Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Climate Change Bill (Rasmussen 6/28-29)


Rasmussen
6/28-29/09; 1,000 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: IVR

(source)

National

From what you know about the climate change bill that passed the House, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose it?

37% Favor, 41% Oppose

Will the climate change bill that passed the House of Representatives help the economy, hurt the economy, or have no impact on the economy?

19% Help, 42% Hurt

 

Comments
Stillow:

19 say it will help....hmmmm, you Dems better be careful what you wish for here....if I were GOP Senators I would simply not vote o nthis and allow the Dems to pass it. When people suddenly start paying tons more for energy and lay offs are occuring in key battleground states like OH....perhaps the peopel will wake up to what liberal policies do. They raise taxes, increase g'ment, force you to lose more and more freedom....and, oh yeah, they increase the power of politicans to control your life.

When will you Dems out there stop voting against your own best intrests......its a great idea to pass a bill that will raise taxes and energy costs and lay people off in the middle of a deep recession....wow what a great plan!

____________________

RussTC3:

Um, yeah, I'll pass on this Rasmussen (R) "poll" and wait for a more reliable issue pollster to put out numbers for this legislation.

I'm still laughing over Rasmussen's (R) Iran poll from a few days ago.

He's also got an hilarious one for Sotomoyor out. I swear, what would we do if we didn't have Rasmussen's (R) inaccurate issue polling (nearly always refuted by more accurate pollsters) to laugh at?

Good stuff.

____________________

Stillow:

@RussTC3

How does one prove an issue poll is wrong, or an opinion poll? There is no vote to confirm if the poll numbers are legi or not. Seems as though, and we are all guilty of it, that we all like polls and pollsters at different times depending o nth results. If these numbers had been better for this horrid bill, you'd be praising Rasmussen. I got a beating handed out to me last week for saying pollsters are all bias...........its true, they all have hidden agenda's and I am sure they all take money to makes polls look a certain way.

____________________

RussTC3:

I make an exception for Rasmussen (R), and no, you'll never see me praising any of his polls because there's an agenda to everything he pushes out there, especially on issues where polling is light and he has a greater opportunity to influence policy.

He's a biased pollster who pushes his agenda through issue polling. It's that simple.

You prove that he's wrong by comparing to other polls (hopefully when you already have trend lines established).

____________________

Stillow:

@RussTC3

All pollsters are biased. Most of the media has a liberal bias to it...so an ABC poll, or CNN poll, etc, etc will have a vested intrest in producing a result favorable to there agenda....so its not surprising than a liberal group has poll results than support there agenda and the same for repub groups like Rasmussen. There is no usch thing as an unbias pollster....money drives this whole thing. Again, its impossible to verify a pollster when they are doing opinion or issue polling.....they can fudge whatever they want, twist the numbers to make there financers happy, or to help move forward there agenda.

____________________

RussTC3:

Except I don't like to look at just one poll.

Averages are key, and on that front, Rasmussen (R) has been and will continue to be proven wrong time after time after time...

____________________

Stillow:

Well I cannot argue the content of what your saying, only that even lumping polls together can be misleading. Election polls are obviously a different matter, but issue polling is used to sway public opinion. If you have a group of pollsters who lan left for example and have a vested intrest in moving a more liberal agenda forward, thn there numbers would reflect that...so you could end up with five polls for example of the same issue, but if 4 are R and one is D, the D may look like an outlier when its actually the more accurate one. Unfortunately we will not ever know...our personal leanings will dictate which pollsters we trus ton issue polling, because we too have vested intrest in swaying public opinion to lien up more with our own feelings on an issue. So even though I engage in discussion about issue polling, I take tem all with a grain of salt, even when they have numbers I like....election plling is different, if someone is a routine outlier then they get igored by both sides all the time.

____________________

TJ09:

CBO projected that Waxman Markey would cost the typical family $175 dollars a year. If that is how much it cost for industry to convert to clean energy then I'm all for it, even if it cost the $3,000 Republicans keep lying about I still wouldn't care. The important thing is that industrial America is the driver of energy, if their is a conversion in the way they use energy it will result in renewable and clean energy becoming the norm, creating jobs and curbing carbon emissions that harm the planet.

____________________

Stillow:

Well first off we totally disagree, i beleive global warming is a myth, a plitical creation designed to grow g'ment, create a new stream of tax revenue and for g'ment to assume more ontrol over citizen behavior....

However, I have read different numbers from the CBO....if there was profit in green energy, then business would already be doing it. Even Obama's own words he aknowledges energy prices will "necessarily skyrocket"...well most Americans cannot afford to have ther eenergy prices skyrocket. In addition it creates an incentive for companies to move more jobs overseas where energy costs will be less to produce there products and goods. Coal and oil burning states will be hurt very badly, so the Dems need to be careful here since the midwest is highly dependent on coal...states like OH, PA, WV, etc would see lay offs. I saw the governor of PA say the bill would probably cost his state over 100,000 jobs.
We are in a deep recession, now is not the time to force business to incur more fees and regulations that cost them money...that leads only to highe prices for all and layoffs. People are hurting right now, you don't go and raise fees on them or taxes. If that bill becomes law I cannot even sell my house unless I put CFL light bulbs in, energy efficient windows, added insulation, etc....sorry, but the g'ment ha sno right to tell me what type of light bulb I can use. What happened toland of the free....go to nasa.gov and you can see the mean temprature of the planet since 2001 and its been cooling, not warming. Any scientist no tied to politics or g'ment grant money will tell you global temprature is directly related to solar cycles on the sun. Other planets suhc as Mars were slightly warming as well in the 90's....unless Martians are driving suv's and using regular light bulbs, then those scientists are correct, its connected to the activity on the sun. Go back and read time magazine and other publictions in the late 70's, back then we were headed for an ice age, now it swarming....soon it'll be an ice age again....the climate has gone thru warming and cooling for billions of years....changing our light ulbs and driving put put cars won't change it a bit...its a scam to give g'ment a reason tax you to death and impose more control over your life. Everything g'ment does make sits elf bigger and its sole purpose in nearly every piece of legislation is to assume more power over you....and people like you support it becuse for whatever reason you think by changing your bulbs out your somehow saving the world...its a joke. I support cleaner air also, but you do it by giving business tax incentives to clean up there emissions and pollutants, you do not put insane regulations on them that force them to raise prices, lay people off and outsoruce jobs......................

____________________

conspiracy:

Sorry Stillow but I stopped reading after your first paragraph. That is one "conspiracy" too many for me.

____________________

Stillow:

@conspiracy

Well played sir, well played....I liked that!

____________________

Bigmike:

You have to read the fine print in the CBO report. One factor in their final number is that the govt is going to write checks to cover the cost for anyone making 150% of poverty level or less. So a lot of households will have no cost to them because they get paid back.

And of course the truly wealthy won't care. They can spare the money.

So the obvious conclusion is that the cost will fall on the backs of the middle class. Like it always does.

When people understand that this bill means the middle class will have to settle for a lower standard of living, it will go down the drain.

And I wondered what the other side was saying so I visited zdnet. Their "experts" are split on the issue. Some say this falls so short of what is needed it should be thrown out and congress needs to pass something much more restrictive. The others say this bill is just a first step and once it is passed it can be amended later to make much larger cuts in carbon emissions.

Makes it hard to buy into the $175 CBO number.

Even tho I don't accept man made global warming as scientific fact, I am in favor of a clean environment and energy independence. And the free market will take us where we need to be without all of these govt mandates.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR