The Mark UP

Tag Archives: polling

Yet Another Poll Show Latinos Want Political Candidates who Support Clean Air and Clean Energy

Posted by: Adrianna Quintero -

This week, a poll of Latino voters in Colorado again shows that when it comes to environment, Latinos want political candidates who support clean air and clean energy.

A poll released last week by Latino Decisions on behalf of Nuestro Rio, showed that Latino voters in Colorado want oil shale companies to disclose any potential water impacts before moving forward. This poll echoes results of a September poll of Latinos released by the NRDC Action Fund that Latino voters in four swing states –  Nevada, New Mexico, Florida and Virginia — decisively favor candidates for president and the U.S. Senate who support clean air and clean energy policies over candidates who don’t.

This Latino Decisions/Nuestro Rio poll found that Colorado Latino voters would overwhelmingly support a candidate who prioritized water protection over development. Given that Latino voters are an estimated 12% of the electorate in Colorado, this new data should give pause to candidates whose stump speeches revolve around letting polluters, and especially oil and coal companies, have their way with our land at the expense of our health and the well-being of our communities.

In this electoral season, regulations and protections on air and water have been tarnished as unnecessary burdens on the “poor little oil and coal” companies. Still, despite a multi-million dollar advertising campaign designed to convince voters that the only way to create jobs is by drilling our land and polluting our air, this poll, like those before it, shows Latino voters are not buying it.

While there are many important issues facing Latinos in 2012, including jobs, the economy and immigration, new polling shows that Latino voters in Colorado also care deeply about protecting the environment. Even when told by pollsters that some argue oil shale production could create jobs, a strong majority of Latino voters preferred more government action to ensure the environment is protected.

These findings reflect those expressed by over 100 business leaders, recreation organizations, farmers, ranchers and others in a letter to the Bureau of Land Management (a division of the Department of the Interior) this summer.

Furthermore, these poll results, and those preceding them, are not surprising when we consider that most Americans are concerned about drought and want to shift to cleaner energy and away from dirty energy sources, like oil shale, to avoid water shortages. This is particularly true given that there is no viable oil shale industry to speak of, and instead, is defined by a century of failed efforts to jump-start oil shale production by polluting waters in the West while spending millions of dollars of taxpayer funds.

These voter opinions show how out of touch Mitt Romney is when pushing for less protections of our air and water while demanding more protections of Big Oil profits that have already brought in $1 trillion  since 2001.  Romney’s proposals to slash tax incentives for clean energy sources, like wind, despite the fact that the wind industry produces tens of thousands of jobs in manufacturing, construction, and other services, run completely counter to what Americans want.

Latino interest in environmental protections is nothing new. Beyond being a culturally relevant issue for Latinos, many Latinos see the connection between protecting air and water to protecting our health. Perhaps that’s why when asked how important the protection of rivers, mountains, and air in Colorado was as an election issue, given all the various important issues on the agenda, a majority of Latino voters rated environmental protection as “important.”  Only 2% of respondents said it was “not at all important” as an election issue this year.

With the election around the corner, Latinos want candidates who can guarantee a healthier future—and they will go to the polls looking for a candidate who cares about their health and well-being. President Obama’s plan puts people and their well-being first, and that’s something Latinos get.

Full poll results posted here

 

Tags: , , ,  

New Poll: Energy to be “Very Important” to Voters in November

Posted by: NRDC Action Fund -

With the contestants in November’s presidential election now apparently set, voters are beginning to think about what will be important to them in choosing a commander in chief. A new poll out this week from the Pew Research Center found that 61% of respondents ranked energy as “very important” to their decision.

As the NRDC Action Fund’s Running Clean report showed, clean energy presents candidates with a positive, solutions-based narrative to talk about issues that matter most to Americans: jobs, the economy, gas prices, and the health of their families.

With President Obama and Governor Romney running neck in neck according to the same poll, clean energy provides an opportunity for the President to distinguish himself and win over voters who care about reducing our dependence on oil, improving our national security and building a new economy based on the American spirit of innovation.

