer? The OPPOSITE OF WHAT DAVIS DID. He waited too long to act. He failed to raise retail rates enough until the end, when he finally did that sucked the wind out of demand. He negotiated long-term rates but didnt let the utes do it 12 months earlier, which alone would have saved tens of billions all around and would have stopped the crisis. He kept demagoguing the issue when that was soooo counterproductive to getting supply online.

I could go on and on. Davis treated this as a PR problem and not the real problem of flawed regulation. The root problem was that retail rates were regulated and wholesale rates were not, so when wholesale went above retail rates, there was an unsustainable situation. in that case, you want to NIP IT IN THE BUD. He had since June2000 to do that, but dithered for 9 months because he is a political COWARD, and so ended up costing Cali billion$. He should PAY for his COWARDICE by losing his job.

Look at it this way. If a factory worker destroys millions in factory equipment, they lose their job. If a CEO loses money one year, they get canned or asked to "retire".

WHAT TO DO YOU DO WHEN YOUR GOVERNOR COSTS YOU $40 BILLION????

<No one will understand any of it

Maybe not, but they won't take Davis's word for it either. Many a WSJ (and Wash Post)article on the crisis has suggested that if Davis had done nothing but get out of the way, there would have been less money spent..

On the other side, a governor has no control over abortion and some of the other hot buttons Davis will push against Simon. And it will be up to Simon's people to paint him as "reasonable"

But this election will be about Davis, and Davis's unpopularity is fairly deep and lasting, IMO, unless the economy does a 180 in the next half year.. And I'm guessing thats not enough time...