I use the phrase because, apparently, Obama will be talking about kicking some ass on tomorrow’s Today Show (per Marc Ambinder).
I don’t think that the oil spill will ultimately affect either Obama’s popularity or the midterm elections. Consider two facts as a preamble:
- Katrina didn’t really affect Bush’s approval all that much, if at all. See this piece by Alan Abramowitz.
- Obama’s approval numbers have actually notched up in the past couple weeks when you do an apples-to-apples comparison of the polls. The differences are within the margin of error, so take “notched up” with all appropriate salt. But these numbers certainly don’t suggest that the oil spill is taking some toll. See this piece by Michael McDonald.
Now here’s the crux. BP capped the well. It’s capturing some, perhaps most, oil. It’s not capturing all the oil. Assume that this partial solution doesn’t prove faulty, leaving us at square one. That may be a big assumption, but stay with me. And also factor in the possibility that BP might actually be able to staunch the flow further, with relief wells or whatever.
If that assumption is true, and especially if the possibility of further improvement comes to pass, this will remove the drama from the media narrative. We won’t have the ongoing saga of tried-and-failed solutions (the top kill, etc.). Politicians will stop talking about it. Obama won’t have to cuss in front of Matt Lauer.
But won’t we have a big huge environmental mess? Isn’t that news? Yes, it is. But not for long. How many pictures of oily pelicans can you show on the nightly news? Not that many. We are once again in the world of the issue-attention cycle, which I discussed before with regard to natural disasters. I don’t think this man-made disaster will prove any different. The media will lose interest because the long hard slog of cleaning up Gulf beaches isn’t as newsworthy as an unstoppable gushing well. The ultimate effects of the oil on ecosystems and industry will take time to manifest themselves.
And so the public’s attention will turn elsewhere, and the spill will fail to have much impact on the fortunes of Obama or other incumbent leaders.
{ 5 comments }
I think the overall point of this post is dead on. But I was so startled by the idea that Katrina had *no* effect on Bush’s approval that I had to check it out for myself. I ran the numbers, and I can’t replicate Abramowitz’s result. I get a stat sig drop of 4.3 points post-Katrina. Not sure what explains the difference. I ran a variety of different models, and there was always a drop. Could be Abramowitz is right after all, but I’d say skepticism is warranted.
The whole concept of equating the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and the loss of a lot of peoples’ lives to the explosion and sinking of the deepwater rig (yes I know 11 people died on the rig but more died in Katrina)and subsequent oil spill is ridiculous. It smells of racism, Fox New bias and serious lack of a grasping of the facts. People who call this Obama’s Katrina moment never held Bush responsible for Katrina’s destruction. Yes, the oil spill sucks for so many reasons, mostly because it shows we, the United States don’t have a plan to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. No thanks to Bush and Cheney. As always it is blame Obama and excuse Bush. Not me. I really like this President and I have a lot of faith that when all is said and done President Obama will have left America in a lot better shape then he received it. The reason why I feel this way is by looking at Barack Obama’s personal history. Especially the influence on him by his step father in Indonesia.
It’s not Katrina. It’s Chernobyl.
Setting aside the loss of life, which is, of course, irrecoverable, in Katrina and the New Orleans flood, the damage was relatively transitory, reparable with brick and mortar.
The damage to the Gulf’s ecology will be far more extensive and far longer felt, on the order of decades, at least, certainly well beyond the lifetime of the vast majority of those now living.
Yeah I’d like to know more about the evidence supporting the assertion that Katrina had little affect on Bush’s approval ratings. Perhaps my emotional memory is overpowering my ability to comprehend AA’s analysis but I definitely recall Katrina being the most immediate catalyst informing the fall of Bush and the GOP and the rise of the ’06 Dems.
I am with Eli on this. I think (%disapproval X Katrina outrage) = total anti-Bush vote TURNOUT. What I believe but cannot prove is that pro-Bush fempto-disappointment in the “shrink the gummint” narative kept those R-votes out of the voting booth. All nuance all the time but that’s my opinion and I could be wrong.
Comments on this entry are closed.