Most Voters Don't Consider Environmental Record

Foxnews ^ | 11-04-03 | Peter Brownfeld

[Indy Pendance]

WASHINGTON

[concerned about politics]

but because of the terrible record of this president we think that will change," said Deb Callahan, president of the League of Conservation Voters (search).

WRONG! America has suffered massive environmentalwacko forest fires this year.
It appears the dirt and rock worshippers were wrong, wrong, wrong!
Vote to clear the forests ! Stop the fires! Vote Republican!

[votelife]

I think many Dems who didn't conisder national security will suddenly think a lot about 9/11, etc

[Common Tator]

The truth is here is how it works. Democrats vote for Demorcrats in every election. Republicans vote for Republicans in every election.

The voters who say the environment is important would not vote for Bush even if he were more liberal on the environment than Gore.

What is up for grabs is the center. The center or independent votes make up about 30 percent of the voters in a presidential election. About half of those independents vote for the man .. not the party. That is they vote for the most likeable candidate. If they like him they vote for him.. if they don't like him they don't.

The other half of the independents vote for the issues of the day. Their primary question is what will you do for me. They are the quintessential "It's the economy stupid kids." If they aren't dying or in danger they don't give a rats rump about anything other than the economy and benefits for them.It is the "What's in it for me!" group that Democrats have been good at attracting to their candidates ever since the 1930s. Democratrs are always going to do something for you.

It is this group that Dick Gephardt is going after with his universal health care. Bush with a number of seemingly leftist issues has gone after this group as well.Bush wins the likeable indpendents hands down. If he gets some of the "What's in it for me" group he is a sure winner.

I don't see any of the Democratic candidates winning the likeability contest. So no matter what happens in 2004 Bush is no worse than a tie. But if the economy is booming as it looks like it will, Bush will win well over half the "What's in it for me!" group. They will vote for bush because the economy will be good under Bush, and they will be afraid to do anything that might screw things up.

Base Democratic isssues like the environment play no part in a presidential election. If Nader runs again most of them will vote for him. If he doesn't most of them won't vote.

The author knows this as well as I do. The dedicated E voters voted for Nader because the saw no difference between Bush and Gore. This will not persuade the E voters that Bush is worse than the Democratic nominee.

The far left enviornmentalists are not going to vote for the Democrat. And if the Democrat moves left enough to get them, he will lose all the center to Bush.

The name of the game in every presidential election is the center. He who wins more than half of the center wins.

He who panders to the fringes of his party loses.

[Indy Pendance]

I agree with your post. I knew someone who voted for clinton in 92 just because gore was an environmentalist.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[wilsonwallingford]

I think that the article doesn't go far enough--most people don't vote according to ANY specific candidate's policy, environmental or otherwise. GOP pollster Frank Luntz has figured this out quite explicitly. What Luntz does is put together focus groups and shows speeches and other candidate expressions and identify key words that people respond positively too.

His advice to candidates is that, if you want to get votes, phrase your intitatives and speeches in ways that resonate with these focus group results. If you do this, you can pretty much keep your policies the same.

This makes sense when you realize that most working people don't have time to sift through policy documents and proclamations and debates about the ramification of specific policies in order to assess their potential worth. That's why you get these silly names for legislation like the "Clear Skies" initiative (http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/) or "No Child Left Behind" (http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=pb) that don't speak at all to the debate surrounding their possible effects.

Ask 90 percent of the voters any specific policy question and they will most likely give inaccurate information. The media, of course, dows little to help intelligent discourse, because public policy is complex and it is very difficult to talk about complex subjects between commercial breaks!