Poll: Cap And Trade Is Popular In Some Conservative Dem Districts
It’s become a Beltway article of faith that Blue Dog and conservative Dems have to tread really carefully on health care because their vote on cap and trade earlier this year was tremendously risky in so-called “marginal” districts.
But is this really true? I’ve obtained a new poll done for the Environmental Defense Fund which found that in three conserva-Dem districts, backing cap and trade vote may not be a huge risk, after all. The poll, done by respected Dem firm Garin Hart Yang, found:
* In Blue Dog Dem Heath Shuler’s North Carolina dictrict, cap and trade is supported by 55% of voters, versus 29% opposed.
* In Blue Dog Dem Baron Hill’s Indiana district, cap and trade is supported by 45%, versus 30% opposed.
* In Dem Rep. Tom Perriello’s conservative Virginia district, cap and trade is supported by 42%, versus 25% opposed.
“We went into three districts where conventional wisdom held that Demorats took a tough vote on cap and trade,” Allan Rivlin, a partner with Garin Hart Yang, told me. “The poll shows that it didn’t hurt these members in these districts. It actually helps them. Even in districts that are represented by moderate or conservative Democrats, supporting action on climate change is the popular position to take.”
Worth keeping in mind. When the cap and trade debate heats up again, we’ll hear lots more about how risky it is for “marginal” Dems to support it. It’s striking how often reporters (myself included) just accept the view that such votes are risky in districts like these, simply because someone, somewhere, claimed this is the case.
I’ll bring you a link to the full poll shortly.
*****************************************
Update: The full poll is here.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
RE: Shuler
Is his district all that conservative anyway? Doesn’t he represent Ashville? My understanding is that hes much much much more conservative than his district would mandate.
The right wing is focused on health care. Wait till they spread out the paranoid borderline schizophrenic conspiracy theories on how this Administration is trying to turn us into a communist nation and Obama is out to kill us off by increasing costs and forcing us to starve to death.
It’s coming, don’t worry.
Note also, “The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 34 of 52 Blue Dog – held districts, and has overall popularity of 51 percent in these districts versus 39 percent opposed.”
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/analysis-public-option-is-likely.html
Isn’t Bachman already saying Obama wants to tell us what we can eat and how many calories we’re allowed or some such nonsense. Oh yeah the screaming meamies on the far right are just waiting for the next big fight.
Cap and Trade is going to be popular everywhere, just like health care reform is.
sbj
Hence the reason the progressives are keeping the heat on.
Plum Line right on target! And what a public health option and cap and trade have in common is that both – in some form or other – are inevitable attributes of a progressive, developed society. But neither can be distilled into a sound bite for sale to our distressingly ignorant public and the lowest common denominator thereof: our US Representatives.
@lmsinca: I really don’t quite understand what is motivating Blue Dogs to oppose cap and trade and the public option. Perhaps they are thinking more about what’s good for the country? Any theories?
Regarding cap and trade and h/c reform, I would like to hear your take. It was recently revealed that the Obama admin itself expects the average family to pay more than $1700 year eventually to cover increased cost of energy under cap and trade. Even the Baucus bill, if I am not mistaken, will charge an extra tax on the very expensive health insurance plans out there. Personally, I have just such a plan. I have to tell you, I make pretty good money and in this economy I am finding it difficult to make ends meet. The extra $1700 per year will hit me, and the tax on generous health insurance will also hit me. I’m not too keen on shelling out all of this extra dough when things are so tight. Am I alone with these concerns?
This is what sbj’s America looks like.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/32905906#32905906
>>>what a public health option and cap and trade have in common is that both – in some form or other – are inevitable attributes of a progressive, developed society<<<
Another commonality: both vigorously opposed by two of the most profitable and also the most destructive industries in America (and both use astroturf tactics to fraudulently make their side look like grassroots opposition).
Mike
I saw that last night. It’s something we pretty much already knew, but to see it illustrated so effectively was enlightening. I’d like to know how many of the DC protestors were actually from those states.
sbj
Do you really think the Blue Dogs are trying to do what’s right for the country necessarily? Have you followed the lobbying efforts of the health care industry and where they are funnelling their money? These people are trying to get re-elected and still give us something to call health care reform. As far as the Baucus bill you’re preaching to the choir.
@mike: “This is what sbj’s America looks like.”
What in the hell does that even mean?
My America looks like your America.
I’m tellin’ ya. I think Snowe is gonna be another Specter.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/snowe-i-wont-let-my-party-dictate-my-vote-on-health-care-reform.php?ref=fpa
@lmsinca: Here’s a good look at where the healthcare PAC money is going. Frankly, along with the blue dogs, I see an awful lot going to Pelosi, Hoyer, and Waxman?
