It’s the gas pumps, stupid
Back in the 1992 election cycle, some bright bulb in the Bill Clinton camp taped up the now famous “It’s the Economy, Stupid” sign, and it became history – then legend. Less than a year ago, many Democratic supporters – salivating over a repeat of the 2006 GOP blowout – were saying, “It’s Iraq, Stupid.” Earlier this year we saw a return to 1992 as a sluggish, torpid economy turned voters against George W. Bush and the GOP brand. With the onset of summer, however, $4 per gallon gas – threatening to soar to five – seems to have triggered a tipping point. The Campaign Spot seems to think this could be the new, major wedge issue.
Rasmussen Reports conducted a special Florida survey to measure the immediate impact of the offshore drilling issue on the Presidential race. As one part of the survey, respondents were told that McCain favored offshore drilling and said it would bring down the price of gas and oil. They were also told that Barack Obama opposed offshore drilling and said it would not bring down the price of gas and oil. After hearing the views of both McCain and Obama, most Florida voters agreed with McCain—61% said it was likely that offshore drilling would reduce gas prices. Only 34% disagreed and said that offshore drilling would not accomplish that goal.
Some notable Democratic enthusiasts, such as Jerome Armstrong of MyDD noted, in another key swing state, that “Seventy-one percent (71%) of Ohio voters agree with McCain’s position that the ban on offshore drilling should be lifted, while 18% disagree.” This is obviously raising concerns.
The politics have changed, and I don’t see the principle that guides Democrats to be unequivocally against offshore drilling for oil at this point. We are stuck on oil for a long time. Congressional Dems should adopt the position, include some safeguards, and alongside billions in funding for finding alternative fuel solutions, make it part of a long-term solution.
As I have said repeatedly in this space, fuel prices and energy concerns are going to be the major issue for voters this fall at the rate we are going. Summer gas tax “holidays” and lawsuits against OPEC or encouraging voters to take staycations vs. vacations are only bandaids, and pathetic ones at that. We need to loosen restrictions on the construction of new nuclear plants to boost electricity generation and remove all need for fossil fuels put to that purpose. And until we can bridge the gap to permanent, renewable fuel options, we’re going to need to get more energy from someplace, and local drilling combined with clean coal will likely be needed to carry the day.
John McCain has already proposed the construction of 45 new nuke plants and allowing states to make their own determination about offshore drilling and new refineries. These are traditionally risky propositions which would likely have turned off voters in the past. But given the tipping point we have reached, I would ask my fellow independents, undecideds and third party enthusiasts the following question: If the two parties remain on their current collision course over increasing energy supplies, in 2020 will we be chortling over the McCain volunteer who pasted a piece of copier paper to the campaign office wall reading, “It’s the gas pumps, stupid?”
14 Responses to “It’s the gas pumps, stupid”
T-Steel here in Detroit was probably the first on here to claim that $4.00 would be pivotal. I love to drive and this has certainly been a pivotal thing for me, at least in the sense of torture! (I'm currently having to make multiple runs between Detroit and Lake^H^H^H^H my former home in Iowa — 1,100 mile round trips cost a lot of money now.) The cost of fuel has definitely inhibited my discretionary travel and it seems to have affected others as well, as I noticed less traffic on the highway for the Memorial Day holiday.
On the other hand, it's not yet truly pivotal, as I've seen firm evidence of day after day here and in Iowa. That is, people are still driving much too fast, accelerating too rapidly (many times at full throttle), not thinking ahead, and in general they are continuing to needlessly waste fuel day after day. That hasn't changed yet. They are also not changing in large numbers to smaller vehicles yet. Bear that in mind.
(Related note: During the past fuel-shortage-driven fuel-price problems this nation has faced, people did eventually change somewhat to smaller vehicles, but they changed back once the problems ended, “burning” the auto makers, which is why conservatism retarding any anticipated or desired rush to replace larger vehicles with smaller vehicles as a long-term strategic decision has been in effect. The automakers don't want to panic or be rash any more than anyone else who may be overreacting to high current fuel prices, and get “burned” producing vehicles that people quickly stop buying later, once fuel prices ease.)
(Related note in brief: You can't predict the market.)
The Republicans tout drilling anywhere and everywhere they may be oil and seemingly want nothing else, while the Democrats want to develop alternative fuels and seemingly want nothing else. Really, the true position everybody should be going for combines both solutions. Have an equal amount of time spent drilling for oil, while also researching and developing alternative solutions. Then sit back and let the market decide. Unfortunately, if oil drilling does pan out, that may just revert us to a gradual decline in domestic production again, bringing us back to where we are now, eventually. Then again, if the yields do take 10 years to show up, like the Democrats claim, the alternative fuels are waiting in the ready.
The oil companies need to be doing both, because if the domestic drilling doesn't pan out, and the bottom does fall out of production in the next 20 years, they'll be stuck in the past, while anyone developing alternative fuels will whiz by. Both drill and develop, and they'll be set for whatever circumstance comes upon us.
By the way: whatever happened to switchgrass ethanol? Not heard much about it since the 2006 SOTU.
People are driving *slightly* less — news reports are showing that the total miles driven are down a few percent. If I recall my numbers correctly, I saw a quick hit on the TV this morning that Americans have driven 1.5 billion fewer miles this year than the same period last year. Nonetheless, the roads sure are clogged up here, most people still haven't significantly changed their driving habits.
IMHO, the one thing I think that could get people to reduce their driving habits would be a small little digital gauge on the dashboard that shows the real-time value of the gas they are burning (like a tripometer, only in dollars). If Mr. and Mrs. Commuter has a clear, visual reminder that it costs them $6.73 in gas to drive to work each morning, they may rethink their habits a bit.
Actually, mlhradio, the figure was 1.4 billion fewer miles in the month of April alone. It's not massive,but certainly a significant figure.
In the 21st century I think we are going to be seeing a lot of signficant changes in the patterns of how people live, work and travel due to the continued rise in energy costs. Its inevitable.
The current pandering to voters in response to high energy costs is pure voodoo, but its still fooling people because of the sharp pain in the wallet that we feel each time we fill up to engage in our unsustainable lifestyles. Oil companies have millions of acres (think two whole midwest states' land area) of leases already in effect that they could use for drilling oil. 80% are not being used. This grab at such targets as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and our coasts is pure shock doctrine at its best. Taking advantage of people's concern and financial worries to claim yet more land from the US taxpayer, with NO guarantee of prices staying in line (markets are unpredictable as DLS stated).
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/38223.html
So, the stuoid policy will win over the smart policy, and how you frame an issue is more important than policy consequences?
That's depressing, though not surprising.
These polls mislead the public. To get a more dependable reaction, the questions would need to include alternatives and realistic definitions.
How about:
Would you support drilling it that meant that in 10+years gas prices would be reduced by 6-10 cts? I don't remember the exact numbers, but this is the approximation done by Bush's own energy expert.
Or:
Would you support drilling if the governemenn investment resulted in reduced funding for a) the troops b) infrastructure c) heath care e) renewable or alternative energy?
For 8 years, it's been the politics of fear. How did that work out?
Now it's the politics of gas prices. Are we going to vote stupid again?
I think a compromise on offshore drilling would be advisable.
To give people the impression that that's some kind of soltuion to energy problems is despicable.
“IMHO, the one thing I think that could get people to reduce their driving habits would be a small little digital gauge on the dashboard that shows the real-time value of the gas they are burning (like a tripometer, only in dollars). “
Oh, yes. Not a vacuum gauge or a smarter kind of vacuum gauge, but this — the Scan Gauge.
http://www.scangauge.com/
It's for use with vehicles that have OBD II equipment (which means most vehicles now). I bought the first generation when I was in upstate New York and got the second generation just before going from Iowa to Michigan. The second gen has additional parameters that can be monitored and can give you monetary cost-related figures. (I usually don't check money figures but do check miles per gallon and often fuel flow.)
Letting the oil companies drill anywhere they want is only acceptable under one set of conditions. They would have to agree to be fines that would be a financial death penalty for the executives if they screw up the environment through negligence. You know, like letting an alcoholic ship captain stay on duty. Something along the lines of a fine equal to half of the previous years net profits. That should guarantee some high level heads rolling if they don't do their absolute best to avoid catastrophe.
Letting the oil companies drill anywhere they want is only acceptable under one set of conditions. They would have to agree to be fines that would be a financial death penalty for the executives if they screw up the environment through negligence. You know, like letting an alcoholic ship captain stay on duty. Something along the lines of a fine equal to half of the previous years net profits. That should guarantee some high level heads rolling if they don't do their absolute best to avoid catastrophe.
And even with that I have severe doubts about ANWR. Trying to claim that an environment like that won't be severely affected by pipelines, roads and truck traffic seems dubious.
And even with that I have severe doubts about ANWR. Trying to claim that an environment like that won't be severely affected by pipelines, roads and truck traffic seems dubious.
Only a few days ago, I said there should be some compromise between environmental concerns and driiling for oil.
Then I found out that there are already large offshore areas availabel for drilling, only there is no drilling going on.
Now that McCain has taken ANWR off the table, his whole drilling policy looks like a cheap tirck..
People have a habit of falling for cheap tricks, unfortunately.
Only a few days ago, I said there should be some compromise between environmental concerns and driiling for oil.
Then I found out that there are already large offshore areas availabel for drilling, only there is no drilling going on.
Now that McCain has taken ANWR off the table, his whole drilling policy looks like a cheap tirck..
People have a habit of falling for cheap tricks, unfortunately.