Could environment tip scales for some undecideds?

[shockingelk]

It seems to me that if swing voters are still unsure of their vote - wondering if they're being impatient for the tax cuts to work, confused about Iraq, befuddled about national security, perplexed about healthcare, not too concerned about the abortion issue either way ...

... it may come down to latching on to an issue on which they see a clear distinction. The natural environment is quite rightly and easily linked to other issues: healthcare, national security and the long-term economy.

And Kerry dominates Bush on environmental issues.

The Chimp's Director of Regulatory Affairs believes smog is good because it blocks UV rays and that a little bit of dioxin is also good for you.

[phantom power]

1. Interesting topic on Daily Kos:

However, not only our leaders give the environment short shrift. As a poll undertaken for Mother Jones magazine showed earlier this year, the majority of Americans don’t rate the environment very high on their list of priorities. Indeed, only 3% named it the issue that concerned them most or second most. Even the list of available story categories here at dKos does not include one for the environment, which is why this is filed under "Misc."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/26/172330/692

The whole post is rather long, and interesting, but that 3% figure kind of rocked my world.

[TexasSissy]

2. Sad, but it has the ring of truth.

Most of the regular voters are city dwellers, I expect. They are disconnected from the natural environment and don't see that as an issue. Many never get out to even enjoy, say, a tree, or an area not filled with people or pollution. Many have lived their entire lives in places filled with pollutants and concrete; they know nothing else.

This is a very important issue to me, though. And Kerry is the candidate who speaks to this issue, most definitely, although he has backed off somewhat due to the support given to him by the labor unions, who are sort of against environmental issues. They view it as taking away jobs (although they are wrong; it creates jobs).

I will continue to speak about the issue, though, and vote with the environment in mind. To envision our country in the future, if Bush's policies continue, all one has to do is watch the movie "Soylent Green." And the end of the movie, when Edward G. Robinson is viewing the big screen video of fields of flowers and deer? Sad to say that this has come to pass: there are thousands, if not millions, of Americans who have never seen in person a field of flowers or a deer. It is no wonder they do not appreciate nature; they have never experienced it, and so do not realize that we are part of it.

But SURELY they'll catch on when their kids start dying from mercury poisoning? Surely then?

[phantom power]

4. Only of somebody makes the connection for them

If you look around, there are plenty of "teachable moments" relating our fraying environment to all kinds of health problems, economic problems, energy problems, etc.

I get the impression that most people won't believe it unless they see a bunch of talking-heads assure them that it really is happening, and then point out the connection between what's happening, and the decisions that we've been making (or not making) for the last fifty years or so.

I'm not holding my breath for that, considering the topics that seem popular on "news" programs.

I guess what I'm saying is: the entire world could endure an environmental apocalypse, and people *still* might not ever say "wow, the environmentalists were right!"

[shockingelk]

3. "complacency generated by success"

That was the phrase that stuck out to me, and I think it's the explanation.

The overwhelming majority of people now expect our government to regulate, discipline and sanction polluters. It's kind of like asking, "Is immunizing school children against measles and rubella an important issue in this election?"

Bush came into office being all about drilling in ANWR, and behind that smokescreen was able to grandfather in old smokestacks and relax regulation upon regulation.

I think the fact that Graham is ludicrously extreme, it could work as a lightning rod - in a bad way. The guy says stuff like "pollution brings about economic progress and regulating polluters is bad for public health." That's almost a direct quuote.

[phantom power]

6. too true

It seems clear to me that the neoconservatives' platform is popular because too few people remember what it was like before things like social security, environmental regs, economic regulations, etc.

All these things may make life a bit more complicated, but there's a reason that people created them. Too many people have forgotten those reasons, and so I fear that we're going to have to see whole new generations of people re-learn them all the hard way.

Failing to learn from history, repeating it, yada yada...

[shockingelk]

10. I think it's also disbelief

I mean, I'm sure if you took a poll and asked, "Is the pace at which we're polluting less too quick?" You would get maybe 2-3% who didn't understand the question and answer yes.

But that's Jr's position .... it just seems unbelievable that anyone would want more mercury being leaked for longer - so some people don't believe it.

It seems to be an ad focusing on John Graham's lunatic statements would be in order.

[Barney Rocks]

5. I recently went to

Yosemite with a girl who was raised in Southern California (near Disneyland). She is a staunch Democratic voter--so no need to worry about that. But, she was horribly embarrassing to be around--because every time she saw a large boulder or waterfall or whatever--she would exclaim---is that rock real or is it paper mache? Was the waterfall always here or did engineers design it? She was totally and completely serious. She is so used to Disneyland that she could not conceive of everything being the real thing and not just created for the tourists. True story and very sad. A lot of people who are "concerned" about the environment don't know anything. How can we expect people who have never been out of the big cities to really appreciate nature?

[OneBlueSky]

7. the environment rates low in polls because . . .

nobody is talking about it . . . and by nobody I mean our so-called leaders and our corporate media . . . and if no one's talking about it, it doesn't make it to the front burner . . . I've contended all along that Kerry should MAKE it an issue by talking about it incessantly, and pointing out how BushCo's environmental record is a reflection of the illegality, cronyism and sleaze that characterizes every aspect of this maladministration . . . apparently the Kerry folks prefer to follow the polls, which means they're reacting instead of setting the agenda . . . very unfortunate, imo . . .

[BillZBubb]

8. Everyone is "for" the environment. It doesn't affect many votes.

Reagan won twice, Bush Sr. won. The environment didn't mean diddly in those elections. It helps with the Dem base, and that's it.

Despite what they say, a vast majority of Americans just play lip service to the environment. Not until global warming starts cooking their asses will they pay attention.

[cheshire]

9. I was thinking it would take a cherry bomb. WTF flip a coin.

[Mr_Spock]

11. Interesting thing I have noted that some "conservatives" actually care

about "conserving" the environment. They are aware of how blatently anti-environment Dumbya is. Combined with the Buchanan types who see this war as a waste of money and resources (army) that could better be used somewhere else, you'd think enough of them would come to their senses and vote for Kerry.