Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: National Survey, Oil Spill (CNN 6/16)

Topics: National , poll

CNN / Opinion Research Corporation
6/16/10; 534 adults, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(CNN release)

National

Obama Job Approval
50% Approve, 48% Disapprove (chart)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way that _____ has handled the oil spill off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico?
Barack Obama: 41/ 59
The oil company called BP: 13 / 87
The federal government in general: 25 / 74

Do you think President Obama has been too tough, about right, or not tough enough in dealing with BP in regards to the oil spill?
5% Too tough, 26% About right, 67% Not tough enough

Who do you trust more to improve the situation in the Gulf of Mexico -- BP, or the federal government?
32% BP, 54% Federal government

 

Comments
StatyPolly:

Only about half of their usual sample size?

Guess that's all they can afford these days. Must be going broke from those last place TV ratings, hehe..

____________________

hoosier_gary:

Gallup's approval dropped to 46% today (RV), Rasmussen to 43% (LV). Guess that puts 50% here about right when you include people too lazy to register for vote.

3 weeks ago, CNN had his approval of the spill at 46% approve vs 51% disapprove. Now that he made his horrible speech, it has dropped to 41% approve vs 59% disapprove - a 13 point swing against him in just 3 weeks. Ouch!

Looks like his gamble of using a disaster as an excuse to push his political agenda was a big mistake.

Has Obama suspended the Jones act yet or is he still allowing more damage be done to the shoreline to appease the unions?

Will he ever allow all that equipment in from the Netherlands to help with containment? It's been 7 weeks since they offered. Has he made up his mind yet?

____________________

iVote:

@hoosier_gary

Do you choose to be so misinformed, or is that just a side effect of watching Fox News?

That equipment that you're talking about from the Netherlands was accepted a month ago.

via the Washington Post:

"In late May, the administration accepted Mexico's offer of two skimmers and 13,779 feet of boom; a Dutch offer of three sets of Koseq sweeping arms, which attach to the sides of ships and gather oil; and eight skimming systems offered by Norway."

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Well, BP approval is approaching the single digit territory. Obama is 3X more popular on the issue than them.

It looks like most people think he hasn't been "tough enough" on them.

____________________

iVote:

But what would people rather have, though? For Obama to be "tougher" on BP and beat a dead horse, or to work to convince them to set up a $20 billion account to pay off damages.

From the poll:

"Approve/Disapprove

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

82/18"

____________________

Field Marshal:

Ivote,

It took weeks to accept those skimmers as well as the equipment from Mexico and Canada. The oil spill began on April 20. Why would it take until the end of May to accept the equipment? It would seem that you would want all the equipment you could get right away. I guess a month and change is quick for government efficiency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/13/AR2010061304232.html?sid=ST2010061305087

____________________

hoosier_gary:

iVote:

What Obama accepted was a fraction of what was offered and it took him 5 weeks to accept them. There are still hundreds of ships that have been offered but not accepted because Obama refuses to suspend the Jones act (because the unions don't want him to). They are sitting in foreign ports unused because he owes so much to the unions.

Bush suspended the Jones act on day 4 of Katrina when the extent of the damage became evident. It is day 59. Obama refuses to temporarily lift the ban.

Get your facts straight. You won't get them from a liberal rag like the Washington Post.

Do you trust the Voice of America? This article from 3 days ago details how the Dutch state that they have equipment that they offered to Obama that would help but Obama refuses to grant them permission to bring them in.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Dutch-say-They-Could-Speed-Gulf-Oil-Recovery-with-US-Permission-96341579.html

Can you explain that? Let me guess. Bush's fault.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Can you explain that? Let me guess. Bush's fault.

No, its Fox News' fault. They obviously do not conform to Ivotes left-wing media bias news sources.

____________________

gabe:

CAN WE PLEASE DO A POLL OF RV'S. For god sakes, the people who vote are the opinions that matter here not some teen who just sayes yes or no and does not know anything about it. At this point in time polls of adults are useless.

____________________

iVote:

@FM

You're peddling a Sarah Palin talking point. She was on Bill O'Reilly the other night talking about how Dutch dike builders would somehow miraculously be able to stop the oil leak.

She also said that the American people don't trust the federal government with the cleanup. Looking at this poll, they obviously have more faith in the federal government than BP or anyone else, which includes the local government down there. No matter how much they want to piss on the response effort, people still (surprisingly) have faith in the federal government.

And don't even get me started on Joe Barton. His comments will do enough damage for conservatives in the days ahead.

____________________

Xenobion:

Field Marshall is quite the Fox News noisebox. I myself watched O'Riely last night and he made a comment about Etheridge being drunk. Lo and behold FM has to snipe that one too in the NC poll. I think true comedians make their own material rather than steal it when they're trying to be funny.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"I myself watched O'Riely last night and he made a comment about Etheridge being drunk."

It's a hive mind.

____________________

Field Marshal:

LOL. You guys are know only to arguments: 1) Rasmussen is biased,2) Fox News is biased. Seriously though, its like there is one liberal mind and these dumb arguments are dispatched daily to all the lower robtos. Hey, like ObamaBots!

I did watch Oreilly last night and it was Dennis Miller who mentioned he was drunk which was quite obvious to the unbiased mind.

Ivote: Actually, its even the lefts talking point as Mathews yammered about it two days ago and its been all over the papers including left-wing ones like the Washpo and NYT. But i guess you would need to read to find that out instead of relying on third party's to tell you what to say. LOL!

In terms of who do you trust more, the wording of the question should have been different. They should have asked first if you trust BP and then asked if they trust the gov't. i bet if you ask it that way, the results would have been more similar. And i agree with you, its amazing to me that people have faith in the gov't given their horrible track record.

____________________

Xenobion:

I think all the "Obamabots" have been pretty on the mark to call a duck a duck. Since the liberal media rules everything we all get our sources from a plethora of media outlets, sometimes disagreeing (sort of negates the whole "bot" mentality I guess). But I can only be saddened that coming on pollster.com and listening to you and Stillow would be nothing more than a rerun of Hannity of Oreilly.

I'd frankly prefer if you changed your tune from a Fox News hack to a Rush Limbaugh Dittohead since I don't listen to his radio program. I wouldn't be the wiser to you reciting conservative talking points mindlessly and you could probably get away with people thinking that you came up with conclusions by yourself. No use using the conservative field manual here Field Marshall!

____________________

iVote:

@FM

Um, what "third parties" are you referring to? For a conservative like yourself who always rails against the mainstream media, I find it odd that you'd imply that getting my information anywhere else is a bad thing.

And no one is "telling me what to say." Unlike yourself, who Xenobion just proved used a Dennis Miller joke directly from the O'Reilly Factor. Sad...

____________________

Field Marshal:

Xeno,

Yeah right. The Obamabots only know how to whine and cry like babies about Rasmussen and Fox News. I find it hysterical that you would complain about someone getting something from Foxnews. I, unlike you, tend to get my news from a variety of sources, some that i know conform to my views and others that do not. As opposed to you and the other mindless Obamabots who tend to post the same nonsense day in and day out.

Is it any different to come here and listen to you recite last nights Olbermann and Mathews shows with their tired and pathetic talking points? Give me a break.

I'd frankly prefer most of the liberals, sorry, progressives, actually think for themselves instead of regurgitating the same ridiculous lies that make them out to be fools. Things like the GOP is racists, they hate science, their hate education. These things among many others is why people are running away from the liberal wing in record time. Its quite sad really.

____________________

Field Marshal:

And no one is "telling me what to say." Unlike yourself, who Xenobion just proved used a Dennis Miller joke directly from the O'Reilly Factor. Sad...

HAA!! What joke? Don't be a fool and listen to moronic liberals, i mean progressives on this board. You're better than that.

There were many news outlets, including the local NC affiliate that questioned whether he was drunk which, once you get your talking points from Olbermann and Maddow, you will probably hear too.

____________________

Fred:

@ivote

I don't think FM was making a joke. It's pretty obvious that Etheridge was drunk, or something. I did not watch O'reilly (never do cuz i only have basic cable) and the first thing I thought was that he was drunk......or else a lunatic.

i mean, that's like someone saying "it's sunny outside" and you replying, "it's sad that you just stole that from the weatherman who said it was sunny on the news an hour ago" ....some things you can figure out easily on your own. I'm pretty sure that's what FM did in this case.

____________________

Fred:

10 Things liberals (progressives) use as "logical arguments"

1. Rasmussen is wrong
2. Fox news is wrong
3. It was Bush's fault
4. Republicans are racists
5. Republicans are religious nuts who hate science
6. Republicans want to take the country back 200 years
7. We should blame those who are wealthy. They are evil.
8. Debt? What debt? The only debt I know about is the debt from the Iraq war.
9. Rasmussen is wrong (again)
10. Fox news is wrong (again)

____________________

dpearl:

This whole Dutch help business seems like an interesting story to try and get to the truth about - not an easy task given that the sources providing information seem to be either of the "Let's kick their butts" or "Let's cover our butts" variety.

For the Dutch point of view I'd go with the Dutch Embassy statement on the skimmers at
http://dc.the-netherlands.org/News/Press_Releases/Dutch_to_Provide_Assistance_in_Clean_Up_of_Gulf_Oil_Spill
(as opposed to a locally recruited volunteer honorary counsel in Houston)

I have not been able to find any statement from the U.S. Government saying that they were not accepting the Dutch skimmers because of the Jones Act - though I have seen many statements by others claiming that was the reason. Can someone point me to this?

____________________

iVote:

@Fred

If you had more than basic cable and actually watched O'Reilly, you might know that Dennis Miller is a stand-up comedian. I rarely watch it myself and didn't see that particular episode, but I was assuming that the drunk statement was made in the context of a joke. That's usually what Miller does. He makes jokes...

____________________

Xenobion:

Field Marshall fessed up Fred. Get with the program. If you want to come up with your pejorative list of what liberals say on this site ala David Letterman, at least we're not reciting the talking points of yesterday. I'm not even defending what half the dunderhead liberals on this site talk about.

No one on this site knows how to argue effectively. I'm sorry but its not effective to group someone who's ideologically different than you as a liberal or a conservative then force them to defend other liberal/conservative talking points.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Looks like Field Marshall is on his period again.

____________________

dpearl:

Still trying to investigate the Dutch offer of the skimmers. It seems that the timeline of events has been misstated very often. The Dutch company that makes the skimmers offered them to BP (not to the US Govt) three days after the spill. It was BP who ignored the request for over a week. The company then went to the Dutch government who contacted the US government about the company's offer. On May 18 the Coast Guard made the request for the skimmers. About ten days later the request was approved by the Dutch. I haven't found any evidence that the bulk of the delay was on the part of the US government or that the Jones act was involved.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

dperarl:

I posted the link to a story about the Dutch equipment. Why do you keep saying you can't find anything about it. Do you need it again?

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Dutch-say-They-Could-Speed-Gulf-Oil-Recovery-with-US-Permission-96341579.html

"The Obama administration declined the Dutch offer partly because of the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from certain activities in U.S. waters. During the Hurricane Katrina crisis five years ago, the Bush administration waived the Jones Act in order to facilitate some foreign assistance, but such a waiver was not given in this case."

You liberals that can't see past your hatred need to learn that just because Palin says something it doesn't make it wrong. That is a closed-minded bone-headed approach.

____________________

dpearl:

GH: I don't know anything about Sarah Palin's views on this. I just heard about this story from you here on Pollster so I was trying to run it down to get at the truth. The VOA story does not have any evidence what-so-ever about the Government refusing Dutch skimmers because of the Jones act - just accusations from one side and denials from the administration. Thus I am trying to get at the source to find the truth.

The Christian Science Monitor story on the same subject has a different set of facts - and they seemed to have received their information from the Dutch company involved in the actual transaction.

____________________

obamalover:

Republicans apologizing to British Petroleum, a foreign corporation. Who are the apologists now?

____________________

dpearl:

"Republicans apologizing to British Petroleum, a foreign corporation. Who are the apologists now?"

I don't think you can hold that one against the Republicans generally. The Republican leadership distanced themselves from those statements real fast and even threatened to remove Barton from his committee position if he didn't retract.

____________________

obamalover:

@dpearl

Because it became a public relations nightmare. Otherwise they would be fine with it. We know the GOBP bends over backwards for oil companies in private.

____________________

seg:

obamalover:
Do you think that only Republicans take oil money? You do know that Obama by far received the largest contributions from BP, I believe both as a senator and presidential candidate?

I hope you also realize that Democrats received more Wall Street money than Republicans.

Furthermore, I hope you remember that BP was a strong supporter of new climate remediation laws. Do you remember how their adds pushed their "beyond petroleum" energy businesses. Furthermore, Kerry's bill makes very lucretive allowances for both oil companies and electrical utilities.

The cynical among us (or perhaps just me) would say that BP was eager to enhance its government crony status and grow its rent-seeking income stream from those wild and wonderful subsidies and handouts for "alternate" energy schemes.

Well, what Obama is demonstrating to them is that no matter how much you suck up to him, he will throw you under the bus if it is expedient to him. The CEO of BP will go down in history as one of the greatest fools of all time: he cozied up to a government that makes a big show of despising big business and desperately needed to show they could "kick ass"; he pulled an Obama, blaming everyone else at BP for mistakes made under him; he threw his pensioner share holders under the bus by agreeing to a bottomless fund to be controlled by Obama political operatives without obtaining anything in return. Like Obama, looking out for himself is job 1, 2, 3 ... n

BP and its CEO are good examples of why conservatives should not be supportive of big business. Let them stay with their natural partners, progressives. Big busninsses love regulations and government intrusion because they think they can ride that horse to even greater market dominance and profits. They are not conservatives in any way, shape or form. Big business hasn't supported Republicans since FDR appointed them to industrial boards and gave them the power to squeeze out all of the small guys. Nothing in the gilded age approached it. They have been at the trough ever since.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Libero-industrial complex, huh Seg?

Nice. BTW, Just because your posts are sometimes not replied to, doesn't mean they aren't read. Sometimes late, but better than never. Hope you're doing well.

____________________

obamalover:

Wall street give Dems slight preference because they are the ones in power. When the GOP was in power they got much more than Dems from Wall street. Get real

"Do you think that only Republicans take oil money?"

75% of Oil company campaign contributions goes towards Republicans. Now tell me that the GOP is not in their back pocket.

BP and a lot of oil companies advertise that "they are working on alternative solutions" for public relations purposes. Don't be so naive. Moreover, it wasn't alternative energy that destroyed the gulf coast it was oil. Oil is the problem. Why is it so hard for you people to accept that?

"Big busninsses love regulations and government intrusion because they think they can ride that horse to even greater market dominance and profits. They are not conservatives in any way, shape or form. Big business hasn't supported Republicans"

OK what alternate universe are you living in? What party does the Chamber of Commerce support? Why are Dems for McCain Feingold which puts restrictions on corporate campaign contributions and Republicans and big business are for it? Why is Wall Street fighting the Volcker rule? Why did they get rid of the Depression Era Glass Steagal act? Are you really that deluded and crazy that you think they like more regulations? How does that make any sense whatsoever?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"You do know that Obama by far received the largest contributions from BP, I believe both as a senator and presidential candidate?"

I don't know what he received as senator, but since Illinois isn't a huge oil state, I'm guessing not all that much.

Obama received $77,000 from BP and its employees during the presidential campaign. That is chump change and really doesn't matter to him any more than the $100 I gave.

Microsoft & its employees gave Obama $800,000. Goldman Sachs & its employees gave Obama $994,000. University of California system and its employees gave $1.5 million. If you think BP's $77K matters to him, I've got a bridge to sell you.

I'd much rather know about Goldman Sachs' influence. They gave generously to both McCain and Obama. The 4th and 2nd largest donor, respectively.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE6D81730F932A15750C0A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/business/31labor.html?_r=1

You'll notice from these two articles that BP has been a problem for some time. Their cost-cutting was the problem behind 15 people getting killed when their Texas City refinery exploded in 2005.

