I've diaried this topic a couple of times lately, but now comes a new Pew Poll taken Sept. 6-7 of 1,000 adults (3.5% MoE):
"Two-In-Three Critical Of Bush's Relief Efforts".
The American public is highly critical of President Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Two-in-three Americans (67%) believe he could have done more to speed up relief efforts, while just 28% think he did all he could to get them going quickly. At the same time, Bush's overall job approval rating has slipped to 40% and his disapproval rating has climbed to 52%, among the highest for his presidency. Uncharacteristically, the president's ratings have slipped the most among his core constituents Republicans and conservatives. [Emphasis added]
Among Republicans, 40% say Bush could have done more; 32% say the federal response was fair/poor; and 25% are less confident the government can handle a major terror attack. More numbers below.
First, Bush's overall standing has been on a steady downward slope for the past several months:
Approve/disapprove:
Jan: 50 / 43
May: 43 / 50
Jul: 44 / 48
Sep: 40 / 52
Emotional impact of Katrina: 58% say they feel depressed as a result. In recent years, this figure has been exceeded only by 9/11, after which 71% said they felt depressed. There is a partisan discrepancy here: 68% of Democrats report feeling depressed, compared to 45% of Republicans. But Republicans and Democrats are equal in saying they have made a relief donation (56%) or intend to do so (28%).
Anger: 50% of all Americans say they are angry over what happened in NOLA. Among blacks, the number is 70%, while 46% of whites say they are angry.
Racial inequality: 71% of blacks say Katrina shows that racial inequality is a major problem in the US; 56% of whites don't see it that way. 2/3 of blacks say the response would have been faster if the victims had been mostly white; 77% of whites say it would have made no difference. Could Bush have done more? Yes, say 63% of whites and 85% of blacks.
Importance of the story: 70% say they are following the story closely. Of all stories ranked from 1986 to today, only the high price of gasoline is being followed more closely (71%, essentially the same number).
News coverage: 65% say the news coverage has been good or excellent, and 62% say the amount of coverage has been appropriate. 21% think there has been too much coverage (27% Republicans, 15% Democrats).
Reaction according to news source: Could Bush have done more? Those who watch CNN: 73%. If you get your news from newspapers, 69%. But even if you are a Fox watcher, 50% agree he could have done more. (However, a plurality - 42% - think that the looters were criminals taking advantage of the situation. For people with other news sources, that number was in the 30's.)
Another interesting news tidbit: Pew points out that TV viewership always goes up after a disaster. But this time, CNN got most of the benefit:
In this instance, CNN made the greatest gains. In June, 18% of Americans cited CNN as a source of most of their news about national and international issues. Following Katrina, 31% say CNN is a main source of news. The Fox News Channel and MSNBC also saw sizable, though smaller, audience gains from Katrina.
No report on whether this can be correlated with CNN's suddenly remembering that journalists are supposed to report the news, not just read gov't handouts.
Global warming to blame: 25% say Katrina is the result of global climate change, while 66% say this kind of thing happens from time to time. Democrats (31%) and Independents (29%) are more likely to see this as a consequence of global warming than Republicans (16%).
Bottom line: People are following the story very closely and are, overall, not buying the Bush/Rove line that it's all somebody else's fault. Republicans are still showing loyalty, but not as blindly as they used to, and some are starting to peel away. If 40% of the party faithful think Bush could have done more, that is huge by comparison to previous expressions of faith.
The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they are making the journey.
Update [2005-9-8 18:5:33 by Dan K]: Just spotted this in the Washington Post:
Polarizing the electorate has been a successful strategy for this White House. That's not what they fear. But if the poll numbers start to shift precipitously -- and if even a chunk of Bush's core supporters come to the conclusion that he dropped the ball -- then Katrina could be something new for the White House. And something very dangerous indeed. [Empahsis added]
So the question is: Is 40% a "chunk?" I think it just might be.