Pickens Running For President?

[Conan71]

Anyone else been seeing T. Boone Pickens' TV ads?

The first one says to stay tuned the next few weeks as he presents his ideas on how to save America.

I think he's the next Perot.  He could easily pull away 15 to 20% of the vote on the single issue people's disgust with energy prices.

From his web site: http://www.pickensplan.com/

"America is in a hole and it's getting deeper every day. We import 70% of our oil at a cost of $700 billion a year - four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.

I've been an oil man all my life, but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of. But if we create a new renewable energy network, we can break our addiction to foreign oil.

On January 20, 2009, a new President gets sworn in. If we're organized, we can convince Congress to make major changes towards cleaner, cheaper and domestic energy resources."

Either that or he's trying to corner the market on something else.  I've been assured by people who have had dealings with him, he's strictly out for #1.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Anyone else been seeing T. Boone Pickens' TV ads?

The first one says to stay tuned the next few weeks as he presents his ideas on how to save America.

I think he's the next Perot.  He could easily pull away 15 to 20% of the vote on the single issue people's disgust with energy prices.

From his web site: http://www.pickensplan.com/

"America is in a hole and it's getting deeper every day. We import 70% of our oil at a cost of $700 billion a year - four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.

I've been an oil man all my life, but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of. But if we create a new renewable energy network, we can break our addiction to foreign oil.

On January 20, 2009, a new President gets sworn in. If we're organized, we can convince Congress to make major changes towards cleaner, cheaper and domestic energy resources."

Either that or he's trying to corner the market on something else.  I've been assured by people who have had dealings with him, he's strictly out for #1.

Good catch!  I said the exact same thing in this thread:  http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10613&whichpage=1


Not to quibble, but I think he's angling for dark horse VP for the GOP.  Or yeah, now that you mention it, there is something of a Perot-cedent for this kind of thing.  

[B)]

[Conan71]

Ooops, glossed over the other thread on discussion.  I've been out of pocket the last couple of weeks and skimmed over that.

Here's my theory on potential political motivations with this:

Pickens is a bright guy.  My theories spring from the political ad nature of his message.  Perusing the web site, why would they want to collect a database of emails and zip codes just to inform people about his plan?  I think he's watched how Obama has exploited the internet into a successful campaign.

He knows he can't get enough votes to win but he's got a big enough ego, he might spend a hundred million for the thrill of telling everyone he ran for president.  All the while, he spreads a message that would get lots of free media for his next big hedges: wind, solar, and natural gas.

He spends hours upon hours studying trends and statistics.  Let's say he's been reading the tea leaves and isn't satisfied McCain can win the White House.  Generally, Republicans don't fare as well with lower income segments.  45% of the voters in in 2004 reported less than $50K per year in household income.  As well, 17% of voters were in the 18-29 bracket.  Lots of starving college students and kids trying to get their adult lives started.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Families earning less than $50K are really getting their asses kicked by $4.50 gas.  If T. Boone can convince even half of those voters  that McCain or Obama are part of the problem and to vote for him, guess who suffers worse?  Obama.

The lower middle class and the poor have been hit hardest by high gas prices and high utility prices.  It's not looking to improve much in the fall either.  Just wait till heaing oil season ramps up back east.  Iraq is falling as a major issue in the conscience of voters as energy is going up.

Here's my crazy prediction:

He doesn't wind up getting McCain 15% to 20% more of the vote, but takes 15% to 20% from Obama, and McCain wins.  He cuts a deal with McCain to take up his energy policies after the election, and Pickens has his guy.

To those who have not followed his career, Pickens will seem like a white knight and total D.C. outsider.  He's never run for nor held public office that I'm aware of.  In reality, he's part of the problem if you believe futures traders share blame in the energy crisis.  He brags consistently that he's made more money trading energy than producing it.

It's not too far-fetched.  Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote in 1992.  How'd he do it?  He parlayed the post-Desert Storm recession into a campaign against the professional politicians in Washington, and gaping deficits.  He also managed to attract fiscal conservatives who were still pissed off that Bush violated his campaign pledge of "no new taxes".

The result was, Bill Clinton turned out to be arguably one of the more fiscally conservative Presidents we've had. (I say arguably as there are those who feel the GOP revolution in '94 had more to do with it).  On paper, he showed a surplus by the time he left office.  Whether it existed or not is still a topic for debate.

I don't care to spark a debate over either of those points.  My point is to show there is historical and statistical precidence for an independent to throw an election and Pickens has got the money, name recognition, and clout to pull it off.

Here's the flip side.  I'm skeptical that Pickens is very altruistic.  Sure, he's generous with his wealth, but it wasn't two months ago he was predicting $20/mcf natural gas.  This is a guy who has made a fortune betting on futures.

