Pew Poll: Dem-GOP strengths by issue

Pew Poll shows which party the public feels better to address certain issues. Republicans lead best with fighting terrorism and immigration and the Democrats lead best by tackling energy problems. The numbers still are close on other issues.

Share
  • Ron Marquez

    …..”and the Democrats lead best by tackling energy problems.”…..

    As long as the solution is green. Dems sure aren’t advocates of increased drilling.

    • eagle eye

      It’s going to be a long time before anyone is advocating drilling again. “Drill baby drill” not a slogan to run on in November.

      Apart from drilling — an election killer now — what is the Repbulican energy plan?

      • valley p

        They don’t have a plan B, except maybe let the free market work it out.

      • Anonymous

        The plan should be nuclear energy. That is the only real alternative energy source at present. (And it’s no substitute for oil, by the way.) The Democrats are locked into the alternative energy fantasy. Nobody has an energy plan, because no good plan is presently possible. (Nuclear energy excepted.) Maybe someday solar energy, far in the future, but not now without massive cost increases.

        • valley p

          Nuclear energy is very expensive, risky, and creates long lived pollution. A serious nuclear event would make the Gulf oil spill child’s play. And nuclear is no substitute for oil in any case. Oil is not used for generating electricity in the US. If you want to use less oil, you have to have more efficient (smaller, lighter) vehicles, higher densities, more mass transit, and more bicycling. In short more of the things Republicans constantly complain about.

          So like i said, there is no Plan B. The only real question is whether enough Americans are ready to get behind the Democrats Plan A. Bite the bullet and start making changes or get accustomed to seep water oil spills no one knows how to prevent or repair.

          • Anonymous

            Somehow we’ve managed to survive getting 20% of our electricity from nuclear plants. France gets 70-80%. New reactor designs will soon make whatever risk there is virtually nonexistent. The waste problem is way exaggerated. In the first place, the waste should be recycled to recover the remaining energy. In the second place, its relatively benign after about 1000 years — no more dangerous than unmined ore. There’s no reason on earth why it can’t be confined for 1000 years.

            Anyhow, there is no Plan A.

          • valley p

            Yes, we have survived. And we would survive a single plant meltdown, though a big part of the country might be uninhabitable for a few centuries. Your continued faith in complex technology is impressive given what happened in the Gulf. Mine is less so and favors lower risk, more dispersed systems that when they fail don’t bring down large parts of the country with them.

            Benign after only 1000 years? That is 750 years longer than our nation is old. Talk about leaving our grandkids a legacy.

            Plan A was passed by the House last summer. It would reduce the use of fossil fuels by 80% in 30 years time. It does not rely on new nuclear, but doesn’t prohibit its further development if private utility companies decide that is their best investment. Plan A is more energy efficiency, smaller personal vehicles, more transit, faster deployment of wind, solar, geothermal, wave, and other technologies. The only thing preventing Plan A is 41 Republican Senators representing around 40% of the people. You and they don’t like Plan A, fine. Create your own that is better.

            Or go back to drill baby drill. That was the strategy last year no?

          • Anonymous

            Plan A is a fantasy. Congress can make a law that the oceans turn into lemonade, but it won’t happen. Plan A actually is technologically backward, to say nothing of being based on scientific and economic unreality.

            As I mentioned, there are new reactor designs that will completely eliminate the (negligible) chance of a catastrophic meltdown.

            Other countries will go ahead with nuclear power — some already have — even if we don’t. They will show the way.

          • valley p

            “As I mentioned, there are new reactor designs that will completely eliminate the (negligible) chance of a catastrophic meltdown. ”

            Completely eliminate? Says who…the reactor designers? That is what BP said before they got their drilling permit. No chance of a well blowout due to multiple redundancies.

            If there is no chance of a meltdown, then there is no need for the US government to underwrite the insurance in case one does happen right? So power companies who want to build should be able to do so without government backing them up just in case, since there is no just in case.

            The nation that has gone farthest with nukes is France, and the government completely runs the program, similar to BPA out here. Private utilities simply buy the power, they do not operate the plants. Is that what you are advocating? Socialized production of electricity using nukes?

          • Anonymous

            BP never said any such thing. If they had, it would make no sense, because they can’t physically eliminate the possibility. New reactor designs will do just that. Read up on them.

            Given the insane tort laws in the United States, I doubt that any utility will ever want to give up the government insurance guarantee. (By the way, that is a good reason for the government to run the reactors: you don’t get too far suing the government, and the liability becomes a non-issue.)

            The bit about France having socialized nuclear power is just a red herring. If it’s too unsafe for private utilities, it’s too unsafe for a government monopoly. And anyway, we don’t have to ape the way any other country does things. Nuclear power can undoubtedly be run either way. In the United States, it’s basically a very heavily government regulated industry. Don’t believe me? Try roaming freely at a U.S. national lab doing reactor research.

          • valley p

            I stand corrected.BP did not say there could not be a blowout, but they assured the regulators that they had the means to quickly shut a well down and prevent oil from reaching shore in the event of a leak 10 times the size of the current one. As we now know, that was not the case.

            Insane tort laws? BPs liability was limited to $75 million by law, but clearly the damage is already way beyond that limit. A serious nuclear accident would quickly bankrupt any private utility, so the only way they can finance a project is with government assuming the bulk of the liability, and this is the law. I agree these laws limiting liability are insane, but for different reasons. Limiting liability simply encourages companies to cut corners and shift the risk to us. That is insane.

            I did not mean to imply that I think the French program is safely run. French plants may or may not be any safer than our own nuclear plants. But as you say, if the worst does happen then in the end it will be the government’s problem to deal with, so why not have the government run the plants in the first place. At least corners won’t be cut to improve profits.

            I agree nukes in the US are highly regulated. So was the banking system, the coal mining industry, and off shore drilling. Our regulation record of late does not have me sleeping comfortably with respect to nuclear power plants.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >”Drill baby drill” not a slogan to run on in November. ….Apart from drilling — an election killer now — what is the Republican energy plan?

        Well, no matter what they do, they will have more of a plan than BO Co. All BO has is a six month moratorium on off shore drilling.

        Seems to me like the Democrats have a negative energy plan, so not a lot of need for Republicans to come up with much of anything.

        Democrats want to bring up energy in November?

        That would be a windfall for Republicans as Democrats are a target rich enviroment on this one.

        Where to start?

        BO’s huge campaign contributions from BP?

        How about BO Co’s ridiculous enforcement of regulations, giving the platform a safety award? that would be a good one. (note to Dean, please keep sillyness like your notion that conservatives are against all regulations confined to the kids table)

        Or how about this? The six month moratorium, which will mean the oil will have to be replaced by tankers. Point out that tankers spill between 20 and 30 times the amount of oil that platforms do. That would be good.

        Then of course there is the presidents golf game. Wasn’t it like about a month , with lots and lots of golf going on, before BO ever went down there?

        Come Novemeber Democrats are going to be quiet as a mouse on energy. If they want to bring it up Republicans should consider themselves lucky.

        After all despite the BP mess, the public still supports drilling. Hardly an election killer.

        The public wants real solutions and BO knows it. That’s why he made big fanfare about approving limited off shore oil drilling a few months before this mess (ok, well, the huge BP contributions might have also had something to do with it)

        No way Democrats are going to bring up energy with that last little pickle hanging out there.

        yes yes – I know standard eagle eye deer in the headlights response – “go ahead, run it up the flag pole”

        Republicans don’t have to run anything up the flag pole, they just have to wait for the Democrats to run it up and they will be sitting pretty.

        • valley p

          “Well, no matter what they do, they will have more of a plan than BO Co. All BO has is a six month moratorium on off shore drilling.”

          Wrong as usual. Obama favors what the House already passed or failing that, the current proposal in the Senate. That is more of a plan than no plan.

          “Seems to me like the Democrats have a negative energy plan, so not a lot of need for Republicans to come up with much of anything.”

          I thought they did not have a plan. Now I am confused.

          “note to Dean, please keep sillyness like your notion that conservatives are against all regulations confined to the kids table”

          I never said ALL regulations Rupert. Just MOST of them. or any that environmentalists or Democrats propose. Cheney had his energy meeting after all. We know how that went.

          “Point out that tankers spill between 20 and 30 times the amount of oil that platforms do. ”

          I agree with you. I think your party should run on continued drilling for oil in our offshore waters regardless of the oil industries inability to stop their leak on the argument that anyway there is so much oil fouling our wetlands and beaches from the same oil industries leaking tankers. I think that is a winner of an argument for the free market solving the problem.

          “Then of course there is the presidents golf game. Wasn’t it like about a month , with lots and lots of golf going on, before BO ever went down there?”

          You might want to check your facts before chipping in for that ad. Or not. Go right ahead.

          “After all despite the BP mess, the public still supports drilling. ”

          Less by the day. A few more months of the leak, a few more million gallons washing up ashore, a few thousand dead birds and loss of 40% of our commercial fishery, maybe another terrorist attack financed by oil money, and by then maybe even you will get it.

          “No way Democrats are going to bring up energy with that last little pickle hanging out there.”

          Is that a prediction? Could it be you are already wrong. Could it be the House Dems already passed an energy bill and the Senate Dems just put one on the table? No. That couldn’t be because they don’t want to even bring the subject up.

          “Republicans don’t have to run anything up the flag pole, they just have to wait for the Democrats to run it up and they will be sitting pretty. ”

          I agree again. I think the Republicans should sit right on top of the flagpole all made up and pretty, propose nothing at all, and wait for the Democrats to bring up whatever topic they want, and then just say the opposite or nothing at all. I think that is a winning formula. Plus it is easier than actually thinking about how you might govern if you are elected.

          I say go for it. Put Rupert in charge of party strategy.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >I thought they did not have a plan. Now I am confused.

            Well, Lord knows why you thought that.

            No one ever said they had no plan. I certainly didn’t say it.

            Not much point in reading the blather of someone who doesn’t have the reading skills to know what he is responding to.

            I am now understanding why prior to the election, you maintained that BO was not a liberal.

          • valley p

            Rupert writes: “No one ever said they had no plan. I certainly didn’t say it.”

            Rupert wrote just above that: “Well, no matter what they do, they will have more of a plan than BO Co. All BO has is a six month moratorium on off shore drilling.”

            And he adds: “Not much point in reading the blather of someone who doesn’t have the reading skills to know what he is responding to.”

            We agree. I would only add there is not much point in responding to the blather of someone who can’t even comprehend his own writing.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Good lord – You even quote me where I say the words “all they have is a plan” (referring to the Dems) and you still screwed it up.

            How the hell do you quote someone saying “all they have is a plan” and still misread that I said they had “no plan”

            You remain, as always, the fool of the blog.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Wow, ok, I have to admit, it looks like I set this up but I totally didn’t.

    *BO’s BP response is now rated worse than Bush’s Katrina response*

    Here is the link:

    https://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Media/poll-bp-oil-spill-rated-worse-katrina-criminal-charges/story?id=10846473

    And thats an ABC news/Washington Post poll. Its about as liberal as you can get.

    I absolutely positively swear I had no idea this poll was coming out.

    What a weekend – First my prediction on the Dow works out to be correct last Friday, and now this.

    Democrats want to bring up energy?

    Bring it on!

    We have a nice big albatross called BP to hang around your neck.

    • Anonymous

      Wow, ok, I have to admit, your ego is out of control, Nostradamus. And, no, it does not look like you’ve set anything up. It looks like Katrina happened five years ago and people are very emotional about the oil spill. Understandably. That’s what it looks like.

    • valley p

      “What a weekend – First my prediction on the Dow works out to be correct last Friday”

      And again Rupert, how much did you make on that prediction?

      “and now this.”

      And now what? You predicted a poll would say the public is unhappy with Obamas spill response? How can that be if you had no idea that a poll was coming out? You seem utterly confused by your own predictions or lack thereof.

      “We have a nice big albatross called BP to hang around your neck. ”

      Yes. An oil covered albatross at that. *Vote for us because we are the party that will prevent future oil spills by….decreasing regulations to allow more oil drilling* .

      That should work.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >And again Rupert, how much did you make on that prediction?

        Did I ever claim I made anything?

        No, I didnt.

        Sorry, your argument by diversion is really boobish. It has never worked with me, and you regularly get made fun of for trying this tactic. Why dont you give it up? It just make you look silly.

        >And now what? You predicted a poll would say the public is unhappy with Obamas spill response?

