73% support offshore drilling per CBS? - What BS!!

[Breeze54]

Figures CBS is using a RW poll!?

RW? http://www.americansolutions.com/drillnow/

& www.youtube.com/watch?v=aanSprhrhTk

RW? www.americantruckersatwar.com/2008/06/24/73-of-americans-support-offshore-drilling/

--------

Americans say environment is higher priority than economy - Jul. 3 ...
Jul 3, 2008 ...

Still, 73% of the more than 1000 Americans surveyed from June 26 to 29
said they favored an expansion of offshore drilling for oil and ...
www.money.cnn.com/2008/07/03/news/economy/environment_economy/index.htm?postversion=2008070313 -

---------------

1,000 polled people means 73% of ALL Americans support it?! What a load of CRAP!!!!!! :grr:

--------------------

Congress deadlocked over offshore drilling

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0728/p02s01-usec.html

Christian Science Monitor, MA - Jul 27, 2008

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will not allow a floor vote on offshore drilling.

snip-->

Last week, Republicans blocked three Democratic bills in as many days:

On Thursday, the House rejected a measure that would have released about 70 million barrels
of oil from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

On Friday, Senate Republicans blocked a move that would have led to a vote on a bill to stop
excessive speculation in energy markets.

On Saturday, the GOP minority again opposed taking up a $5.1 billion Senate measure to help
low-income Americans pay utility bills this year.

All three measures foundered on the same issue: a congressional ban on drilling in protected offshore areas.

Republicans are eager to lift the ban and promote more drilling. It's one of only a few GOP issues that appears to be gaining widespread support among voters in an otherwise bleak campaign season. "For the first time in two years, our side thinks we're on the winning side of a major issue," says Rep. Tom Cole (R) of Oklahoma, who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee.

But for Democratic leaders, the issue is politically toxic. Senate and House Democrats in hard-hit states, such as Michigan and Ohio, want to lift the ban. Those representing coastal districts generally oppose it. So does the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama.

snip-->

Senator Obama opposes offshore drilling in protected areas. Lifting the congressional ban would "merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years," he said in a statement after Mr. Bush's July 14 order lifting of the executive ban.

Republicans say that a Senate vote on the issue would expose the Democrats' divisions and embarrass Obama. "Senator Reid can't allow a vote that will put Senator Obama in a tough spot," says Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senator McConnell.

More....

It's one of only a few GOP issues that appears to be gaining widespread support among voters in an otherwise bleak campaign season. "For the first time in two years, our side thinks we're on the winning side of a major issue," says Rep. Tom Cole (R) of Oklahoma, who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee.

They've found their wedge issue!!

We can't let them gain any speed on this propaganda!!!

From: The Environmental Defense Fund

About us: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=382

No to Offshore Drilling, Yes to Energy Innovation

Take action now --

Tell your members of Congress that you oppose lifting the ban on offshore

drilling and that you support energy innovation to get us off oil.

Send a Letter To: Your Congressperson , Your Senators Here:

http://action.environmentaldefense.org/campaign/nooffshoredrilling

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Gee, wonder if they support drilling off the South Shore of Long Island by the Hamptons.

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. LOL! Of course they don't. NIMBY for them!

[safeinOhio]

21. It's time to drill

lets see how bad they want it. 1. Only allowed when all tax breaks for oil cos are repealed. 2. In sensitive areas a $50./barrel tax going to research. 3. Because tech. has made it safe for offshore drilling, we can now charge $1000./barrel clean-up fee for any and all spills. 4. All new discoveries will be banned from the "world market" and only be sold, at a large discount, within the U.S. 5. Only oil companies with headquarters(pay taxes) within the U.S. allowed.

Help me here with some more catches to see how bad oil wants it.

[tburnsten]

34. Out of all that

I really agree that we should disallow any oil we drill from exportation, we need to conserve our current energy means as long as possible while we implement and develop replacement technologies. Windfarms are great, why don't we have more of them yet? Tidal power is great, why don't we use it? Both of those power production types currently require power that isn't being generated by wind or water to be constructed and put in place. Until we get more clean, long-running reliable power plants in place we really can't stop pumping oil. And we are also a little handicapped by the incredibly slow march of the hydrogen fuel cell. When hydrogen cars don't cost a million or more a piece just to manufacture, we will be in much better shape.

Not sure your other ideas are so great though, one thing to keep in mind is that while oil companies do make quite a profit, and do compensate their members very well, they also usually end up sinking most of that profit right back into exploration for more resources.

[napi21]

2. It's probably true. At this point, people want to try ANYTHING to

bring gas prices down, and they're not thinking about any long term consequences.

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. Never mind the fact that any oil drilled here will be sold overseas and will

not benefit us at all. Some one should point that out. :silly: me.

[Breeze54]

25. You just did!!

:D

[napi21]

27. Most don't care about that! All they want is the price at the pump to go down!

You are looking at it from the standpoint of being foreign oil independant, but most just want cheaper gas and they don't care where it comes from or goes.

[bdamomma]

31. it won't help us in the meantime, the oil will not be sold to us.

and the environment will pay the consequences. Alternative energy sources could be found, if we would get their a$$es instead and wean us off our oil consumption.

[Tempest]

3. If the poll is scientific and unbiased

Then 1,000 people can representative of all Americans.

And 73% sounds low to me. I've seen polls where it's up in the 80s.

[tritsofme]

12. Its always amusing to see people rip apart polls they don't like.

There is rarely a poll that has over more than 1000 people in the sample, but if you don't like the result, it all of the sudden becomes invalid.

[Breeze54]

13. How condescending! Go ahead and trust a RW poll....

I'll bet you and Rasmussen are great buddies. :eyes:

[tritsofme]

15. Scott Rasmussen is probably an asshole.

But his work from 2004 onward has been great.

I judge polling companies by their accuracy, not based on whether or not I like the guy's politics.

Just because you don't like a pollster doesn't make their work less valid, and vice versa.

What exactly do you object to about the way this poll was conducted, besides the findings?

[Breeze54]

17. Rasmussen has not done great and skews the numbers. n/t

[fl410]

19. That figure would be closer to 90% in this part of the country.

I know you hate to hear that but it's true...we are a long way from the East coast and a long way from the West coast.

[Breeze54]

23. CNN doesn't have the results of the SURVEY anywhere.... and

snip-->

According to a CNN/Opinion Research poll, 49% of Americans say protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth. That compares to 44% of those surveyed who said the economy is the top priority, and the government should focus on economic growth even at the expense of the environment.

Still, 73% of the more than 1,000 Americans surveyed from June 26 to 29 said they favored an expansion of offshore drilling

But no way to see how they did the survey and no link, that I could find anywhere, so far.


I call bullshit!!

[Tempest]

28. Zogby - 74% support drilling

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1519

But I suppose it's a bullshit poll to you as well.


Protection of the environment is mutually exclusive of drilling. People can be for both. There's dozens of examples of this kind of phenomenon.

[Breeze54]

32. .................................

I said the CNN survey had no link and no way to VERIFY!!!

[Tempest]

35. God you're dense

You claimed:

1,000 polled people means 73% of ALL Americans support it?! What a load of CRAP!!!!!! and complained it was a rightwing poll. That's what I responded to.

Now you're claiming the survey had no link and no way to verify it.

I provided you with a poll that mirrored the poll YOU cited (and now claim can't be verified) and I'm the ass? Unfuckingbelievable.

[Breeze54]

38. And you apparently can't read. Just because you found a poll... CNN didn't cite one, get it!?

And I said I was looking for the CNN results. You finding a Zogby Poll didn't
answer my question. "What "poll" did CNN use and why not a link to it?"

You might want to read the whole thread before you jump!

------------------------------

And to answer your question about Rasmussen....

They only poll 500 as opposed to other polls that sample 1,000 or more

Rasmussen doesn't get data from young people, college aged voters, or cell phone users.

Just from people with landlines, sitting at home and probably older.

Rasmussen is a strong conservative republican and a regular consultant on Fox News.

It's been well known that Rasmussen seems to 'fudge' the numbers a bit.

Many people have watched Rasmussens numbers bounce.

Here's a couple and I'm sure you can find plenty more on your own.

