Will Biden’s oil comment cost him votes?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Technically yes, there's always going to be a few people out there who change their vote of this, but it won't be enough to have any real statistical impact in polling.

Yes and your maps of D's losing MT, KS and TX and it shows that Keystone Pipeline goes thru everyone of those states D's aren't winning 60 Senate's seats more like 51/55


AZ, CO, GA, IA, ME, NC and SC none oil states

Yeah but that's not because those states are oil states necessarily. Also, pretty sure my model is the only model I've seen that has Biden favored in TX on the Presidential, and TX-Sen is closer than most too.

[Beet]

I'm skeptical of how much impact this will have because I think Republicans overestimate how popular oil is with the general public: I don't think "Drill Baby Drill" and "Drill Here Drill Now" really helped McCain much in 2008, for example, and gas prices have been low for years so it's less of an issue anyway. Also, anyone who works in the oil industry and votes based on it is voting GOP.

That's because Obama's energy policy was "all of the above." The guy was far right wing compared to the Democrats today.

[Senator Incitatus]

I'm skeptical of how much impact this will have because I think Republicans overestimate how popular oil is with the general public: I don't think "Drill Baby Drill" and "Drill Here Drill Now" really helped McCain much in 2008, for example, and gas prices have been low for years so it's less of an issue anyway. Also, anyone who works in the oil industry and votes based on it is voting GOP.

I think there's a significant difference (especially today, given the recent boom in American fossil fuels) between rabidly promoting expansion (á la McCain) and opposing the end of subsidies and attempts to wind down the entire industry. In the former, there's no real concrete appeal to anyone. But in the latter case, you're protecting jobs that actually exist; real people hold them and will vote to protect them.

Republicans didn't get votes with ANWAR or "drill, baby, drill" but do win votes every time the Democrats threaten energy jobs currently in place. It happened with coal, and it can happen again with fracking and oil. Following this path in the long term will end any chance of Texas as a swing state.

[TopShelfGoal]

Too little too late. Maybe if Republicans had focused to make Biden's environmental positions an issue in July and then had a focused message targeting him over that then it could have been something with a certain kind of voter. But the whiplash of jumping for "Biden is senile" to "But Hunter Biden" to this is probably too much 10 days from the election to register widely.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We need to start building bullet trains and fast, they are the alternative to air travel which will reduce the need for oil in so many airplanes. Only need to fly international or to AK, HI. Every country has it except the US

The reason why we haven't built bullet trains were due to cruise liners, but that industry went bankrupt and insolvent, no one wants to cruise any longer

[LimoLiberal]

Washington Post has front-page coverage of it online...

[Bomster]

Who weeps for Big Oil?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The reason why we haven't built bullet trains were due to cruise liners, but that industry went bankrupt and insolvent, no one wants to cruise any longer

If you think that's the reason, you must be one of the few people who watched and enjoyed this turkey:

The reason we haven't built bullet trains is that most of our train tracks are too twisty and turny to operate at high speeds and it's too expensive to tear up our densely populated areas to replace them with better alignments.

[Ljube]

Who weeps for Big Oil?

The people employed by Big Oil. And they are many.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Data for Progress debate poll: Biden 52-41
CNN debate poll: Biden 53-39
Yougov debate poll: Biden 54-35

Atlas: "Biden's oil line may have just tightened the race for Trump"

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Washington Post has front-page coverage of it online...

Oil bump incoming...

[BaldEagle1991]

The fact that Houston is already a blue progressive city despite so many oil companies being based there is a good sign that this is less political that anyone thinks

[Mr. Illini]

If maintaining oil's position as the dominant source of energy in the US is key to someone's vote, they weren't voting Democrat to begin with. If it loses Joe any votes, the will be few and far between.

That said, he should have delivered a more nuanced answer.

[Woody]

Alaska possibly goes 60% for Trump & he gains more ground in Texas, and he nets a few votes on the national PV.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Washington Post has front-page coverage of it online...

Oil bump incoming...

[Nate Shahidi]

Yes, especially in oil rich economies such as Texas.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Yes, especially in oil rich economies such as Texas.

It's not the '80s anymore.

[TheLaRocca]

Data for Progress debate poll: Biden 52-41
CNN debate poll: Biden 53-39
Yougov debate poll: Biden 54-35

Atlas: "Biden's oil line may have just tightened the race for Trump"

No one in the Texas oil industry is voting Democrat at this point (or voted for Beto).

Means nothing lol.

[Hammy]

Why would Biden saying something that has been part of public discussion for decades--seeing how oil isn't some limitless resource--somehow cause a voter backlash?

[Red Wall]

He just threw PA straight to Trump and blue texas is a pipe dream again. Also watch for NM-02. The dem congresswoman already had to disavow him. She knows Biden made her reelection attempt much harder and she'll lose since her district will be even more than the Trump+10 from 2016

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

He just threw PA straight to Trump and blue texas is a pipe dream again. Also watch for NM-02. The dem congresswoman already had to disavow him. She knows Biden made her reelection attempt much harder and she'll lose since her district will be even more than the Trump+10 from 2016

Keep dreaming.

[Arkansas Yankee]

Hopefully!!!

[Meclazine for Israel]

Yes,

It will cost him votes.

But not enough to negate his winning position.

The other thing is 41M people have already voted, presumably a large number for Biden who cannot change their ballot now.

[Tekken_Guy]

Not as much as people think.

Oil voters are a pretty Republican voting bloc and Biden doesn't have much room to fall with them. Also, there are a lot more important issues this election for many of them than oil.

[compucomp]

Why would Biden saying something that has been part of public discussion for decades--seeing how oil isn't some limitless resource--somehow cause a voter backlash?

Because the US is the #1 energy producer in the world now, and fossil fuels support not only the energy sector but also many related industrial sectors such as industrial gases?

Look, cutting off fossil fuel extraction is a big political loser in the US and the "climate crisis" fervor is a product of the liberal echo chamber and not representative at all of how the US at large feels about it. Joe made a gaffe. The fact that he immediately tried to walk it back and then "clarified" his statement to the media means he knows it was a gaffe. It happens, and it will sway some educated people working in these sectors who were leaning Biden but now feel that their livelihoods might be threatened.

If we want to talk about gaffes, though, Trump told us to try injecting freaking bleach to cure coronavirus and he's surely lost more votes on his gaffes than Joe will here. Also it's probably too late for Trump to really hammer this message.