There's a ton of pretty baseless, biased, and flat out wrong anti-EV stuff out there. Don't trust everything you read on the Internet.

95% of people is a huge number. I'm harping on it because it's such a bold claim that an EV wouldn't work for such a huge number, so I'm trying to see how you can back it up.

And for the record, I live in Colorado and am from Minnesota. So I'm reasonably familiar with winter.

And I've seen plenty of people go from a Chevy Volt (hybrid) to a Bolt (full electric). But that's not the point. None of what you said was. I told you my car has worked great for me and why, and asked why I'm not part of the 95% of people you mentioned when my life is generally pretty average. You failed to answer that pretty basic question.

I wasn't trying to be modest or justify my purchase, I was trying to point out that I'm a pretty normal person who wouldn't be the lucky 1 in 20 for whom an EV would make sense.

Maybe I have to charge a little more on a big road trip once or twice a year and that trip will take an hour or so longer (keeping in mind I stop for other things anyway). Over that year I've saved time in other ways by not going to the gas station or getting my oil changed (or doing it myself). Saved money that way too. Oh, and the car is a battery and a motor. There's no series of accessories given by a belt moving at 2500 RPM. There's no catalytic converter to worry about. All that's to say, less maintenance over time. No need to check emissions. The car is quiet and an absolute pleasure to drive.

I'd say having an EV works damn fine for me. The question is, why am I not part of the 95%?

Ok, so you are kinda dumb if you believe only 5% of people can pass through your scrutiny.

I charge at home. I'm fortunate enough to be a homeowner, but not top-5% fortunate. GM paid for my charger install when I bought the car, but if they hadn't it would've been about $1500 for a more complicated installation than average (circuit breaker panel is on the other side of the house). Even if I were stuck on a regular outlet, 10 hours of charging per day would get me about 35 miles nightly, or almost 13,000 miles per year. Which is about average. All that means I don't need to care about local charging, and neither do others in a similar situation to me (which, again, is not 5% of people)

The car itself (Chevy Bolt EUV) was about $35K new with bells and whistles included. That has since gone down significantly, especially on a used car. Charging cost is a laughable concern - when I charge at home, it's like paying $1/gallon for gas so I'm coming out ahead there. Happy to show you the math there. Fast charging on a road trip is a lot more expensive, but I rarely use it. I don't miss the forest for the trees, especially when it brings me roughly to gas prices anyway.

Long distance, I normally stop for food, stretching, gas, and bio breaks. It's not hard to plan so you do all those things while charging. My car can get about 150 miles of range in under an hour, and I can start full and arrive empty (charging overnight). My car is also arguably the second-worst at this, others are far better.

Cold weather is no problem when I charge at home daily. Maybe I need to spend a little more charging on a long trip in winter, but not impossibly so.

If you think 95% of people tow, that's laughable. I do, usually a rented U-Haul around town. I'll admit I have an ICE to complement my EV for long-haul towing and a few other things, but that's not because my other car is electric. It's because it's small. So many families get by just fine on Subarus and Honda Civics, because they have no need to tow or anything like that. An EV would most likely be just fine for them too.

The average poll respondent is older, whiter, and more conservative than the average voter. So you end up with a skewed sample.

Any reputable polling group will adjust for that. Granted, fewer and fewer people are answering their phones and taking these polls, but basic demographics are a well-known and pretty easy to adjust for thing. Most polls take a lot of that information for that reason

I think people need to stop thinking that "most likely outcome" = prediction. They gave Trump a 1/4 chance of winning in 2016, which is far from impossible and better than most were saying. Their latest trackers have really emphasized the probability aspect of things, rather than the expected vote share.

They actually did a project about this. Here's how close they were with US House predictions: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/checking-our-work/us-house-elections/ (you can look up other elections but since there are so many to work with here I thought it was a good place to start)

I have an EV and charge at home. I love it. That said, I've lived in tons of rentals in college and immediately after. Not one of them would've had a practical option to charge, even on a regular outlet.

Pretty sure they're the type to think that if you live within a mile of someone else, any car is bad and every non-walking movement you make should be with public transit. Basically the fuckcars type.

(For the record, I get the frustration on the reliance of cars in everyday life. But the last mile problem is real and getting a practical transit option outside of moderately-sized cities is pretty much impossible)

their options are fairly limited. Ham/cheeseburger, chicken burger, fish sandwich, or nuggets is pretty much your array of options

You must not have been to a McDonald's in a while. Do you want that chicken sandwich grilled or crispy? Spicy? Are we talking the basic value sammich you can wolf down before you leave the parking lot, or the bigger one that comes in a cardboard box? The one with bacon and ranch, or one of the others? Did you want a combo meal? Lettuce is stupid filler on a sandwich, do you want to skip that?

Funny, I thought people are more likely to go to the polls over things that affect them and their families directly. Abortion and weed legalization being common examples. I'm assuming you have a source to back up the idea that supreme court justice term limits ranks up there in getting people to vote? Also, you do understand the difference between a "popular idea" and something that will motivate people to vote?

My Democratic rep and Senators are in pretty safely blue territory. What am I/they supposed to do about the other half of Congress they have to win over a good chunk of?

As opposed to, like, passing my own constitutional amendment because someone won't do it for me?

What exactly is a realistic path to make a real one happen?

And that's an excellent segue to what I was going to bring up upstream: we only have so many resources to drive voters. There are plenty of relatable issues that can drive people to the polls so Trump doesn't have another opportunity to appoint anyone. Removing SCOTUS lifetime appointments isn't going to do it. But if we can keep a Democrat in the White House and control in Congress, we may still have lifetime appointments but at least there will be reasonably sane people in the court.

And before you say anything about a false choice fallacy, campaign resources and attention of the voting base are finite.

Certainly not in the current political climate. You think a good chunk of Republicans can get on board with that when they have a 6-3 majority in the court right now?

That will take a constitutional amendment, which... Good luck

I mean, some of your complaints are actually pretty valid but you exaggerated so much on pretty much everything it's hard to take you seriously

Teeeechnically that could mean Russia is threatening them over it, in which case they are threatened by Russia. But that's just me being a pedantic pain in the ass before bed.

That very narrow window of time where Kmart and hashtags both existed

😟

Sounds like a "spectacular" failure to me