Kenneth D. Gartrell

By: Kenneth D. Gartrell

When more than 75% of the likely American voters polled want to see increased drilling and exploration now, why are the Democrats more entrenched than ever in their posture against domestic oil development?

The answer appears to be for two reasons. First, the Democratic lead in key swing states which will be most affected by oil exploration is so narrow as to be won or lost on the “Green” vote. Second, with the price of oil as intolerably high as it is, Obamanomic class warfare proposals to tax the rich and give to the poor and the middle class has greater public appeal due to the elevated price of oil and gasoline. That particular sleight of hand might be the needed margin to win other key toss up states in the Midwest such as Michigan, Indiana and Ohio where the marginal differences in the polls are very slim and where McCain has the greatest chance to score simply by adding Mitt Romney as a calming voice to the automotive and trade related problems of those states.

The price of gasoline at the pump is more than 25% higher than the $3.00 per gallon price that existed just 5 months ago at the peak of the primary season in early February 2008. Despite recent oil and gasoline price retreats, the average price of gas remains around $4.08 and today — on increased tensions over Iraq — the price of crude oil is spiking above $125 per bbl. At the same time, nationwide polls show that Americans believe that exploration in the United States is the best way to lower the price of energy “now” and moderate the impact of foreign political pressure around the supply of oil imports.

The Nader factor

In 2004 Ralph Nader polled only 1% of the vote in the general election. In 2000 he polled significantly better at 2.8% of the vote. If we examine Nader votes in these two elections we see that he got a large share of the radical environmental vote in today’s energy sensitive swing states and a high degree of the disgruntled workers in the states and regions in the US where the negative side of NAFTA and manufacturing globalization was perceived as the greatest.

A case can be made that in order to win the election; the Democrats are willing to defy a nearly overwhelming mandate to move on the oil exploration issue just to get by with the skin of their teeth in Nevada, Colorado, Virginia and Florida. Each of those states would face obvious environmental impacts from oil exploration –whether from oil shale in the Rockies or off shore in the coastal states in play. The Democratic lead today in each of these states is less than the average vote taken by Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004.

Drill here, drill now

If McCain presses the domestic “drill here drill now” agenda teed up for him by Newt Ginrgrich – and most cleverly by Boone Pickens — and company, he will be able to create pressure in these swing states for the voters to vote their general economic interests ahead of the radical environmental agenda in place today. Whether the Democrats can withstand that outcome by clinging to the radical environmental agenda is unclear given the overall situation on oil and gasoline prices. But what is clear is that the Democrats cannot win in those states without that vote. They cannot afford to drive the vote back to Nader unless they can gain ground in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio.

In the Midwest the problem for the Democrats is very much more complicated by the fact that in choosing Mitt Romney for his ticket, McCain can and will energize the vote in Michigan with direct impact on the border state of Indiana which in turn and with Michigan would complete the border state sweep for Republicans on all borders of Ohio except the Pennsylvania border. For the nth time in American elections it looks like the story is “as goes Ohio, so goes the nation”. All McCain and Romney would have to do to cement Michigan, Indiana and Ohio is to go to those states and proclaim the significant economic advantage to them of lower oil prices with the attendant impact on the expansion of farm incomes and automotive production that will thrive in those states if the price of gasoline can be returned to $2.00 per gallon or less due to expectations of dramatic increases in domestic oil production.

It is difficult to imagine a situation where the economics of oil do not favor a Republican drive to force economic tradeoffs on oil in all the swing states today. There is simply too much nationwide interest in short term exploration that the Republicans can cash in on as long as the prices remain where they are going into November.

The Democratic position is hardened and cannot easily change. They are the captives of their strategy to keep the Nader vote in the fold. Sadly, but in the spirit of the ultimate realpolitik they are also widely exposed to an October surprise if the Israelis conclude their safest political and military option is to attack Iran.

“As goes the price of oil, so goes the nation”

The Case for Rob Portman