The Political Effect of Katrina -- Not Much Apparently

This doesn't seem to be getting a lot of play -- probably because it doesn't hurt Bush. A few days ago Newton Emerson, in a brilliant piece that appeared in the Irish Times, noted that Republican candidates have little to fear from Katrina.

He wrote:

As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if the Republican Party itself will now suffer a setback at the congressional mid-term elections next November.

The answer is almost certainly yes, provided that people outside the disaster zone punish their local representatives for events elsewhere a year previously, both beyond their control and outside their remit, while people inside the disaster zone reward their local representatives for an ongoing calamity they were supposed to prevent. Otherwise, the Democratic Party will suffer a setback at the next congressional election.

The Irish Times requires subscription, read the whole article at Slugger O'Toole [here]. Go ahead, you'll be glad you did.

These ideas were picked up by Mark Steyn [here], but have not been generally discussed. It's much more fun to talk about the presumed collapse of Bush's presidency [here]. Now the lastest poll from Gallup gives us some hard data.

When asked about the initial response to Hurricane Katrina, majorities of Americans are critical of President George W. Bush, FEMA and federal government agencies responsible for handling emergencies, state and local officials in Louisiana, and the residents of New Orleans. However, when asked how these same groups were responding to the hurricane in the past few days, majorities of Americans say each person or group has been doing a good job.

[INITIAL RESPONSE:] Now thinking about what happened immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit and NOT what has happened in the past few days, how would you rate the way -- [RANDOM ORDER] -- initially responded to the hurricane -- as very good, good, poor, or very poor?

[SUBSEQUENT RESPONSE:] Now thinking about what has happened in the past few days in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina and NOT what happened immediately after it hit, how would you rate the way -- [RANDOM ORDER] -- has responded to the hurricane in the past few days -- as very good, good, poor, or very poor?

2005 Sep 8-11 (sorted by "initial response")	Initial (total good)	Recent (total good)
	%	%
George W. Bush	44	58
The residents of New Orleans	39	59
State and local officials in Louisiana	38	57
FEMA/federal government agencies responsible for handling emergencies	36	56

The results show little differentiation among the four groups, suggesting the public believes blame for the problems should be shared by many.

Read the whole report here.

In other words, the attempt to fix the blame on Bush is failing.

Despite initial criticisms of the federal government's slow response to Katrina, Bush's overall job approval rating remains essentially where it was at the end of August.

But that doesn't mean that the Bush bashers will in any way be deterred. They're having too much fun.

Bush is not on the ballot, and bashing him is wasted energy. Katrina is unlikely to have much impact, if any, on next year's congressional elections. So then, other than its dramatic appeal, why is the MSM and the Democratic Party spending so much effort on this story.

The answer is simple. Republicans for the past several years have been making inroads into the Black vote. Emphasizing Katrina as a race and class problem, as I have previously pointed out [here], helps to firm up the black vote for Democratic candidates.

UPDATE:

Maybe I spoke too soon regarding the Black vote. USA Today reports:

Six in 10 African-Americans say the fact that most hurricane victims were poor and black was one reason the federal government failed to come to the rescue more quickly. Whites reject that idea; nearly 9 in 10 say those weren't factors.

Read it here.

Only six in ten Blacks have swallowed the Democratic line on New Orleans. That's encouraging.