Will the BP oil spill be used as cover for the Democrats November election disaster?

[Phier]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

I link the article because it explains how Obama's popularity really hasn't changed with the BP spill. It is in itself nothing to do with my theory which I've had for about a week.

The issue is that come November if things don't change America is going to be giving the Democrats the finger in the election. It could be as big a swing as 1994 in favor of the Republicans. Now I don't wish to debate this aspect of it, voters are short sighted so things may change by Nov, things may get worse for the Dems, the Tea Party might mess up with some 3 way races going to minority support democrats, none of that is really the issue for this.

The issue is why are political types talking about BP being such a problem for Obama? Ironically for all my criticism of Obama, I can't fault him for BP. He is not an engineer, they have the people who are suppose to be the 'best' working on it, what exactly is he suppose to do, part the seas? Unless you want to go full on conspiracy that Obama wants the leak to be bad as an excuse to stop offshore drilling, there really isn't much you can say.

My theory is the political reporter types, who overwhelmingly supported Obama, are going to spin this as his out. Its not Obama's fault, he is just a victim of voter rage at the oil spill. Its not Obama's policies that cause this swing so to speak. Now thats obviously not true, its exactly his policies which have caused this swing, but when it comes to independent voters (and keeping your base happy) spin is important.

I also expect to see a bit less of a 'Blame Bush for Katrina' vibe in these stories as well, it will be Bush was caught by Katrina and Obama the oil spill, both beyond their real control.

[BNS]

My feeling is that the spill will not be a deciding factor come November no matter which way it is spun. From what I've heard around me excepting the (media and blogoshere of course) most people haven't attached strong political significance to this. Ultimately the concern over the economy and the debate over the extent of the powers of the federal government will dominate.

[Stavroforos]

I don't think the oil spill will be a deciding factor, unless New Orleans blows up or something.

[magickyleo101]

Good thread, Phier.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the oil spill won't have its own significant effect on Obama's popularity (even if indirect). There are explanations for why this event hasn't hurt him yet.

That said, I see where you're coming from in saying that the media won't want to interpret the election as a referendum on Obama's policies. It's not that they would necessarily have some kind of plot to collectively misinterpret events - most reporters probably just see the world through an ideologically friendly lens.

But I think if reporters were looking for an excuse they wouldn't turn to BP. They can say stuff like "it's an anti-incumbent year" while brushing under the rug the fact that incumbents usually aren't unpopular unless they do something unpopular. Alternatively, they might blame the election results on the economy and the economy on Europe. Or they might just say "tea-party people are racists, but they didn't vote in such big numbers last year."

[chamaeleo]

Phier: I can see this. Similar to Bush's adoption of 9/11 to justify whatever the Hell he was pleased to do. In this case, Obama should use this disaster to lash his supporters into a self-righteous eco-frenzy against Big Oil proponents...while pushing Green power and industry to the foreground. The Dems are currently asleep, and this is just the right pitch of alarm tone that'll bring em to the booth.

If he's really smart, he'll court these guys in a bipartisan thrust towards Energy independence:

http://www.rep.org/

[DisgruntledGoat]

The comparison of bush and obama, katrina and oil spill is starting to get annoying. It comes up, even hear in a minor aspect. Bush caught grief because GOVERNMENT agencies had an inadequate response in the face of human misery. In this case a PRIVATE company has had an inadequate response to an environmental disaster. Two completely different scenarios.

[Stavroforos]

And most importantly, the government's failure resulted partially in the death of almost 2,000 people.

[xcorps]

And most importantly, the government's failure resulted partially in the death of almost 2,000 people.

But not the Federal Government. The State Government had much more to do with it.

[xcorps]

In this case a PRIVATE company has had an inadequate response to an environmental disaster. Two completely different scenarios

You forgot the government part of the response. Because the government is responding. Has been responding. Will continue to respond. It isn't just BP.

That's why people are pointing the finger at Obama and his administration. Because the government is involved. Among those agencies involved are the The Department of Homeland Security, The Justice Department, The Department of Interior, The Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA, The Department of Defense, and the State Department.

[JP226]

How I wish it would but I think in a sick way, oil spills benefit dems.

[Stavroforos]

Well I don't know the details, but my point was meant more to show that people (rightly) care much more when thousands of people die, compared to when it is an ecological catastrophe.

[Lord Mandelson]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

I link the article because it explains how Obama's popularity really hasn't changed with the BP spill. It is in itself nothing to do with my theory which I've had for about a week.

The issue is that come November if things don't change America is going to be giving the Democrats the finger in the election. It could be as big a swing as 1994 in favor of the Republicans. Now I don't wish to debate this aspect of it, voters are short sighted so things may change by Nov, things may get worse for the Dems, the Tea Party might mess up with some 3 way races going to minority support democrats, none of that is really the issue for this.

The issue is why are political types talking about BP being such a problem for Obama? Ironically for all my criticism of Obama, I can't fault him for BP. He is not an engineer, they have the people who are suppose to be the 'best' working on it, what exactly is he suppose to do, part the seas? Unless you want to go full on conspiracy that Obama wants the leak to be bad as an excuse to stop offshore drilling, there really isn't much you can say.

My theory is the political reporter types, who overwhelmingly supported Obama, are going to spin this as his out. Its not Obama's fault, he is just a victim of voter rage at the oil spill. Its not Obama's policies that cause this swing so to speak. Now thats obviously not true, its exactly his policies which have caused this swing, but when it comes to independent voters (and keeping your base happy) spin is important.

I also expect to see a bit less of a 'Blame Bush for Katrina' vibe in these stories as well, it will be Bush was caught by Katrina and Obama the oil spill, both beyond their real control.

Forgive my general slowness on this, since I'm not an American, but I would be really interested if you post a brief summary of what, in your view, Obama has done wrong?

He's none too popular over here in Blighty either at the moment (despite our politicians, left and right, trying madly to copy him), so I'd be interested in just having a quick summary of what's gone wrong.

Thanks.

[Phier]

Forgive my general slowness on this, since I'm not an American, but I would be really interested if you post a brief summary of what, in your view, Obama has done wrong?

He's none too popular over here in Blighty either at the moment (despite our politicians, left and right, trying madly to copy him), so I'd be interested in just having a quick summary of what's gone wrong.

Thanks.

I'm not sure how they would emulate him beyond talking as if they had a vision, full of hope and candy, without any real plans on how to get there. They would also have to govern against the will of the people. Most Americans were not for the 'stimulus' package and think they billions were wasted, most Americans want to see taxes cut to help the economy, most Americans were against the health care bill. Most Americans do not support his supreme court nominations. Ironically the place where most felt he would have issues is foreign policy but hes for the most part been ok there, with a few missteps. Though as a counter point, by doing things like keeping the Patriot act and keeping Guantanamo bay open, two buzz word issues for the left, many of them, who don't understand that there are in fact real reasons for these things, have turned a bit on him as well. He even gutted the NASA manned space program.

I read yesterday that the debt is going at either 3 or 5 times the rate of Bush, I don't recall and it doesn't really matter in terms of perception. The perception is that Obama is just a spend spend spend democrat, with no real plans that will help the economy and that his adminstrations action has only made it worse.

[Lord Mandelson]

I'm not sure how they would emulate him beyond talking as if they had a vision, full of hope and candy, without any real plans on how to get there.

Exactly. That and our glorious new leader continually making embarassing gaffes like "y'know, this is the policy of President Obama!" as though that somehow vindicates the plan of all criticism...

Thanks for the post. It's largely as I thought: not radical enough for the left, not conservative enough for the right. Result=no-one happy.

That more or less OK? Sounds a lot like Carter if so...

[Phier]

That more or less OK? Sounds a lot like Carter if so...

Very astute.

[C-Rob]

I'm not sure how a president who's been in office for the time he ahs been could ever be put to blame for a disaster 4 years or more in the making...

[Stavroforos]

He's not being blamed for the leak, but for the response to the leak.

[Phier]

He's not being blamed for the leak, but for the response to the leak.

Which I can't see blaming him for, what exactly were the feds suppose to do?

"Mr. President there is a giant pipe, deep on the bottom of the sea floor, leaking massive amounts of oil, what should we do?!"

"Umm find people who can stop it?"

Now there might be clean up issues that the feds could do better or will fail on in the future, but in terms of the leak itself, one might as well blame him for the snow fall being heavy last winter too.

[xcorps]

Now there might be clean up issues that the feds could do better or will fail on in the future, but in terms of the leak itself, one might as well blame him for the snow fall being heavy last winter too.

What? Are you suggesting that POTUS has no control over the weather? Or is Obama just weaker than Bush?

[xcorps]

I'm not sure how a president who's been in office for the time he ahs been could ever be put to blame for a disaster 4 years or more in the making...

Except that they didn't begin drilling this hole until February of 2010. Let's see, February, March, April...not 4 years.