What the public thinks:
Nine in ten Americans say that the situation in the Gulf of Mexico is still out of control, but roughly half say that it is not getting any worse, according to a new national poll.
But will the oil spill get any better?
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday indicates that about half the public says that the Gulf will eventually recover, with half saying that will never happen.
Obama's got a 41/59 approve/disapprove on his handling of the spill. That's down from 46/51 three weeks ago, and a tad better than BP's current 13/87 (and just who are the approving 13%?)
The surprising and underreported part of the poll:
68 percent of respondents want more regulation of the oil industry;
72 percent favor "Barack Obama's proposals to develop alternative sources of energy and reduce the amount of oil and other fossil fuels that are produced and used in this country";
69 percent believe such plans will increase jobs.
But... but... Obama's speech on the topic was terrible. The pundits said so. So how could his proposals resonate? Hey, maybe the pundits are < gasp > wrong.
Heres an important part of the poll:
According to the poll, opposition to increased offshore drilling has grown 10 points since May and is now twice as high as it was in 2008. Fifty-eight percent of those questioned support a six-month moratorium on new drilling in the Gulf and other offshore sites; 68 percent favor increased regulation of the oil industry in this country.
"There is a gender and generation gap on offshore oil drilling - women and younger Americans are less likely to support drilling offshore and more likely to support a moratorium," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
The "strongly favor" drilling is 26 (down from 52 two years ago) and the 'strongly oppose" is 34 (up from 13 in 2008.)
BP isn't doing so well, despite Joe Barton's apology to Tony Hayward (BP's sacrificial lamb):
Measures that directly target BP are also popular - 63 percent favor lifting the liability cap on BP and 53 percent would support criminal charges against some BP employees or executives.
Full report is here, MoE +/- 4.
Keep in mind that in general people aren't happy but when it comes to specifics, there's majority approval for these concrete steps being taken or rrecommended:
"Please tell me whether you approve or disapprove of each of the following actions by the federal government. . . ."
"Creating a fund of billions of dollars to compensate workers and businesses that have been affected by the oil spill that would be paid by BP but administered by a neutral party"
Approve 82
Disapprove 18
"Increasing the amount of federal regulation of the oil industry in this country"
Approve 68
Disapprove 31
"Changing the law so there is no limit to the amount of money BP must pay"
Approve 63
Disapprove 36
"Suspending all new drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and other offshore sites for six months"
Approve 58
Disapprove 41
"Filing criminal charges against employees and executives at BP"
Approve 53
Disapprove 46
And see this from CJR:
John Harwood’s Monday contributions to The New York Times’s "Caucus" blog provide a reliably level-headed take on the political news of the moment, often informed by political science. Today’s contribution—about how, for all the media sturm und drang about Barack Obama’s failure to sufficiently emote about the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, his public ratings have remained steady—is a good example...
In the case of the oil spill, it’s not so much ideological disagreement as the press’s institutional need for novelty, drama, and volatility that drive the assumption that of course Obama is courting political risk by not playing the role the media expects. But the public does not face the some incentives—and, as Harwood notes, it’s apparently come to its own conclusions.
Remember, the pundits opining on how Obama's speech sucked are the same people that explained to us how McCain won the debates.