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/node/1917
sbj, the problem is that those concerns are unfounded. Nobody is going to sign any legislation that amounts to a tax hike on the middle class. The $1700 number comes from the Heritage Foundation and disseminated around the Right Wing echo-chamber via Drudge.
Assistant Treasury Secretary Alan Krueger:
“The reporting on the Treasury analysis is flat out wrong. Treasury’s analysis is consistent with public analyses by the EIA, EPA, and CBO, and the reporting and blogging on this issue ignores the fact that the revenue raised from emission permits would be returned to consumers under both administration and legislative proposals. It is time for an honest debate about how to solve a long-term challenge and deliver comprehensive energy reform – not for misrepresentations of the facts.”
sbj, YOUR problem is that you go to the Republican source first and then need to be walked back to reality.
At what point do you stop and notice the obvious pattern? You aren’t stupid.
But if you continue to base your political stances on misinformation and corporate agenda-driven media outlets, there’s no other word I can think to call you.
sbj
Once again, you’re preaching to the choir. I’ve been complaining about this for months. At least Pelosi is hanging on to the PO and so is Waxman, but I believe but Hoyer is a waffler. My point is still that the progressives are keeping the pressure on for the kind of bill that will really help all Americans and the Baucus bill better just be a jumping off point to get somewhere better.
Jay Rockefeller on Charlie Rose, last night.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10616
He is standing tall on making many changes to the Baucus bill proposal. He is not happy about the gang of six approach, which shut out all the rest of the committee, and ended up being just the gang of three.
Take a look and listen to him. Very impressive.
BTW sbj
My R congressman is one that’s listed as one of the most corrupt in the House. Still working on getting him booted out in 2010.
Come on over Olympia- the water is fine!
@ethan: Wrong on so many counts. Here is a concise reply to your comment:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/16/taking_liberties/entry5316600.shtml?tag=mncol;txt
“Is cap and trade still worthwhile? Yes, if the demonstrable benefits outweigh the costs. So in addition to considering its benefits, let’s also look for a full and complete accounting of exactly how much Americans are being asked to pay.”
You fail to mention so much that I dare call you naive. The estimate comes from the Obama admin and is based on Obama’s plan – not the House plan and not on any Senate plan. Since the final version has yet to be written I see no problem with estimating the cost based on Obama’s own plan. I believe you mean the Competitive Enterprise Institute and not Heritage Foundation. CEI is not a right wing outfit. The Obama admin denied the existence of these estimates and they had to be obtained through the FOIA. The report contains curious redactions and the admin will still not address them: “It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.” The documents show that the cost will be between $100 billion and $200 billion – previously the admin had failed to admit this. “If rising temperatures are significantly harming the planet, and cap and trade would reduce greenhouse gases enough to slow the rise, that would be a real benefit. [Unfortunately], “Nobody has ever said this will change the temperature.”
I will not stoop to call you stupid.
@lmsinca: I am afraid that the Baucus bill is the one that will garner some bipartisan support and that the admin will arm-twist progressive Dems to get it passed through the House.
sbj, Heritage has been flogging Cap and Trade since 2007.
“”"In The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP hit in 2020 was $161 billion (2009 dollars). For a family of four, that translates into $1,870–a pretty big chunk of change that the CBO is ignoring.”"”
>>>The estimate comes from the Obama admin and is based on Obama’s plan<<<
Once again. *sigh* you are flogging incomplete and misleading numbers.
Read:
[The House bill] would cap emissions at 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, a steeper initial reduction than the 14 percent cut proposed by Obama. Another key difference is that while Obama would have had the government sell 100 percent of the available allowances, the House bill would give away 85 percent of them to start while auctioning off only 15 percent. (Those differences are in how the program is phased in. Eventually both proposals would auction 100 percent of allowances and cap emissions at 83 percent below 2005 levels in the year 2050.)
The initial 15 percent of auctionable allowances would be used for the specific purpose of protecting consumers from higher energy costs. According to an outline of the proposed allowance allocation, "15% of allowances will be auctioned each year and the proceeds of these allowances will be distributed to low- and moderate-income families to protect them from other energy cost increases."
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/cap-and-trade-cost-inflation/
So if you want to get your panties in a bunch based on Right Wing think tank numbers that misrepresent a phase-in of cap and trade over the next 40 YEARS, then fine. If that’s your final position then you are… okay, GULLIBLE.