        I predicted Dems would not bring up energy because of their lousy response to the spill.

        The poll confirms what I felt prior to it being out was the publics mindset on this.

        I can’t beleive how everything has to be explained to you two or three times. I guess its because you never bother to think or read before responding. You mind is empty of all but thought that your leaders have put there.

        >Yes. An oil covered albatross at that. Vote for us because we are the party that will prevent future oil spills by….decreasing regulations to allow more oil drilling .

        Try and follow current events if you are going to comment on them ok?

        The situation is that BO Co. are the ones who were lax on regulations with BP.

        Got that?

        BO Co. is the ones that gave them a safety award.

        Got that idiot?

        BO is the one who got all the campaign contributions from BP.

        OK – Got that?

        Ok, so if anyone is going to get hammered on the regulations its going to be the Dems. Thus they will not bring it up in November.

        As an aside – since you often make some pretty offensive bigoted comments on this blog I thought I would ask you.

        What did you think of Helen Thomas’s anti Semetic remarks about sending the Jews back to Poland?

        I figure you supported her since you say that sort of garbage here on a fairly regular basis. Do you think she should have retired? Or do you feel she should have gotten an award?

        I just thought I would ask since some of the garbage you were spewing during the AZ immigration law discussions came to mind when I heard the Thomas remarks.

        • valley p

          “How the hell do you quote someone saying “all they have is a plan” and still misread that I said they had “no plan”

          It was covered in my response you failed to read. Your saying they had a plan was followed by your insinuation they have no plan BUT FOR a drilling moratorium. A drilling moratorium is not a plan, it is an action, so you in effect said they have no plan. If they had PLANNED a drilling moratorium, then that would be a plan Rupert. Think about it. Actually don’t think about it. We don’t need any exploding heads down in Springfield.

          “Did I ever claim I made anything?”

          No you didn’t. You claimed you made a genius market prediction. I assumed with that ability you would be placing bets regularly.

          Actually I was being facetious, but apparently it went past you. My apologies. Next time I will tell you I am being facetious when I am being facetious so you do not have to stop and figure it out ok? (That was actually being facetious. I probably won’t actually tell you next time. . But I did this time just to keep my word).

          “The poll confirms what I felt prior to it being out was the publics mindset on this.”

          Oh I see. That is perfectly clear now except for your garbled syntax. But thanks for explaining.

          “I can’t beleive how everything has to be explained to you two or three times.”

          It because make no sense very little of what say you, so try I do another shot to give because kind I am. (facetious again).

          “BO is the one who got all the campaign contributions from BP”

          Obama got ALL of BPs campaign contributions? Really? You are saying that BP gave nothing to any Republicans? How ungrateful given what Bush and Cheney did for them.

          “Ok, so if anyone is going to get hammered on the regulations its going to be the Dems. Thus they will not bring it up in November.”

          I see. If Dems mention regulations, Republicans are going to trump them by saying nyah nyah and arguing for stronger regulations on the oil industry. Ok By me. Maybe they will also run on setting up a carbon trading program since the Dems have failed to do so to date. Since the Republicans are the anti-Dems, that would make sense no? A few more moves like this and Republicans will have an energy policy.

          “since you often make some pretty offensive bigoted comments on this blog”

          Oh my…a have you stopped beating your wife yet moment. How clever of you Rupert.

          “What did you think of Helen Thomas’s anti Semetic remarks about sending the Jews back to Poland?”

          I don’t think anything of it. She is 90 years old and perhaps has a bit of plaque built up in the thinking part of the brain, a problem you may have some familiarity with given your frequent memory lapses. I think people like you getting worked up over the blatherings of a 90 year old is amusing however. But whatever floats your boat.

          “I figure you supported her…”

          Well then you figured wrong, but there is nothing new about that.

          “Do you think she should have retired?”

          Probably at least a decade ago. But that is between her and her employer and her physician.

          “I just thought I would ask since some of the garbage you were spewing during the AZ immigration law discussions came to mind when I heard the Thomas remarks. ”

          Since you have made this heroic yet also feeble attempt to change the subject with an as usual lame insult based on your weird but fascinating imagination, can I and other poor readers assume you are out of ideas on the BP oil thingie?

          And then can I get you to sign my petition calling for better regulation of offshore drilling?