« Watching the Predictors | Main | Kerry Kicking Ass in Gore States »
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Kerry Hits Bush Hard on Yucca Mountain
Posted by DavidNYCJohn Kerry has been taking my advice: On Tuesday, he slammed Bush on the issue of Yucca Mountain while stumping in Nevada. The scientific merits of Yucca nonwithstanding, this issue is a major winner for Kerry in NV, not just because Bush supports building a nuclear waste repository there, but because Nevadans perceive Bush as having betrayed a crucial campaign promise from 2000.
A question for Nevada residents: Have you seen any ads - whether from Kerry or 527s - which specifically reference Yucca?
Don't forget that the last SUSA poll showed Kerry ahead here, and a Mason-Dixon poll also taken in late July had Bush up just 46-43. (He had led by 49-38 in March.) Hopefully we'll see some new polling here soon. I imagine SUSA will hit the state again by the end of the month.
As an aside, I also have to say that I'm pretty amazed that 10,000 - that's ten thousand - people showed up to hear Kerry speak at UNLV in the middle of a very hot August when college kids are still on summer break and many people go away on vacation. (Heck, the Las Vegas Review-Journal says it was 12,000 - but who's counting?)
Posted at 02:26 AM in Nevada | Technorati
Comments
I know this is off topic, but it's something that deserves headline billing. Things are looking better all the time for Kerry/Edwards.
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.html?wfId=3847588
Posted by: Randy at August 12, 2004 09:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm pretty current on this, as I have relatives in Las Vegas. If Bush loses Nevada, it will definitely be due to Yucca Mt. Kerry has a real shot at winning this state.
Posted by: Pepe at August 12, 2004 10:45 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"President Bush, how do you respond to the criticisms of your Yucca Mountain policy?"
"Well, Yucca Mountain is just that...it's a mountain. So when you're dealing with the policy for a mountain, it's a policy of the federal government with respect to a mountain. You have to use mountain policies."
NV for Kerry. But not OH, WV or VA.
Posted by: Nim at August 12, 2004 11:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
And Kerry got a massive ovation for his opposition to Yucca Mtn.
As for the crowd, there were 15000+ according to stadium officials (and Kerry himself).
And it was on a workday. And to get in you had to spend about 45mins standing outside on what turned out to be the hottest day of the year in LV. No one checked tickets and no loyalty oaths were signed.
GWB is coming to LV today (Thursday) for a "union rally". But he will only be here for three hours, and he's not even leaving the airport grounds. No word yet if he will be bringing the turkey.
Posted by: mack-in-the-box at August 12, 2004 12:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
not a sign of Yucca Mtn in ads here in Reno. Kerry just announced he will come to Reno. That would be a great time to fly the Yucca Mtn. issue. In canvassing here in the upscale neighborhoods, Yucca draws strong "Yucchs" from almost everyone'
Posted by: kive weinstein at August 12, 2004 01:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
not a sign of Yucca Mtn in ads here in Reno. Kerry just announced he will come to Reno. That would be a great time to fly the Yucca Mtn. issue. In canvassing here in the upscale neighborhoods, Yucca draws strong "Yucchs" from almost everyone'
Posted by: kive weinstein at August 12, 2004 01:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm all for winning Nevada, but will Kerry go back on his promise, too? I mean, where are we going to put the nuclear waste?
Posted by: Luke Francl at August 13, 2004 10:11 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
In a solid red state!
Posted by: anon at August 13, 2004 10:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Unfortuantely, they showed a clip of Bush iyesterday telling a very large and receptive crowd in Las Vegas that Kerry had voted in favor of Yucca Mt. several times, which I certainly did not know.
Posted by: Pepe at August 13, 2004 10:36 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I mean, where are we going to put the nuclear waste?
Kerry's plan calls for storing it securely at each site which produces the waste. This actually makes sense because these plants (in theory at least) already have high security protecting them. And if there's one small seepage, that's a lot less bad than one giant one. Also, imagine a terrorist attack on Yucca - if it succeeded, it would be a lot more devastating than if an attack on one local site succeeded.
And finally, it means you wouldn't have to transport the waste through 44 different states. That, I think, is the most vulnerable link in the chain - it strikes me as pretty difficult to protect long stretches of railway from sabotage, etc.
All that said, I'm really not certain one way or the other about Yucca Mountain, but I do trust John Kerry.
Posted by: DavidNYC at August 13, 2004 11:17 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Dumb the waste on Dubya's ranch in Crawford.