The planet is cooling and there is good science indicating it will do so for around 30 years. CO2 is a trace element that promotes plant growth and therefore agricultural production. Cap N Trade is just a way to collect more taxes and nmake life harder.
@ethan: I am not wearing my panties (right now!) and I am not basing my numbers on a think tank analysis. Stop writing that!
The analysis comes from the U.S. Department of Treasury which estimates that Obama’s proposals “would result in new taxes between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
You seem to be willfully misrepresenting what I have written. Watch: “The estimate comes from the Obama admin and is based on Obama’s plan – not the House plan and not on any Senate plan. Since the final version has yet to be written I see no problem with estimating the cost based on Obama’s own plan.”
We are not critiquing the House plan – which is not the final bill at any rate – the Treasury Department analyzed Obama’s proposals. Now, quit telling people that I am basing anything at all on right wing think tank numbers.
BTW Ethan: You might be interested in the CBO analysis of your House bill. Not pretty.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10573/09-17-Greenhouse-Gas.pdf
Thanks sbj. Unfortunately Plum Line is blocking my posts again, just like yesterday.
But aside from that, the CBO pdf that you posted does contain very important information (pg 2+3):
* Climate change is an international problem with a moderate to severe negative impact on the United States if nothing is done about it.
* The cost of a policy depends on a number of variables (the stringency of the policy; whether other countries also imposed similar policies; the amount of flexibility about when, where, and how emissions would be reduced; and the allocation of allowances if a
cap-and-trade system was used).
* Economic impact of climate change policy would be, “comparatively modest. In the models that CBO reviewed, the long-run cost to households would be smaller than the changes in GDP.”
* Re: jobs, “Climate legislation would cause permanent shifts in production and employment away from industries focused on the production of carbon-based energy and energy-intensive goods and services and toward the production of alternative energy sources and less-energy-intensive goods and services.” All positive developments.
* If we do nothing we stand to risk about 5% of our economic output: “The most comprehensive published study includes estimates of nonmarket damages as well as costs arising from the risk of catastrophic outcomes associated with about 11°F of warming by 2100. That study projects a loss equivalent to about 5 percent of
U.S. output and, because of substantially larger losses in a number of other countries, a loss of about 10 percent of global output.”
So, I agree that it is not pretty. The report paints a crystal-clear portrait of the negative impacts of climate change and the risk of doing nothing to our economy and way of life.
Its also worth keeping in mind that these bills, in their current versions, or as amended and passed, are not the end of the analysis.
Its pretty widely stated among progressives that there is, ahem, even more progress needed, after these bills pass. There is always more progress needed. Thus any analysis of these bills tends to represent a floor on the level of government intrusion into private life and the private economy, and a floor on cost.
So all the “it costs X, no it costs Y” is a bit besides the point. Its not going to be either X or Y in a few years, but a number greater, probably substantially greater, than either. I believe looking at the history of all Federal programs, it is hard to honestly claim otherwise.
You can see this playing out at a fast pace now with the Fed becoming the de facto lender for almost all home mortgages, with the banks just acting as front men. Congress will increasingly determine who can get a home loan and under what conditions, because the “public option” will drive essentially all the private lenders out of business.
@ethan: “So, I agree that it is not pretty. The report paints a crystal-clear portrait of the negative impacts of climate change and the risk of doing nothing to our economy and way of life.”
I like your glass half-empty approach. Now perhaps you will read the other half and acknowledge the problems with the House bill? Too honest for you?
sbj, I posted directly from the key findings of the pdf. Your response is to insult me. Nice. Still waiting on your rebuttal to the FactCheck link I posted.
See, you post things, I rebut the thing you posted. I post things, you change the subject or post something different. In an intellectually honest world, you would rebut my posts. Frankly, I am used to you being a liar.
sbj, I posted directly from the key findings of the pdf. Your response is to insult me. Nice. Still waiting on your rebuttal to the FactCheck link I posted.
@ethan: Slowly. The factcheck link does not address the department of treasury analysis.
@sbj: Slowly. The treasury analysis is not an analysis of a bill under consideration.
@ethan: How many times will you make me repeat this?
“The estimate comes from the Obama admin and is based on Obama’s plan – not the House plan and not on any Senate plan. Since the final version has yet to be written I see no problem with estimating the cost based on Obama’s own plan.”
Haha. I’m not making you do anything. It’s not my fault you take your view from an opinion piece by a Libertarian op-ed columnist on CBS News (who devotes 4 paragraphs to the Heritage Foundation analysis), but NOT the key findings from a CBO report that YOU posted.
Heckuva job.
You’ve spent the last few hours arguing that my complaint about increased energy costs related to Obama’s cap and trade plan was, instead, an argument against the House bill that was based on the Heritage Institute’s analysis. That was a bald misrepresentation of what I wrote.
You’ve obviously not done much analysis of the CBO report.
@ethan: I’m not running away from this discussion but work calls so I will not be responding further. Thanks!
When you come back, I have some more questions I’d like your response to:
Why do you support the dirty energy industry that taxes American consumers for record-breaking profits, causing inflation of consumer goods which contributed to the recession?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry whose air pollution contributes to heart disease, pulmonary disease, and premature death among Americans; not to mention lost fiscal productivity due to said illnesses?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry who pays lobbyists to forge letters to trick members of the government?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry that has resulted in millions of gallons of oil spilled or leaked in every nook and cranny of the country?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry that at one point manipulated energy prices by illegally shutting down power plants to jack up the price of energy on consumers across the West/PNW and then laughed about ******** “grandma”?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry that wielded such corrupt influence in the Bush Department of the Interior that the group in charge of contracting leases for oil exploration were found to be snorting methamphetamines and trading *** for favors?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry that shelters corporate profits from paying American taxes by setting up off-shore “headquarters”?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry that uses the excuse of off-shore “headquarters” to do business with enemies of our country, like Iran?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry that was so excited about their gas pipeline in the Black Sea region that they invited the Taliban to Houston, TX for some wining and dining?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry that has created the climate change problem in the first place by lobbying against New Source Review and increased CAFE standards?
Keep your fraudulent financial projections. And if you’re following me, you know where you can stick them.
Great, I have a few more questions for you:
Why do you support the dirty energy industry that taxes American consumers for record-breaking profits, causing inflation of consumer goods which contributed to the recession?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry whose air pollution contributes to heart disease, pulmonary disease, and premature death among Americans; not to mention lost fiscal productivity due to said illnesses?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry who pays lobbyists to forge letters to trick members of the government?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry that has resulted in millions of gallons of oil spilled or leaked in harbors, rivers and on land in every part of the country?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry that in recent years manipulated energy prices by illegally shutting down power plants to jack up the price of energy on consumers across the West/PNW and then laughed about ******** “grandma”?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry that wielded such corrupt influence in the Bush Department of the Interior that the group in charge of contracting leases for oil exploration were found to be snorting meth and trading s3x for favors?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry that shelters corporate profits from paying American taxes by setting up off-shore “headquarters”?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry that uses the excuse of off-shore “headquarters” to do business with enemies of our country, like Iran?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry that makes deals with corrupt governments like Nigeria, allowing these multinational corporations to extract oil at the expense of people indigenous to the area while paying kickbacks to corrupt government officials?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry that was so excited about their gas pipeline in the Black Sea region that they invited the Taliban to Houston, TX for some entertainment?
Why do you support a dirty energy industry that has created the climate change problem in the first place by lobbying against New Source Review, increased CAFE standards, and any new energy efficiency or renewable energy policy over the past 30 years?
Oh that’s right. You’re a GOP shill. You can keep your fraudulent financial projections. And if you’re following me, you know where you can stick them.
Since its Friday afternoon ..
One of the things I’ve always found humorous about AGW (besides rebranding it to “climate change”, just in case, you know, the climate is not actually warming), are the religious parallels with medieval religious practice.
We have faith (”the time for debate is past”, “the science is not is dispute” thought it is), heretics (”deniers”), hypocrisy (private jets crowding the runways at global warming conferences held on remote resort islands, or Al Gore’s rather huge household energy budget), and even selling dispensations (purchasing carbon offsets, which makes your personal lifestyle morally just fine).
Its a funny world. Oh, I have to go, I think the AGW Inquisition is at my door …
“It’s striking how often reporters (myself included) just accept the view that such votes are risky in districts like these, simply because someone, somewhere, claimed this is the case.” Ya think? check out Mark Bowden’s piece in the October Atlantic to find out why this is so.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200910/media
It’s great to see these numbers, but it’s important for activists to remember that the “riskiness” of the vote isn’t about public opinion so much as it is about the media narrative and PR war.
@ethan: I’m baaack.
I don’t support a dirty energy industry. My point is that I can ill afford some of these changes.
Thanks for the reply but it doesn’t appear that you really want a response. I’ll see you on another thread?
Anybody who supports this legislation either a) is a left wing nut case or b) is somehow gonna profit themselves from it like good ole Al Gore.
Thanks for this cool post. Anyway i found your blog on google and find it very useful. I
Go Saints! Become a fan of facebook page here: Colts Will Lose Super Bowl 2010!