Mr. Rothenberg in his column for http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_156/rothenberg/26126-1.html">Roll Call in which he evaluated the top ten US Senate races noted,
"I must begin with one caveat: In evaluating races, I do not factor in certain widely circulated polls,
including those conducted by Rasmussen Reports, that I regard as less reliable (In other words,
I treat some polls as if they don't even exist.)"

-------------------

"Here's the problem with the Rasmussen poll - no one knows for sure if the system used by Rasmussen is reliable"

-----------------------

Everybody seems to only be citing the Rasmussen Polls and there are many more out there that are more reliable.

But polls in general are just polls. Don't forget, many were wrong on the primary contests too.

[nam78_two]

4. Ridiculous.nt

[crikkett]

5. 73% of more than 1000 republican donors? n/t

[Breeze54]

10. Exactly!

:grr:

[Faux pas]

20. I was going to say 73% of more than 1000 exxon employees.

:)

[0rganism]

6. what do you find unbelievable about this?

People go with what they've been told about high gas prices. When the pundits spout ad nauseum how great proposed offshore drilling is for gas prices, it's only natural that people will support it.

BTW, 1000 people is a decent poll sample size, provided the distribution was sufficiently random. To understand intuitively, just ask yourself how likely it is that out of 1000 randomly selected samples, the results are not representative of the whole.

[Breeze54]

11. It's the RW. They're lying, as usual. I don't trust the poll at all. n/t

[slackmaster]

22. Your post would be much stronger if you had some concrete data to back it up

Another poll, perhaps.

[Breeze54]

24. Even CNN isn't posting the "Survey" results... and CBS failed to mention that CNN

also did a survey and

"According to a CNN/Opinion Research poll, 49% of Americans say protection of the
environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth."

CNN doesn't have a link to the survey, as they call it, on their site, but I'm still looking.

And they don't use the word POLL as CBS did.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/03/news/economy/environment_economy/index.htm?postversion=2008070313

Still, 73% of the more than 1,000 Americans surveyed from June 26 to 29
said they favored an expansion of offshore drilling... with no link!

[Tempest]

29. Then prove it

Show where Rasmussen's methodology is flawed.

Rasmussen has been accurate for years now.

And a Zogby poll mirrors the Rasmussen poll.

[tburnsten]

37. Please

Please, please, please don't just fall into a pit of emotion filled logic lacking smears, please? At four dollars a gallon, what makes you think that only "RW" people would be interested in bringing down gas prices? If you dislike the results of the poll, and don't believe that it could possibly be true, then why don't you do a little legwork and find out whether or not it is factually incorrect in any way, rather than just call it "RW lies", which we all know gets a good conversation going far :dunce:

[VP505]

26. I agree, with the help of the MSM

the WH and RW tools have been feeding the masses a steady diet of drilling = more oil = lower gas prices for a while now. None of the qualifiers that go with more drilling, such as how long to get that oil to market, etc, are included and that has a lot of people not really knowing the full truth.

[doc03]

7. From my experience I would say probably 73%

is low.

[tpsbmam]

9. 72% of Americans also supported the Iraq war in 2003, thus....

73% of Americans are reactionary idiots who don't bother to educate themselves about issues until all frigging hell breaks loose after the fact. Then they complain and look for someone else to blame the fuck-ups on. :mad:

Edit: typo

[Greyhound]

16. The sheeple will believe anything, no matter how stupid, that comes out of the Soma Tube.

Tell them gas is high because we need to drill in their backyards and they'll all run to Home Depot and buy the materials for a derrick.

Tell them that the A-Rabs are gonna git 'em if they don't spend all their $$ on the latest POS land-barge that GM builds, and... oh, wait a minute.

[Indenturedebtor]

18. Yep this whole issue has been drilled into their heads for weeks

Manufactured consent. :puke:

I believe the poll.

[MetaTrope]

30. Actually, that 73% said that yes, Bush should be impeached

But CBS moved the answer to the question they felt it fit best.

[Breeze54]

33. I wouldn't doubt it... the RW is desperate. n/t

[taterguy]

36. I'm guessing less than 25% of the public is willing to drive less

So those numbers seem quite plausible to me