According to an internet report two of the nation’s leading pollsters released polling results with strategies to elevate conservation issues in the 2018 midterms while conceding policies like climate change and public lands were low priorities for voters in the 2016 presidential election.
This is what they concluded:
- Both pollsters admitted that issues broadly defined within the conservation sphere—including climate change or public lands policies—did not resonate with the vast majority of voters polled, with just 2 percent naming environmental concerns as having an effect on their 2016 vote.
An interesting question is why the Democratic Party has bought into climate alarmism and many of the environmentalists’ land use objectives as well. Is a two percent impact on elections worth the Democratic Party’s increasing identification with the environmental left? As discussed here, the Democrats’ support of environmental causes cost them at least two elections: 2000 and 2010, and apparently did not save them in 2016.
My question is why one of our two major parties would take the risks that the Democratic Party has taken in this respect? It appears irrational to me, even if they actually believe in the environmental doctrines they espouse.
As previously discussed, climate alarmism appears to be based on an invalid scientific hypothesis. Some of the public land use decisions made by recent Democratic Presidents appear to have antagonized important political groups in some western states. President Trump, with the support of the governors involved, recently reduced the size of some national monuments created by previous Democratic Presidents and has so far not encountered much opposition.
via Carlin Economics and Science
February 2, 2018 at 06:40PM