No announcement yet.

"Democrats Pay a Price for Being Green"

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Democrats Pay a Price for Being Green"

    I think the Dem's should get even greener!!!
    Democrats Pay a Price for Being Green
    If the party was serious about winning back the Rust Belt, it would strike a smarter balance between the environment and the economy.

    Josh Kraushaar
    Dec. 6, 2016

    In the aftermath of the presidential election, Democrats have been blaming their defeat on everything but the obvious.


    [T]he most glaring problem for the Democratic Party is an unwillingness to even entertain the possibility that its policy agenda had anything to do with its stunning defeat.


    Let me offer a piece of unsolicited advice, one that Democratic strategists have discussed privately but are reticent to promote publicly for fear of alienating green activists. Taking a more moderate stand on energy policy—whether it’s supporting the Keystone XL pipeline, championing the fracking boom that’s transforming regional economies, or simply sounding a more skeptical note on the Obama administration's litany of environmental regulations—would do wonders for the Democratic Party’s ability to compete for the working-class voters who have drifted away from the party.

    If the GOP gains in the Midwest were an anomaly, perhaps Democrats could afford to cater to their environmentalist base. But this wasn’t the first time that Democrats lost significant ground in the region. In 2010, they lost a whop*ping 63 seats in the House in part because of failed cap-and-trade legislation; over one-third of the seats they lost were in the Midwest. Republicans amped up their attacks on Obama’s environmental policies during the 2014 midterms—airing more than 26,000 spots citing the Environmental Protection Agency—and swept nearly every competitive Senate race on their way to the majority.


    A March 2014 Pew Research Center poll, conducted during the Keystone debate, found that a 49 percent plurality of Democrats supported build*ing the pipeline—even though the president and top party leaders op*posed it. Among working-class Democrats (those who made less than $50,000 a year), sup*port for the Keystone project outdistanced opposition by a whopping 22 points (54 to 32). When your party’s own voters are at odds with its elite, it’s a recipe for disaster. Donald Trump’s Midwestern sweep was the culmination of these long-standing trends.


    If Democrats continue to raise holy hell on climate change but sound uninterested in promoting energy jobs, Trump will have a ready-made issue to exploit over the next two years.

    “Hillary Clinton lost Pennsylvania not be*cause she didn’t hit her margins in the suburban [Philadelphia] collar counties,” said a senior Democratic operative. “She lost because of a surge in white votes for Trump in the western part of the state. A lot of that is because of the so-called war on coal that has animated that part of the country since 2010.”

    To that end, it was ironic to see a few former White House officials and some Hollywood celebrities urging the party to engage in this month’s Louisiana Senate runoff—in a last-ditch attempt to hold down the Republican majority in the upper chamber. They lack the self-awareness to recognize that the Obama administration’s environmental policies make it all but impossible to compete in the energy-rich Southern state anymore.


    Politically speaking, the Democratic divide between environmental activists and voters concerned about the economic impact of regulations is akin to the divide between the GOP’s immigration hard-liners and party leaders. On immigration, Republicans faced the uncomfortable reality that their voting base was at odds with the party leadership. Democrats have the same problem, except their leaders are the ones most resistant to any changes.

    In 2018, Democrats will be defending a lot of Senate seats in States that voted for Trump and/or Romney and tend to be pro-energy and opposed to green schist...
    Last edited by The Doctor; 07 Dec 16, 08:03.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    It never helps a cause in this case energy (oil) when you drive an SUV or fly around on a jet while bitching about everyone else using fossil fuels. Alternative energy will be used in regional areas where it will be most effective. There is nothing to replace oil completely and thinking there is at this time is delusional. The heavy hand of Government will slow down the growth and evolution of alternative energy as it always has. The "free" market will create alternative energy as it usually does, with innovation and need. Look how much the Internet and computer industry has flourished without Governments heavy hand upon it. It is one of least taxed and regulated industries in America and has made incredible impact on our lives. Free Markets work when left alone or with less government "help".


    Latest Topics