As the campaign heats up, we’ll continue to follow the way these “very important” energy issues are playing here on the stump and on the airwaves here on the blog and on our Facebook page. We hope you’ll join us.

Tags: , , ,  

API’s Next Sham Campaign

Posted by: Heather Taylor-Miesle -

Today the American Petroleum Institute launched its latest attack on our great nation with their “Vote 4 Energy” or “I vote” campaign.

At the campaigns unveiling, API President Jack Gerard explained, “We are doing this because an electorate that is educated on energy issues will demand of all candidates, for every office, a commitment to honest common-sense discussions of how we can achieve energy security…”

I look forward to engaging in that discussion with Gerard and candidates for office because the electorate has been pretty clear what they want:

A Pew poll done last year found that 71 percent of Americans believe “This country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment.”  And 59% believe that “strongly.” The same poll found that 63 percent favored prioritizing clean energy, such as wind and solar. Only 29 percent favored expanding exploration and production of fossil fuels.

A more recent poll from November by the Washington Post and Pew Research Center found that 68 percent favor developing solar, wind, and hydrogen, only 26 percent oppose it. This compares to 58 percent who favor drilling offshore or on federal lands, and 35 percent who oppose it.  Support for nuclear energy is supported by only 39 percent of Americans while 53 percent are still opposed.

Voter support is even stronger when it comes to cleaning up pollution caused by fossil fuels. A poll conducted by Ceres on behalf of a coalition of investors, environmental, and public interest organizations found that 75 percent of voters think the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), not Congress, should determine air pollution standards. 88 percent of Democrats, 85 percent of Independents, and 58 percent of Republicans oppose Congress stopping the EPA from enacting new limits on air pollution from coal-fired power plants.

Mr. Gerard implies that somehow Americans aren’t having an honest discussion about energy but I don’t think Mr. Gerard, with his $4.31 million salary and corporate perks, has any idea what normal people are talking about and how honest or dishonest the conversation is. In fact, API spent almost $6 million last year lobbying Members of Congress to continue their oily ways.

Despite API’s expenditures, voters are pretty clear what they want. I am sure that API will spend a lot of money spreading falsehoods in 2012 (like this one, this one, and this one) to further scare politicians beholden to corporate interests who don’t want to pay to clean up their messes. But if your audience is truly the public, Mr. Gerard, let’s have this debate.

I vote and my kid’s health and our country’s economic future matter way more to me then your bottom line. I am betting that there are millions of other voters just like me.

Huntsman Must Change Strategies to Rise

Posted by: Heather Taylor-Miesle -

Former Governor Huntsman has once again said he accepts the reality of climate change. He told ABC’s Christiane Amanpour on Sunday: “Let me make it crystal clear. I’m on the side of science in this debate.”

He is now the only GOP candidate for the White House who stands by climate science. All the others have denied it from the start or changed their positions once they got in the race. Even Huntsman had a temporary lapse a few weeks ago, but he quickly cleared up any doubt that he sees climate change as a threat and believes humans have caused it.

Huntsman knows this position sounds reasonable to the moderate voters who will sway the presidential election. A recent Pew poll found that 63 percent of independents agree there is solid evidence of rising temperatures. And more than six-in-ten moderate and liberal Republicans say there is solid evidence of global warming.

But in the GOP primary circus, science gets no respect and Huntsman gets no love. Nearly every other candidate has been the flavor of the week, except for Huntsman. How can he finally get his day in the sun? By reminding voters his is a stable, consistent leader who doesn’t flip.

Huntsman hasn’t captured the limelight yet because he looks too much like Romney. He is another conservative – but not Tea Party, Mormon governor with a background in business. At a time when voters and party leaders are looking for the anti-Romney—even former RNC Chairman Michael Steele saidof Romney “the brother just can’t bake the cake”—you can’t win by being more Romney than Romney.

Huntsman has to distinguish himself, and he can do that by emphasizing the very thing his opponent lacks: steadfast conviction.

Take the issue of climate change. In June Romney told a crowd: “I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that… And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases.” But then Romney’s commitment to scientific fact went the way of his positions on health care reform and collective bargaining: it flipped. In October 2011, he said: “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.”

Huntsman, meanwhile, acknowledged the threat of climate change when he was governor of Utah and he acknowledges it now that he is a candidate for the White House. He holds his convictions for more than a news cycle and that counts for something these days. Our country is in upheaval, and voters are wondering where the adults are. Huntsman is an adult. Whether you agree him or not, he represents exactly what he always has. And in the face of a shifting economic and an uncertain future, stable, even-keeled leadership will sound good to a lot of voters.

But Huntsman can’t wait for voters to come to him; he’s got to do a better job of reaching out to them. If Newt Gingrich has stepped into the ring before you got your turn, you know your campaign strategy isn’t working. Huntsman should change it by emphasizing constancy.

Voting Against Children is Bad for Lawmakers’ Political Health

Posted by: Pete Altman -

Turns out dirty air isn’t just bad for kids’ health – its bad for members of Congress who vote for it.

New polling conducted by Hart Research finds:

In a policy climate that is heavily focused on jobs and economic issues . . .  pollution and clean air standards—especially when framed around public health impacts—are an important and electorally relevant issue for voters in this critical target audience.

The findings are based on an intensive polling program commissioned by the NRDC Action Fund and focusing on three members of Congress, two of whom voted to block clean air standards and one of whom voted to strengthen them.

Following their votes to block the cleanup of toxic pollution from incinerators and industrial boilers (HR 2250), the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter and the League of Conservation Voters ran an ad criticizing Representative Tim Walberg (MI-07) and Environment Ohio ran an ad criticizing Representative Steve Stivers (OH-15).

Environment Ohio also praised Representative Betty Sutton (OH-13) in a TV ad, for her vote to clean up the toxic pollution from these sources.

NRDC Action Fund commissioned Hart Research to poll moderate ticket-splitting voters in each of their districts before and after the ads ran, to find out what effect knowledge of their member’s votes on air pollution would have on how they see them.

In other words, how members of Congress vote on air pollution and health motivates most swing voters; voting against clean air can politically hurt politicians, while voting for it can help them.

A quick recap of the findings:

In Tim Walberg’s district (MI-07):

  • Swing voter support for Tim Walberg dropped by 9 points between the pre-ad and post-ad polls; while the percent of undecided voters increased by 14 points during the same period, landing at 48% undecided after the ad.
  • Most swing voters – 57% say that knowing their Representative had voted to weaken clean air standards would cause them to feel less favorable toward the Rep – and 33% say this would make them feel much less favorable.
  • Walberg’s favorability among swing voters took a hit as well, his unfavorability going up 6 points from before to after the ad. Of those voters who definitely recalled the ad, 42% viewed Walberg negatively.

In Steve Stivers’ district (OH-15):

  • Swing voter support for Steve Stivers dropped by a stunning 15 points between the pre-ad and post-ad polls, cutting his advantage over an unnamed opponent from a twenty point lead to a five point lead. At the same time, the percent of undecided voters increased by 15 points during the same period, landing at 53% undecided after the ad.
  • Most swing voters – 53% say that knowing their Representative had voted to weaken clean air standards would cause them to feel less favorable toward the Rep – and 27% say this would make them feel much less favorable.
  • Swing voters’ negative feelings toward Stivers went up by 6 points between pre- and post-ad polls. Of those voters who definitely recalled the ad, 28% viewed Stivers negatively.

In Betty Sutton’s district (OH-13), ads praising the member for standing up for clean air clearly had a positive impact:

  • Betty Sutton’s net advantage over an unnamed opponent increased by 5 points.
  • 53% of swing  voters say that knowing their Representative had voted to protect clean air standards would cause them to feel more favorable toward the Rep.
  • Positive feelings about Betty Sutton went up as well, going from 28% positive pre-ad to 34% positive post-ad.

The campaign wonks out there will want to dig in to the memo, so I’ll let it get the rest across. But the bottom line message is pretty clear: a vote against clean air can cost members swing votes back home.

This post was updated 11/15/11.

« Older Posts