More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Income ($150K-$200K) voters
Last answered 2 hours ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Income ($150K-$200K) voters.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Dec 12, 2011. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Income data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011).
Choose a demographic filter
- District of Columbia
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- West Virginia
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
7 years ago by sciencealert.com.au
7 years ago by deccanchronicle.com
7 years ago by youtube.com
8 years ago by youtube.com
8 years ago by youtube.com
8 years ago by cnsnews.com
Data based on unique submissions (duplicates or multiple submissions are eliminated) per user using a 30-day moving average to reduce daily variance from traffic sources. Totals may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
More stances on this issue
Yes, to create jobs- but no, and maintain our current ones but keep a limit to up keep the environment. 7 years ago from a Republican in Wooldridge, MO
No, because we already have a huge oil supply that is nowhere near empty and the idea of running low on oil is only there as an excuse to drastically increase the price of oil. 7 years ago from a Libertarian in Richland, WA
Incentivize the private sector AND encourage federal development of alternative energy sources that are PROVEN SAFE for people and the environment. i.e., no tracking or nuclear power. Go solar and find other safe clean sources. 7 years ago from a Democrat in New York, NY
Yes,expand offshore drilling and other enery assets we possess in this country to include coal, but also promote and give incentives to the private sector to develop alternate energy sources and let the market dictate and choose it's preferences. 7 years ago from a Republican in Fulton, CA
Yes but must be very carefully regulated. 7 years ago from a Republican in Pleasanton, CA
YES, but in shallow water, not too deep. 7 years ago from a Republican in Brookline, MA
Use our own oil, instead of borrowing from other countries. At the same time, alternative fuels must be developed. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Dover, NJ
Yes, but limit expansion. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Owens Cross Roads, AL
The energy sector should be owned by the public, but divided up into regional or local divisions, while we don't expand and maintain current offshore oil wells. 7 years ago from a Libertarian in Santa Maria, CA
We studied all the ethanol, we dont need to disrupt the natural world. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Columbia, MO
If we could drill within our own nation first before offshore drilling, then that would be efficient for the money as well as environment and prevent less international issues. 7 years ago from a Republican in Wichita Falls, TX
Eliminate all subsidies and caps on liabilities, increase safety standards and regulation and require insurance to cover losses. 7 years ago from a Green in New York, NY