Alternative Energy and a Path to Citizenship 2 winning issues for the Dems

[NJMaverick]

These issues need to be top priority issues come 2012. Look at the numbers:

Quote:It segments the public into nine groups: eight politically active groups and one inactive group (bystanders) composed entirely of nonvoters. Of the eight active groups, two are described as “mostly Republican” (staunch conservatives and Main Street Republicans), three as “mostly Democratic” (new coalition Democrats, hard-pressed Democrats, and solid liberals), and three as “mostly independent” (libertarians, disaffecteds, and postmoderns). In reality, however, postmoderns lean strongly Democratic, while libertarians and disaffecteds lean strongly Republican. So there are really four active Democratic and four active Republican groups.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2...50911.html

[Willinois]

Clean energy and the environment is the Democratic wedge issue. It's how we break away middle and upper middle class voters from the GOP. Unfortunately, it's the backward thinking of fossil fuel Democrats that keeps the party from using the issue effectively. Too many others are stuck it outdated ways of thinking about the environment as nothing but a hippie tree hugger issue. They don't get it.

[NJMaverick]

(05-10-2011 08:04 AM)Willinois Wrote:  Clean energy and the environment is the Democratic wedge issue. It's how we break away middle and upper middle class voters from the GOP. Unfortunately, it's the backward thinking of fossil fuel Democrats that keeps the party from using the issue effectively. Too many others are stuck it outdated ways of thinking about the environment as nothing but a hippie tree hugger issue. They don't get it.

To me I think framing is the key. If you frame the issue as environmental and climate change you lose a lot of voters. If you frame the issue as energy independence and stable fuel prices you have a big winner.

[Willinois]

(05-10-2011 08:07 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(05-10-2011 08:04 AM)Willinois Wrote:  Clean energy and the environment is the Democratic wedge issue. It's how we break away middle and upper middle class voters from the GOP. Unfortunately, it's the backward thinking of fossil fuel Democrats that keeps the party from using the issue effectively. Too many others are stuck it outdated ways of thinking about the environment as nothing but a hippie tree hugger issue. They don't get it.

To me I think framing is the key. If you frame the issue as environmental and climate change you lose a lot of voters. If you frame the issue as energy independence and stable fuel prices you have a big winner.

That's true within certain demographics. But even framed as environment/climate change it's a majority issue among the general public. Not every voter is a white male over 50. We don't have to tailor every message to that group. That kind of thinking is why Democrats are losing the young people who voted for Obama.

Also "energy independence" now means domestic drilling, which means BP oil spill, which is not what most people want.

[NJMaverick]

(05-10-2011 08:26 AM)Willinois Wrote:  

(05-10-2011 08:07 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(05-10-2011 08:04 AM)Willinois Wrote:  Clean energy and the environment is the Democratic wedge issue. It's how we break away middle and upper middle class voters from the GOP. Unfortunately, it's the backward thinking of fossil fuel Democrats that keeps the party from using the issue effectively. Too many others are stuck it outdated ways of thinking about the environment as nothing but a hippie tree hugger issue. They don't get it.

To me I think framing is the key. If you frame the issue as environmental and climate change you lose a lot of voters. If you frame the issue as energy independence and stable fuel prices you have a big winner.

That's true within certain demographics. But even framed as environment/climate change it's a majority issue among the general public. Not every voter is a white male over 50. We don't have to tailor every message to that group. That kind of thinking is why Democrats are losing the young people who voted for Obama.

Also "energy independence" now means domestic drilling, which means BP oil spill, which is not what most people want.

See there's a catch in all that. In isolation most people will favor the environment and being careful about climate change. However we don't operate in a vacuum and the GOP likes to paint doing the right thing by the environment as a tax on everyone or a cause for an increase in energy prices. When the GOP paints things in that manner less people stand by the environment or climate change.

[Willinois]

(05-10-2011 09:38 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  See there's a catch in all that. In isolation most people will favor the environment and being careful about climate change. However we don't operate in a vacuum and the GOP likes to paint doing the right thing by the environment as a tax on everyone or a cause for an increase in energy prices. When the GOP paints things in that manner less people stand by the environment or climate change.

Which is why it's a mistake for Democrats to cower away from the issue and thereby let Republicans frame the debate. As Obama points out well, our reliance on fossil fuels is costly, both at the gas pump and as we pay for the damage of climate disasters.

The only job recovery program that's working on a national scale is creating green energy jobs from building hybrid cars to wind turbines. Republicans are fighting that because they would rather service coal and oil industry lobbyists. Every Democrat in the country should be saying that until they're blue in the face. It's an 80% winning issue we could be using to peel off Republican voters if Reid would stop catering to scum like Manchin. Most people aren't buying the GOP arguments anymore.

[There Is No Spoon]

I'm somewhat surprised that even staunch conservatives are split (with every other group solidly for it) about providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Everybody wants alternative energy, the conservatives just don't believe it's viable yet - it's up to our politicians to make the case for alternative energy sources and then it becomes a no-brainer issue.

[sandnsea]

"Hard-Pressed Democrats" Those are the folks that I think we should try to reach, as a party. They're the ones who I think have flipped to Republican if they don't feel like their needs and point of view is being considered. I think they're the ones who can rah rah a war on one day and then say take care of our country first the next, without realizing war and defense spending propaganda is why there is such opposition to social spending.

[The Capitol Punisher]

Re: Energy -- The problem in all of this, as I see it, is that like our society in general, there's a certain amount of "we want answers NOW!" aspect to it. Of course, we all know there are no short term answers to be found in ANY of them, and until we get serious about the alternatives, we're going to rely on the status quo. Which is a problem because you can't be serious about finding alternative solutions if you're still diverting funding away from that to maintain the status quo. I think we need to say "all of the above" publicly and maybe toss a few dimes at the status quo to keep the hounds at bay, but in practice be all in for alternatives. And for the most part, I think that actually has been Obama's course of action.

Re: Immigration -- You've got to overcome the "amnesty" hurdle, first and foremost. And you've also got to address concerns that having a pathway to citizenship wouldn't create even more incentive for illegal immigration, which should be a real and legitimate concern. This can be achieved, but not easily by any means. As I've always said, for any immigration plan to be successful, it has to be very comprehensive. Raise immigration quotas, streamline the visa/immigration system, create a pathway to citizenship, create real deadlines for illegal aliens to meet the criteria for becoming citizens and deport them if they don't meet those deadlines, crack down on the employment of illegal aliens by individuals and corporations, create education opportunities for the children of immigrants, and ramp up border security. This is actually the opposite of the strategy on energy - it really must be an "all of the above" approach in practice, while being somewhat muted on certain aspects in rhetoric. You're essentially addressing nearly all concerns on immigration in one fell swoop, and while there will still be some who will oppose from either a xenophobic point of view or the "Ellis Island" everyone should be welcome point of view, the opposition would be fairly small in numbers.