The Bush administration conducted an investigation and fined them $21 million, which BP resisted. The OSHA under Bush was criticized by the Chemical Safety Board for not following up enough, but to their credit they did find the company culpable and fined them even if they didn't pursue it after that.

The Obama administration found that they had still not corrected the problems and OHSA fined BP $87.4 million, which they were resisting.

"Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis said on Friday that BP had allowed hundreds of potential hazards to continue even though it had signed a settlement in 2005 agreeing to take broad action to protect employees."

Yes, that really sounds like the Obama administration has been cozy with BP.

BP's cost-cutting regarding safety has been the reason for dozens of deaths over the past 30 years, and yet you want to blame Obama.

If you don't want to believe the lamestream liberal NY Times, here is the Houston Chronicle quoting TX attorney general Greg Abbott (R) in 2009 saying BP has become an "environmental disaster."

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2009_4749965

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/business/31labor.html?_r=1

You'll notice from these two articles that BP has been a problem for some time. Their cost-cutting was the problem behind 15 people getting killed when their Texas City refinery exploded in 2005.

The Bush administration conducted an investigation and fined them $21 million, which BP resisted. The OSHA under Bush was criticized by the Chemical Safety Board for not following up enough, but to their credit they did find the company culpable and fined them even if they didn't pursue it after that.

The Obama administration found that they had still not corrected the problems and OHSA fined BP $87.4 million, which they were resisting.

"Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis said on Friday that BP had allowed hundreds of potential hazards to continue even though it had signed a settlement in 2005 agreeing to take broad action to protect employees."

Yes, that really sounds like the Obama administration has been cozy with BP.

BP's cost-cutting regarding safety has been the reason for dozens of deaths over the past 30 years, and yet you want to blame Obama.

If you don't want to believe the lamestream liberal NY Times, here is the Houston Chronicle quoting TX attorney general Greg Abbott (R) in 2009 saying BP has become an "environmental disaster."

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2009_4749965

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

For some reason, the site won't let me link the other NYT article, but it is entitled "Company Deficiencies Blamed in 2005 Texas Explosion" dated March 21, 2007, if you want confirmation of the $21 million fine and CSB comments I cited.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

oops, i guess it did let me the first time. Sorry for the triple post!

____________________

seg:

Aaron_in_TX:
Although I cautioned against assuming that BP was unsafe based on the fact of citations (and even some deaths), that also does not imply that they are NOT bad guys.

Also, the fact that OSHA or EPA takes action against a company does not mean that the company is NOT getting billion dollar favors, elsewhere. I have consulted with both agencies many times, and I am pleased to tell you that during I have seen no evidence of corruption at the inspection level at any time in the last 30 years, nor would I expect to.

In the first place, it is penny-ante. Crony capitalists go for tax exemptions, subsidies, and huge contracts. In the second place, attempting to subvert the process would simply require involving too many people. Someone would spill the beans.

MMS, SEC, FCC, etc. are very different stories. Mostly the revolving door compromises them, but MMS is particularly susceptible because their decisions have billionaire dollar consequences. Hence, outright bribery becomes very tempting.

Finally, you are right about the chump change. On the other hand, add up chump change from thousands of players and you get some real money. That's why politicians hit on these folks, including Obama's handlers.

The same is true of Repubicans: my point is that liberals are kidding themselves if they think Republicans are any more driven by campaign contributions than Democrats.

I think actual votes are not. As a frequent expert witness, I know that law firms select me because they believe my general views align with their interests on a particular case. In some cases they have to hope for the best because I am one of a handful in my area of expertise with the combination of credentials, experience, and ability that makes one a good expert witness.

Neither party is corrupt; the lawyers are simply playing the system in the way they are taught to do and the system drives them to do. Likewise, politicians have views that are beneficial to certain players, those players have a vested interest in seeing that they remain in office. As a rule, I would say if the politican's votes match his public statements and his constituents' perceived needs (whether you or I agree with them or not), then he is doing his job. If he talks a different game with donors than in public, he is on the take.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR