Could it be a gusher for McCain?

According the the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article on 1A of Sunday’s paper, oil – particularly McCain’s willingness to drill offshore, may become and important presidential campaign issue.

The article quotes the same Quinnipiac study we saw last week. From their press release:

“One reason for McCain’s progress may be the energy issue. The results show increased support for additional drilling – which McCain supports and Obama opposes. Roughly one in ten voters say they have changed their minds and now favor drilling because of the jump in energy prices. They support Obama, but with voters saying that the energy issue is now more important to their presidential vote than is the war in Iraq, this group represents an opportunity for the Republicans.”

Expect to see more ads about the energy policies from both candidates in these states. With all states showing the policies are important, but about a third of the voters undecided as to the better candidate on energy, it’s now the defining issue.

For this week, at least.

PS – It’s a press release! You’re supposed to quote it.


  1. Shawn Matson says:

    Dan, here’s my rationale.

    I don’t support the expansion of oil production to new areas just as before the Civil War, we tried to stifle the spread of slavery in new states (it’s not meant to be a comparable analogy).

    There are also environmental concerns related to the drilling which i’m sure you’re well aware of. Third, there are a lot of places (on and off shore) that the Oil companies aren’t yet drilling so it doesn’t make sense to open up these spots.

    Also, offshore drilling won’t begin to benefit us for at least a decade. 8 years if you’re really optimistic. We need to have an alternative to oil by then anyhow.

  2. Keep in mind it’s the energy policy in general that these polled potential voters want to compare.

    McCain’s made an excellent case to increase alternative energy research as well as open new oil options.

    So far, Obama’s only been about increasing renewable energy.

    Nuclear will find it’s way into their debates at some time.

  3. Great headline.

  4. Elliot, thanks. Every once in a while that Oklahoma upbringing comes in handy.

  5. Shawn Matson says:

    Obama is a proponent of “Clean” Coal. I’m not but it’s something other than alternative energy that you said he doesn’t support.

    Raising fuel economy and efficiency will not only jumpstart our economy, it will have the same effect as bringing more oil into the market. With more efficiency we will use less oil.

  6. Shawn, McCain is supporting a prize to develop a more efficient battery. What has Obama done?

  7. Yep. It’s a gusher for McCain alright. A gusher of Big Oil money.


  8. BrkfldDad says:

    One word. Nuclear. Worked in the industry for 5 years, it’s a lot safer than the MSM would leave you to believe. I don’t think oil (finite quantity, emissions problems) and coal (same) are realistic as long term solutions. Wind power I find appealing, but with the limited power generation of each windmill, it’s only feasible as a minority contributor to the solution. Nuclear is the only forseeable long-term solution at this point, unless there’s a huge breakthrough on hydrogen. Natural gas has all the makings of the current oil crisis. Electrical options, battery included, powered by nuclear gets my vote.

    Yes – I will admit, long term storage of radioactive materials is a concern, and no small one at that. I believe in France, there’s been major strides in embedding the spent fuel in, for all intents and purposes, infinite life glass composites. Problem is in the US, without a future, no one will spend the R&D to put good minds to use is solving this problem.

  9. Kathryn says:

    Just as an aside, BD, you might be interested in off-shore wind turbines; they are a little different from the wind farm models, with exponentially greater output.

  10. BrkfldDad says:

    The push would have to be to hybrid (non-oil) engines. Ideally (but a ways off) it’s be battery cell driven cars. The extra demand for electricity to charge the cars would come from nuclear power plants, versus adding more coal or natural gas plants to the mix. It doesn’t solve our short-term oil crisis, but neither does off-shore drilling which could take a decade to have a decent effect.