"In 2003, oil futures a few years out were trading at $20 to $25 barrel. Given how much it cost to find and pull oil out of the ground. Pickens was convinced that those, prices were absurdly cheap. The started him on a multiyear buying spree of oil futures four or five years into the future. Oil eventually jumped to nearly $80 a barrel in July 2006, and the bets turned out to be huge winners."

http://www.capitalideasonline.com/articles/index.php?id=2513

I don't think Pickens would angle for a spot in someone else's cabinet.  If he became VP or Sect'y of Energy he'd have to either divest or put everything into blind trusts.  He's a guy who likes to be in control, I don't see it happening.  However, I could see him being ambitious enough to tip an election over to ensure a friendly administration to his energy investments.

To men of Pickens' wealth, it's never enough.  It becomes a challenge to earn more and more.  According to the article I cited above, he's supposedly paid 90% of all the federal taxes he's paid in his life in the last 9 years.  He's 79 now.

I could be all wet, it very well could just be that he's not going to let natural gas kick his donkey again.  He had to sell Mesa in 1996 due to being way over-invested and leveraged on natural gas.  It didn't go up as quick as he thought it would.

He's a pretty quick learner.  The alternative could be that he's collecting emails and zip codes so he can go to whichever  candidate will adopt his "policies" and promise votes.

Don't bet against T. Boone Pickens, he's a pretty good gambler himself.

[FOTD]

Non sense. Boone's an egomaniac who is half dead. His aim here is nothing but self promotion. Perhaps, he has some guilt issues.

"Don't bet against T. Boone Pickens, he's a pretty good gambler himself."  Yes. Using other people's money and charging a huge fee or keeping the cream for himself.

Boone's no angel. The devil got screwed. His time is short. Time to leave a legacy....

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Non sense. Boone's an egomaniac who is half dead. His aim here is nothing but self promotion. Perhaps, he has some guilt issues.

"Don't bet against T. Boone Pickens, he's a pretty good gambler himself."  Yes. Using other people's money and charging a huge fee or keeping the cream for himself.

Boone's no angel. The devil got screwed. His time is short. Time to leave a legacy....

Well you just described your-self to a T......Except your legacy will be idiotic ramblings....

[FOTD]

Another hit and run sucker punch.

[we vs us]

Conan, I think you're about 90% right.  Pickens could run the the Perot route pretty successfully, though I think 1) his age would really be a factor, and 2) a Pickens candidacy would siphon from McCain rather than Obama.  

In an election where a lot of the issues are generational, Pickens' age would hurt him, even if he's willing to talk about things that other Republicans aren't (energy dependence and alternative sources).  

And I can't see him being an attractive enough centrist to draw much away from Obama's base, or from the independents that Obama will reach.  His personal history is a natural pull for GOP voters, and not so much at all for your generic Dem.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Conan, I think you're about 90% right.  Pickens could run the the Perot route pretty successfully, though I think 1) his age would really be a factor, and 2) a Pickens candidacy would siphon from McCain rather than Obama.  

In an election where a lot of the issues are generational, Pickens' age would hurt him, even if he's willing to talk about things that other Republicans aren't (energy dependence and alternative sources).  

And I can't see him being an attractive enough centrist to draw much away from Obama's base, or from the independents that Obama will reach.  His personal history is a natural pull for GOP voters, and not so much at all for your generic Dem.

I think Perot knew he couldn't win, but he could affect the outcome.  Pickens would know that as well.  His candidacy would not be to win the White House but to hedge his own bets by helping to elect a BP Parters-friendly President.  

There were close to 20mm people in 1992 who basically said "none of the above" with their vote for Perot.  It's not voting for a person so much as voting a sentiment or not being able to bring onesself to vote for what's offered.

A vote for Perot in 1992 was a vote for getting rid of the deficit and pulling us out of recession.  I think most people who voted for Perot didn't think he could win, but they could not bring themselves to vote for professional bureaucrat/politicians Bush or Clinton with the economic climate at the time and they wanted to send a message.

Pickens' age would be irrelevant.  A vote for Pickens would be an ideological vote for energy independence and lower energy prices not for the person who would actually be President.  Another "none of the above" candidacy, if you will.  

Here's why I think he could cut into Obama's base more (not saying I'm right, just my theory into his logic and playing with exit poll stats from '04 and '92):  

Three groups who are hit hardest at the gas pump are families making $50K or less (not saying it hasn't hit all of us hard) and those in the 18-29 range because those people are just starting out or struggling to get through school.  

Another group might be union transportation employees.  American cutting jobs may be the tip of the iceberg for more travel, shipping, and logistics.  If blocs of Teamsters drivers are scared their loads may get put on rail from now on, they might be looking for a solution to $5.00 diesel.

