Comments on: Poll: Americans More Likely to Vote For a Candidate Who Supports Conservation and Efficiency http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/08/13/poll-americans-more-likely-to-vote-for-a-candidate-who-supports-conservation-and-efficiency/ Patriotism that loves our country, our land, and our planet Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:35:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: all politics aside http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/08/13/poll-americans-more-likely-to-vote-for-a-candidate-who-supports-conservation-and-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-58358 all politics aside Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:24:51 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=686#comment-58358 Girls are still gonna pick the convertible over the Prius, any day of the week. Girls are still gonna pick the convertible over the Prius, any day of the week.

]]> By: Rod Adams http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/08/13/poll-americans-more-likely-to-vote-for-a-candidate-who-supports-conservation-and-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-4982 Rod Adams Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:09:53 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=686#comment-4982 Tim: As always, the phrasing of the question is an important part of polling. Despite my atomic activism, I would have been measured in the 12% of the people who apparently were neither "more likely" nor "less likely" to vote for a candidate who said they would build more nuclear plants. Building plants is not something that the president can do. He could try to influence policies to enable others to build plants, he could use his bully pulpit to help explain why clean, emissions free sources of electricity are a good thing, and he could streamline the regulatory path that is currently scheduled to take 4-5 years to complete. He could also let the public in on a long obscured truth - we have been safely handling the byproducts of nuclear power plants for more than 60 years without harming anyone - there is no need to spend massive amounts of money to solve what is not a pressing problem. Those kinds of actions would cause me to be "more likely" to vote for a particular candidate. Tim:

As always, the phrasing of the question is an important part of polling.

Despite my atomic activism, I would have been measured in the 12% of the people who apparently were neither "more likely" nor "less likely" to vote for a candidate who said they would build more nuclear plants.

Building plants is not something that the president can do. He could try to influence policies to enable others to build plants, he could use his bully pulpit to help explain why clean, emissions free sources of electricity are a good thing, and he could streamline the regulatory path that is currently scheduled to take 4-5 years to complete.

He could also let the public in on a long obscured truth – we have been safely handling the byproducts of nuclear power plants for more than 60 years without harming anyone – there is no need to spend massive amounts of money to solve what is not a pressing problem.

Those kinds of actions would cause me to be "more likely" to vote for a particular candidate.

]]> By: politikly.com | politics and world news http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/08/13/poll-americans-more-likely-to-vote-for-a-candidate-who-supports-conservation-and-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-4865 politikly.com | politics and world news Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:49:32 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=686#comment-4865 <strong>Gallup Poll: Americans Favor Conservation & Efficiency | politikly.com...</strong> \r\nDespite the fact that a plurality of Americans favor a pro-nuclear-energy candidate, more say th... Gallup Poll: Americans Favor Conservation & Efficiency | politikly.com…

\r\nDespite the fact that a plurality of Americans favor a pro-nuclear-energy candidate, more say th…

]]> By: Druter http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/08/13/poll-americans-more-likely-to-vote-for-a-candidate-who-supports-conservation-and-efficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-4871 Druter Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:04:26 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=686#comment-4871 Laughable, simply laughable. Do you actually think that who you vote for is who gets elected. Corporate masters control your country top to bottom. Including who gets elected, windfall taxes will never be levied, conservation will never be policy. These two strategies would take money out of the pockets of big business and the ruling elite. Get used to it Laughable, simply laughable. Do you actually think that who you vote for is who gets elected. Corporate masters control your country top to bottom. Including who gets elected, windfall taxes will never be levied, conservation will never be policy. These two strategies would take money out of the pockets of big business and the ruling elite. Get used to it

]]>