Posted by: NOVA at August 13, 2004 11:37 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I don't trust any politician blindly. I just wonder, did Kerry explain to his Nevada audience why he repeatedly voted in favor of Yucca Mountain while in the Senate? This was something I didn't know until I heard Bush tell a Las Vegas audience yesterday.
Posted by: Pepe at August 13, 2004 12:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry and others have said that previous votes were "procedural" in nature, or involved votes on omnibus bills where the Yucca elements were attached. e.g.,
This is frankly not the strongest defense. But After hearing both Bush and Kerry speak about this, I guess I trust Kerry to sustain his current opposing position more than I expect GWB to reverse his current support of the Big Nuke Dump.
Also, according to KLAS (!) the audience for Bush's speech yesterday in LV numbered "several hundred", while across the street "about a thousand" protestors milled about.
Posted by: mack-in-the-box at August 13, 2004 12:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The Newshour showed a clip of Bush speaking about Yucca Mountain last night. The handpicked guys sitting behind him sat on their hands and grimaced while W said the Yucca Mountain thing shows that Kerry is a flip-flopper and he is a consistent leader.
My guess is that they'll take their chances with a flip-flopper who might shaft them rather than a guy will definitely shaft them.
Posted by: nate at August 13, 2004 01:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Even if they are both flip-floppers on the issue, Yucca Mtn. is a project that helps the energy industry (by allowing them to not have to think about their own waste disposal) and Kerry is much more likely to ignore an energy industry request than Bush. Also, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada is Minority Whip and has made stalling or killing Yucca one of his top priorities (how could he do otherwise since its his state?) and its very unlikely
As to Yucca itself, whether or not you agree with the idea of a nuclear waste repository it should be noted that (a) many of the independent evaluations of the security of the facility have come back very troubling. They are not up to spec... and (b) even if they were, Las Vegas is, I believe, the fastest growing city in America and only likely to grow more.
There was a perception maybe 30 years ago that Las Vegas and Nevada in general was the middle of no place and a good place for America to hide its junk that nobody wanted around (ie gambling). Las Vegas is now an important U.S. city - both to its own residents and to all of us in the Western U.S. I won't insult the Nevadans by claiming it as an appendage of California, although my "California Only" cell phone plan includes Las Vegas as part of its coverage zone. Mmmhhh.... I'm sure there are many in Los Angeles specifically and the Western US in general that would not be too happy to lose their "playground" to a nuclear disaster.
Bottom Line: It might be better to stick a facility like this in the middle of nowhere. Las Vegas is not expendable.
Posted by: hastings14 at August 13, 2004 02:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe wrote: "I don't trust any politician blindly. I just wonder, did Kerry explain to his Nevada audience why he repeatedly voted in favor of Yucca Mountain while in the Senate? This was something I didn't know until I heard Bush tell a Las Vegas audience yesterday."
I agree that we shouldn't trust any politician blindly. My question is are you trust Bush blindly when you accept his statement about Kerry's votes on the issue. He does have a record of lying or stretching the truth you know. Might be worth some in-depth research. Absent that, I will trust Kerry over Bush.
Posted by: Randy at August 13, 2004 11:24 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Heck no, I don't trust Bush--as I said, I don't trust any politician blindly! I think it's a very dangerous thing when we put blind faith in our leaders, because they then have us in their pockets and no longer have to actually earn our votes and respect.
Why should any of us have to do any in-depth research on Kerry's voting record on Yucca Mountain? If Bush is lying or stretching the truth about any of this, wouldn't Kerry and Edwards (who Bush says they both voted in favor of Yucca Mountain several times as senators) quickly make it known themselves? If there's no truth in Bush's remarks, Kerry would be quick to say so, and he would be very vocal about it. He certainly does not wish to appear to have been pandering to Nevadans. Why then the silence?
Posted by: Pepe at August 13, 2004 11:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This week's economist profiles Nevada in its swing state series.
It says that Kerry has "for years opposed the Yucca Mountain scheme". The problem is though, it goes on to say, that in 2002, the Yucca plan was supported by 102 House Dems and 15 Dem senators, including John Edwards.
Here's the article:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3062077
Posted by: anon at August 14, 2004 12:48 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This doesn't directly have to do with swing states, but I think it's an important thing for us to remember.
Over the last 50 years, due to many things (manufacturing, immigration, etc.), the population center has shifted from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt. This is evident: New York lost 2 electoral votes since 2000, Pennsylvania lost 2, Ohio lost 1, Illinois lost 1, but California gained 1, Texas gained 2, Florida gained 2, and Arizona gained 2.
Many Democrats are worried that this means we will never be able to win a presidential election, but that is short term thinking.