The majority of the vote from those with family income under $50K, 18-29 year-olds, and Unions typically support the Democrat candidate.

I'm just saying, if a candidate wanted to pick one issue for which a solution is desparately needed, fuel prices alone is such a big deal, it could siphon off enough traditional Democrat voters to hurt Obama.

Please explain logic for him siphoning off from McCain, I'd gladly listen.

Wealthier voters aren't as affected by the energy crisis and probably are much more aware and skeptical of Pickens darker motives.  They'd also be less likely to piss away a vote on an ideology other than conservatism.

It's on the forefront of everyone's minds enough that a candidate running on that sole issue could very well siphon off 15 to 20% of the popular vote.  A nut-job like Nader doesn't have a prayer of getting even .5% of the vote.  Someone with Pickens $$ and credentials in the energy business could make it happen.

If he's just running an ad campaign to promote his own investments, I don't think he'd get near the bang for the buck as he would if he were running for Prez.  Either that, or he's preparing to "endorse" someone by essentially
throwing millions into an endorsement campaign.

I know my theory is "out there", but if he spent $100mm, plus all the additional free press time to influence energy policy in his favor by tipping a Presidential election, it'd be worth his investment to him and his investors.  He's got about $1.5 bln of his own money tied up in BP Partners.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Another hit and run sucker punch.

[FOTD]

That's not a sucker punch.....and he did not run away after.....at least not in the vid. How do you post that menutia?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

That's not a sucker punch.....and he did not run away after.....at least not in the vid. How do you post that menutia?

It's the best I could do on short notice. []

I'm one of God's friends, we know how to post all that cool stuff... pm me if you want to know.

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Ooops, glossed over the other thread on discussion.  I've been out of pocket the last couple of weeks and skimmed over that.

Here's my theory on potential political motivations with this:

Pickens is a bright guy.  My theories spring from the political ad nature of his message.  Perusing the web site, why would they want to collect a database of emails and zip codes just to inform people about his plan?  I think he's watched how Obama has exploited the internet into a successful campaign.

He knows he can't get enough votes to win but he's got a big enough ego, he might spend a hundred million for the thrill of telling everyone he ran for president.  All the while, he spreads a message that would get lots of free media for his next big hedges: wind, solar, and natural gas.

He spends hours upon hours studying trends and statistics.  Let's say he's been reading the tea leaves and isn't satisfied McCain can win the White House.  Generally, Republicans don't fare as well with lower income segments.  45% of the voters in in 2004 reported less than $50K per year in household income.  As well, 17% of voters were in the 18-29 bracket.  Lots of starving college students and kids trying to get their adult lives started.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Families earning less than $50K are really getting their asses kicked by $4.50 gas.  If T. Boone can convince even half of those voters  that McCain or Obama are part of the problem and to vote for him, guess who suffers worse?  Obama.

The lower middle class and the poor have been hit hardest by high gas prices and high utility prices.  It's not looking to improve much in the fall either.  Just wait till heaing oil season ramps up back east.  Iraq is falling as a major issue in the conscience of voters as energy is going up.

Here's my crazy prediction:

He doesn't wind up getting McCain 15% to 20% more of the vote, but takes 15% to 20% from Obama, and McCain wins.

You're insane.  There's no way Obama supporters are going to vote for this guy in large numbers.  He has nothing to offer Obama supporters.  However, there are a LOT of Republicans who are not happy with McCain and would vote for somebody they feel is more "conservative" whatever that means these days.  A Pickens candidacy would guarantee an Obama presidency.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by bugo


You're insane.  There's no way Obama supporters are going to vote for this guy in large numbers.  He has nothing to offer Obama supporters.  However, there are a LOT of Republicans who are not happy with McCain and would vote for somebody they feel is more "conservative" whatever that means these days.  A Pickens candidacy would guarantee an Obama presidency.

Bugo, keep in mind, I'm really trying to get inside Pickens head.  I did say "out there" So calling me insane is fine w/ me.  I don't think I'm too far off the mark, if it were a Presidential bid or simply a massive endorsement campaign.

Take a good look at the voter demographics:

Families earning under $50K are likely not involved in the housing crisis unless their income fell drastically into that range.  The one thing which is hurting lower income America and younger people is high gas and energy prices.

Those income groups have traditionally voted Democrat due to economic reasons.  They have been promised more economic prosperity by taxing the uber-rich and re-distributing to them by using social programs, welfare, and SSI benefits to secure the vote.

Natural gas is still trading above $10/mcf, wholesale cost of heating oil is $3.79 as of this morning.  Gas prices are still above $4.00 on either coast.  By election time, the northeast and northern states will have had the heater on for at least a month.  People who burn fuel oil for heat will have already topped off their tanks.  We've all seen the increases in groceries and dry goods.

The biggest challenge by far facing American households earning $50K per year or less is transportation, heat, electric, food, and durable goods costs.  No small crisis for a family of four living off $40K a year.

Those people really don't give two ****s right now about the Iraq war, it's not their biggest problem unless they've got a family member in the fight.  They don't care about some idiot in Beverly Hills or Florida who bought too much house and lost it.  They don't care that Citigroup just posted a $2.5bln loss, or American posted a $1.4bln loss.

What they care most about, is what is being done to get fuel and energy prices back down.

Put someone on the stage who focuses soley on that problem, and a lot of the people hard-hit by the energy crises would likely follow.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Take a good look at the voter demographics:

Families earning under $50K are likely not involved in the housing crisis unless their income fell drastically into that range.  The one thing which is hurting lower income America and younger people is high gas and energy prices.

Those income groups have traditionally voted Democrat due to economic reasons.  They have been promised more economic prosperity by taxing the uber-rich and re-distributing to them by using social programs, welfare, and SSI benefits to secure the vote.

Natural gas is still trading above $10/mcf, wholesale cost of heating oil is $3.79 as of this morning.  Gas prices are still above $4.00 on either coast.  By election time, the northeast and northern states will have had the heater on for at least a month.  People who burn fuel oil for heat will have already topped off their tanks.  We've all seen the increases in groceries and dry goods.

The biggest challenge by far facing American households earning $50K per year or less is transportation, heat, electric, food, and durable goods costs.  No small crisis for a family of four living off $40K a year.

Those people really don't give two ****s right now about the Iraq war, it's not their biggest problem unless they've got a family member in the fight.  They don't care about some idiot in Beverly Hills or Florida who bought too much house and lost it.  They don't care that Citigroup just posted a $2.5bln loss, or American posted a $1.4bln loss.

What they care most about, is what is being done to get fuel and energy prices back down.

Put someone on the stage who focuses soley on that problem, and a lot of the people hard-hit by the energy crises would likely follow.

Interesting theory.

However, how is building a bunch of windmills in West Texas and drilling for more natural gas going to bring down the price of gasoline?

All Pickens is doing is shunting the production of electricity from coal to wind. And if you use more natural gas to generate electricity, the cost of natural gas will rise because of rising demand.

There are almost no electric cars on the market. Of all the rising energy costs America is dealing with right now, it's electricity that seems to be least affected.

Is Pickens also going to support an effort to retrofit all gasoline-burning vehicles into electric vehicles or natural-gas vehicles?

I do support Pickens' effort to take advantage of America's renewable resources for energy. But I fail to see how this is going to affect the price of natural gas and oil one iota. Changing America's vehicular fleet from gasoline-burning to electric and natural gas engines -- and changing the infrastructure to do so -- is going to take decades.

And if the country is going to do a Manhattan Project-style thing with its energy policy, then it'd better stop spending money on expensive wars and defense spending.

I'm not exactly Einstein, but it doesn't take a lot of thinking to realize that Pickens' Plan, no matter how laudable, certainly has sizable limits on the oil and gas market.

[Conan71]

Rwarn you are correct in your assumptions.

But observe how he is doing this:  T Boone is looking to inform with memorable 30 second sound bites, headlines, and the conclusion to the story in the first paragraph.

I don't know that he expects that many people to really dig into his proposals and weigh out all the alternatives, costs, and savings.  

He's hedging big-time on Natural Gas.  In theory, at least, getting gas burning vehicles to burn CNG is environmentally-sound and supposed to reduce our dependence on oil.  During an election year with a major energy crisis, it's an donkey-kicker of a promise.

Don't forget, not all the east coast is hooked up on natural gas.  Many large industrial users and homeowners alike still burn fuel oil for heat.

Shut down natural-gas burning powerplants in favor of wind, funnel the NG into cars, and pipe it to anyone who doesn't have it already.

Look, you and I both know it takes X amount of Btus and kilowatts to meet the USA's transportation, heating, and energy needs.  It's just where do you pull it from and how much of an appeal can you make to patriotism (made in America) in the face of a huge energy stick-up.  NG has trended upward with oil and usually will.

One thing I do know for certain:  T. Boone looks out for T. Boone first.  He was blabbering about $20/mcf natural gas for this winter two months ago.  He went long on it and he's trying to create the demand now.  NG prices dropped yesterday as a result of a much larger than expected surplus going into NG reserves.

Let's see how this plays out in the coming weeks.  A friend of mine thinks he wouldn't have time to get on all the ballots before November.

Pickens is a businessman first, patriot second.  He doesn't want to be President, but I'm thinking he might pretend to to make a few more billion $$$.