67% Support Offshore Drilling, 64% Expect it Will Lower Prices

[GaryC 7]

67% Support Offshore Drilling, 64% Expect it Will Lower Prices

rasmussenreports.com Tue Jun 17, 8:37 AM ET

Most voters favor the resumption of offshore drilling in the United States and expect it to lower prices at the pump, even as John McCain has announced his support for states that want to explore for oil and gas off their coasts.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey--conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% don't believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters.

Nearly all voters are worried about rising gas and energy prices, with 79% very concerned and 16% somewhat concerned.

McCain is expected to formally call today (Tuesday) for the lifting of the federal moratorium on states being allowed to explore off their coasts for oil and gas deposits. While acknowledging it is only a short-term response, he has described it as a good first step toward reducing U.S. energy dependence on overseas sources.

The Outer Continental Shelf moratorium, passed in 1981, bans exploration for offshore natural gas and oil deposits. Barack Obama, McCain's opponent for the White House, voted against an effort to lift the ban last year in the Senate. He argued that it was only a short-term solution. National Democratic Party leaders and most environmental organizations for years have strongly opposed efforts to explore for oil off the coast of the U.S.

According to the new survey, 85% of Republicans are in favor of offshore drilling as opposed to 57% of Democrats and 60% of unaffiliated voters. Those who call themselves conservatives favor such drilling 84% to 46% of liberals and 59% of self-designated moderates.

African-American voters are less supportive of such drilling than whites--58% to 71%.

Women are more skeptical than men about the impact such drilling will have on gas prices: Nearly one out of three male voters (32%) say prices are very likely to go down, a view shared by only 23% of women.

Four out of five Republicans (79%) think prices are likely to fall thanks to offshore drilling, a view shared by only 55% of Democrats. Sixty percent (60%) of unaffiliated voters expect it to happen.

Voters also believe 61% to 22% that oil companies should be required to reinvest at least a portion of their profits into alternative energy research. On this question, liberal and moderate voters are strongly supportive of the proposal while conservatives are more evenly divided (47% of conservatives in favor, 35% opposed).

Data released yesterday showed that Americans believe developing new energy sources is the best long-term solution to the nation's energy problem. Forty-seven percent (47%) said private companies were more likely to solve the nation's energy problem than government research programs. But, at the same time, only 52% said companies should be allowed to keep the profits from the discovery of any alternative fuel sources.

This national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on June 13, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080617...4EW2XnmRcZsnwcF

[HAL 9000 96]

Drill, drill, drill!!

[Peikko 1,575]

I think that pretty much sums it up - and if the Dems can't see that this perception of reality is a problem come November then they deserve to lose.

Gas and the economy are the keys at the moment (things can of course change) and the candidate who promises to put more dollars in the pocket and lower gas prices for Joe ave working poor is the candidate who will win. It doesn't matter much if the promises are deliverable, what matters is how they are delivered and if they can persuade voters that what they are saying makes sense.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think that pretty much sums it up - and if the Dems can't see that this perception of reality is a problem come November then they deserve to lose.

Gas and the economy are the keys at the moment (things can of course change) and the candidate who promises to put more dollars in the pocket and lower gas prices for Joe ave working poor is the candidate who will win. It doesn't matter much if the promises are deliverable, what matters is how they are delivered and if they can persuade voters that what they are saying makes sense.

I think that it will boil down to making unsustainable promises to pander votes vs. making declarations of change that may happen... or may not. Either way, things must not be sugarcoated by applying short term fixes that are not short term in happening nor realistic in execution.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Although in that same rasmussen poll 27% thought that it was not likely to lower gas prices - that's the same percentage as those who thought it would "very likely" reduce costs.

people aren't necessarily convinced of the benefit even if they do support

personally, I'd like to see the results for the individual states (FL, CA) as opposed to those who who wouldn't be affected by it. Even Republicans in those state oppose off-shore drilling.

[Peikko 1,575]

Look, those numbers are a problem. If that 64% is truly representative of how people think - which I don't know but it's certainly possible - then Barack has to come up with a good argument to counteract this because oesoteric arguments don't translate too well to these voters and they are likely to be the voters who swing the day.

One thing he could do would be to start to press the real effects on the household budget of putting into effect a good, comprehensive health care system. If he could demonstrably show that the savings on gas would be completely negated and then some by McCain's health plans then he could start to persuade the voter that gas prices are less important than they are percieved to be at this time.

However, I don't see that being pushed anywhere. He is losing the war of words at this time. I don't like it, but that is how it goes - this is particularly true if it is also true that the media is dominated by 'liberal' sympathizers, or whatever epithet is being used at this moment. The rags are full of the gas stories - and the relationship between gas prices and Dem policies. It will be ignored at his peril.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Drill, drill, drill!!

[HAL 9000 96]

Look, those numbers are a problem. If that 64% is truly representative of how people think - which I don't know but it's certainly possible - then Barack has to come up with a good argument to counteract this because oesoteric arguments don't translate too well to these voters and they are likely to be the voters who swing the day.

One thing he could do would be to start to press the real effects on the household budget of putting into effect a good, comprehensive health care system. If he could demonstrably show that the savings on gas would be completely negated and then some by McCain's health plans then he could start to persuade the voter that gas prices are less important than they are percieved to be at this time.

However, I don't see that being pushed anywhere. He is losing the war of words at this time. I don't like it, but that is how it goes - this is particularly true if it is also true that the media is dominated by 'liberal' sympathizers, or whatever epithet is being used at this moment. The rags are full of the gas stories - and the relationship between gas prices and Dem policies. It will be ignored at his peril.

It would do him well to get into some long-term solutions that include putting into play more fuel-efficient standards and incentivization for better affordability for the general public. You know, instead of stripping education funds to fund wars he can increase spending on these issues that people care about like gas prices, education, real homeland security, etc.

We'll see how he does soon.

[GaryC 7]

Look, those numbers are a problem. If that 64% is truly representative of how people think - which I don't know but it's certainly possible - then Barack has to come up with a good argument to counteract this because oesoteric arguments don't translate too well to these voters and they are likely to be the voters who swing the day.

One thing he could do would be to start to press the real effects on the household budget of putting into effect a good, comprehensive health care system. If he could demonstrably show that the savings on gas would be completely negated and then some by McCain's health plans then he could start to persuade the voter that gas prices are less important than they are percieved to be at this time.

However, I don't see that being pushed anywhere. He is losing the war of words at this time. I don't like it, but that is how it goes - this is particularly true if it is also true that the media is dominated by 'liberal' sympathizers, or whatever epithet is being used at this moment. The rags are full of the gas stories - and the relationship between gas prices and Dem policies. It will be ignored at his peril.

Your position of outside looking in is right on. Big Dog and Mav laughing at this will come back to bite them. Not everyone sees things as they do, in fact more people see it as I do. That seems to be a reoccurring theme with them. If you don't see things the way they do then your an idiot and not worth talking to. I say let them have at it. They will not be laughing come november.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I don't think this will come down to Obama versus McCain anway but individual states - and the states in question oppose it. Is McCain going to tell schwarzenegger he has to drill, even though he and most of california is opposed to it? I don't think so.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, but rather sensibly I think he is not rashly committing spending from the war coffers to other areas because he knows full well that he can't decide now what to do with the troups when/if. So, from a electoral point of view, that's a bit of a non starter.

My opinion, and it is simply that, flawed as it is, is that he needs to agressively push the voter into thinking about areas where he can make a difference - health care propoosals are one opportunity (and of course therein lies my bias) but I am sure there are others.

What he can't really do is use the 'we need to tighten our belts now in order to recieve the benefits later' type arguments. They fail to motivate these swing voters (well, in my opinion at least). What motivates them is how they see their personal economic situation. Will it improve or will it not. Gas is the great motivator at this time and McCain has seen his window of opportunity and is racing ahead with it.

[HAL 9000 96]

I don't think this will come down to Obama versus McCain anway but individual states - and the states in question oppose it. Is McCain going to tell schwarzenegger he has to drill, even though he and most of california is opposed to it? I don't think so.

Exactly.

[HAL 9000 96]

Ah, but rather sensibly I think he is not rashly committing spending from the war coffers to other areas because he knows full well that he can't decide now what to do with the troups when/if. So, from a electoral point of view, that's a bit of a non starter.

My opinion, and it is simply that, flawed as it is, is that he needs to agressively push the voter into thinking about areas where he can make a difference - health care propoosals are one opportunity (and of course therein lies my bias) but I am sure there are others.

What he can't really do is use the 'we need to tighten our belts now in order to recieve the benefits later' type arguments. They fail to motivate these swing voters (well, in my opinion at least). What motivates them is how they see their personal economic situation. Will it improve or will it not. Gas is the great motivator at this time and McCain has seen his window of opportunity and is racing ahead with it.

I agree. Unfortunately Americans are not built on the notion of investing in the future beyond what is immediately self-gratifying. McCain is merely capitalizing on a very real feeling of "need" to be able to move from place A to place B given our current geographical plan as a nation.

What McCain fails to realize is the economic impact of continuing a failed fiscal policy and a military operation that does little to help future (and perhaps somewhat present) economic prospects. Perhaps he can count on die-hard support, but the same demographic that opposes the war has been and continues to develop a sense that the economy is directly correlated to the actions of the government that represents us. Gas included. Hence it would do well for Obama to publicize more about his proposals and ideas to make sustainable plans, not quick fixes that coincidentally profit a certain group of corporate friends.

[Dan J 277]

Any solution to bring the price down will at best, take years to have a significant effect. If we start drilling, it will take years before we actually get any of that new oil on the market. But the question remains, is it profitable enough that a company would do it on their own, or do we have to provide subsidize to get companies to drill own in AWAR and other places.

Florida and California rely heavily on tourism and attracting rich people to beach front properties. If an event happens to spill oil on those beaches, would the economic gain in the local economies from oil be able to offset the loss from tourism/wealthy citizens?

What would have slightly more immediate effect is bringing back value to the dollar. Considering how much debt we have accured in foreign banks, to pay that off will take many years. But we can at least stop borrowing money to subsidize our budget and war.

If you can't impact the price of gas, you can impact personal economics in other ways that will offset the increase in the cost of oil.

Bringing the cost of health care down, will free up money for both consumers in businesses, which can be used to buy or invest in other things.

[nana_356 0]

Sounds like another gimmick to me! Its only because his numbers are down when it comes to the economy!

Edited June 17, 2008 by nana_356