What do you think happens over time when more Democrats leave blue states and move to red states? What happens when more and more Mexicans emigrate to red states? Over time, these former red states become purple (swing) and eventually blue. This happened in California 10-20 years ago. California, which had usually been Republican since the Lincoln era, became a blue state.
This is happening with this election too: Arizona, which went Republican for every election from 1952 to 1992, is now a swing state that is awfully close in the polls. Kerry is actually making a showing in Arkansas, Tennessee, and to a greater extent Florida - three states that were considered Republican strongholds in the Sun Belt until not too long ago.
If this trend continues, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain from the Sun Belt's rising importance. The more Mexicans there are in Texas - the better a chance we have of actually getting those 34 electoral votes. Oh, I'm not talking just about this election - I'm talking several down the road. The more New York Jews retire in Florida - the better a chance we have of getting those 27.
In the meantime, we won't lose the Rust Belt - oh, no...it's not like Republicans are actually going north. Thus, the amount of states that are considered assured blue territory will increase and increase as more Democrats move to red states and turn them bluer and bluer.
So, don't be distressed to see that the Midwest and Northeast states are losing electoral votes...just because we're losing Pennsylvanians doesn't mean we're losing Pennsylvania's Democrats...they're just living in Florida! Just because we're losing Michiganites doesn't mean we're losing Michigan's Democrats...they're just going to Arizona or New Mexico!
Keep the faith everyone! In 15 years, the Sun Belt could be bluer than the Northeast!
Nathaniel
Posted by: Nathaniel at August 14, 2004 02:42 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Perhaps when the electoral college starts screwing the Republicans and favouring the Democrats, it can finally be ditched.
Posted by: anon at August 14, 2004 08:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
On the Yucca Mountain issue, I suggest Kerry hits hard and LATE with the ploy in Nevada, cranking out a number of ads and visiting the state regularly in the final weeks of the campaign, putting Bush on defense and throwing him off-message. I do believe if Kerry hits late with Yucca Mountain, he'll win. I ranked it as my #2 swingiest swing state for a reason.
As for Nathaniel's concerns about the population shifts favoring Republican, it's certainly a short-term problem, but I don't foresee it as a long-term problem for a number of reasons. Many red states are changing quickly. I've never been to North Carolina or Georgia, but those I know who have say there are whole towns that are now entirely Hispanic. In another generation, North Carolina and Georgia will look alot like California....and particularly given the working-class nature of the Hispanics in the Southern states, it's fairly likely we'll see the sort of rapid push to the political center that we've already seen in the former uncontested GOP strongholds of Nevada and Arizona.
The growth of the senior population is also likely to favor Democrats, particularly in senior-heavy Florida and Arizona. In the not-too-distant-future, Social Security and Medicare are gonna run into serious financial malaise and the GOP will step up their efforts to privatize. Florida's rapid shift from a GOP stronghold to a swing state has stemmed largely from the fact that moderate Republican retirees in central Florida (many of whom are Midwesterners as opposed to the Jews on the Gold Coast) have decided the GOP no longer serves their interests....particularly someone as radical as Bush. Expect this trend to continue and for Florida to grow gradually more blue.
Furthermore, there will be a whole new series of issues that will take center-stage in the decades to come and the red state/blue state dynamic will realign based on where the party positions fall on this issue. It's been said that with growing populations, the arid Western states won't be able to meet water needs if prevailing climate conditions continue. This would put the Great Lakes states in a position of power based on their control of such a large amount of freshwater. Could we see a regional struggle over water rights become the prevailing issue of the 21 century will political party affiliation shifting between the water have and have-nots? I wouldn't discount it. We'll have to wait and see.
Posted by: Mark at August 14, 2004 10:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
You make many excellent points, Mark. Who would have thought just a geneation ago that the South, of all places, would become so solidly Republican? As millions of Latin Americans make their homes here in the South and West, it's difficult to say what the political map will look like in another generation. Who knows, in another generation or two most of us may be speaking espa��ol--one hears and sees Spanish all across America's rapidly growing Sunbelt.
Posted by: Pepe at August 14, 2004 11:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe, I live in a small farm town in Minnesota that's more than 30 percent Hispanic. The entire political landscape is likely to be transformed a generation from now, and if the Republicans can't figure out a way to expand their base beyond white male property owners and Southern evangelicals, they're doomed to become a permanent minority party.
Posted by: Mark at August 14, 2004 02:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
with all the money already put into yucca mtn. by the government does anyone really believe any politician that it will not be used for nuclear waste?
Posted by: al collins at October 22, 2004 05:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment