By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press

Quick: What do these things have in common? Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. The Japanese earthquake and tsunami. Wall Street volatility. A cranky, even angry American populace.

Answer: They all have something to do with gasoline. No matter what happens in the world today, just about everything points back to fuel and the tricky politics that emerge when prices spike.

Is it any wonder, then, that a recent Associated Press-GfK poll shows a correlation between the country’s more pessimistic outlook and rising gas prices.

The issue also has taken on greater importance to Americans. They rank it above subjects including Iraq, Afghanistan, immigration, terrorism and taxes. Last fall, 54 percent called gas prices a highly important issue to them personally, but 77 percent said that in the latest poll.

Many don’t expect relief from soaring gas costs anytime soon: Two-thirds say they expect the higher prices will cause financial hardship for them or their families in the next six months. That group includes more than a third who say gas cost spikes will cause serious financial hardship. And that is on top of a still-poor economy.

Most are changing the way they live. Three-fourths are cutting back on other expenses, two-thirds are driving less, half plan to vacation closer to home, and almost as many have thought seriously about buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Most also are bypassing the most convenient gas station to bargain shop for the lowest prices.

GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications conducted the poll from March 24-28. It involved landline and cell phone interviews with 1,001 adults nationwide and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.

The underlying links between current events aren’t lost on President Barack Obama, and for good reason. Like death and taxes, this cycle is a certainty: Prices at the pump rise, the public’s mood falls and the president gets punished.

Listen to him when he pressed recently for reducing the nation’s oil imports by one-third by 2025.

“Obviously, the situation in the Middle East implicates our energy security. The situation in Japan leads us to ask questions about our energy sources. In an economy that relies so heavily on oil, rising prices at the pump affect everybody,” Obama said. “Businesses see rising prices at the pump hurt their bottom line. Families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank. And for Americans that are already struggling to get by, a hike in gas prices really makes their lives that much harder. It hurts.”

Sure, that’s true. But there’s also much more to it. In an era in which globalization is a given, gas prices are the most obvious, most closely felt connection between the daily lives of Americans and the larger world.

“Whenever gasoline prices spike, there is enormous political consternation because it’s a highly invasive issue,” said Pietro Nivola, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies energy policy and American politics.

Has there been a time in modern history when that’s been more apparent than the past few weeks?

Look at what’s happened.

—Populist uprisings swept across oil-rich North Africa, from Tunisia to Egypt and now to Libya, where rebels are in a standoff with Gadhafi that has shut down much of the country’s 1.6 million barrels a day of crude exports. Energy traders fear unrest will spread further across the region and disrupt shipments from bigger producers like Saudi Arabia and Iran. That could limit supply when demand is high, boosting costs.

—An earthquake and tsunami in Japan last month triggered a nuclear emergency, with the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant leaking radiation. The reactor’s near meltdown has renewed debate in the United States over nuclear fuel and raised questions about the vulnerability of some U.S. plants.

—Oil surged to a 30-month high — more than $100 a barrel — as investors worried that the unrest in Libya and elsewhere would keep crude exports from oil-producing nations off the market longer than expected. On Wall Street, key indexes fluctuated as oil prices soared.

—Consumer confidence dropped at a troublesome time, just as the post-recession economy was struggling to recover. Gas costs were the reason. Experts say if people are forced to pay more for gasoline, they’re likely not to spend elsewhere and that could further slow already sluggish economic growth.

And none of that even takes into account last year’s Gulf Coast oil spill.

Even if there’s no proven cause and effect between the latest turn of events, there’s a commonality that’s not lost on experts and consumers alike.

“It’s a combination of trends and luck that have put energy repeatedly at the forefront,” said Michael Levi, director of the program on energy security and climate change at the Council on Foreign Relations. “We always are going to be dealing with energy in some form or another because it’s the lifeblood of society.”

The poll also indicated a disconnect between expectations and reality. Consumers on average said $2.36 per gallon was a fair price for gas, but the national average was $3.65 during the week the survey was taken.

Albert Mercado, a restaurant employee from Wallingford, Pa., is among those feeling more than just a pinch.

“When I swipe my card at the gas pump, it stops at $75 and I’m nowhere near full,” says the owner of a 2004 Ford Explorer, who lives outside Philadelphia. He adds: “I have not been driving as much.” He now limits his travels to and from work, his son’s day care and their home. He saves rather than spends. He hasn’t visited his parents, who live a three-hour drive away in New York, for a long time.

And Mercado, 44, has little hope that costs will fall anytime soon. After all, he says, he once worked at a gas station and knows how the price game is played. “Something’s got to change. I doubt it will,” he said.

So far, Obama’s overall political standing isn’t suffering; it’s held steady for months at about 50 percent. Even so, his job performance rating on handling the issue of gas prices is at just 36 percent, his lowest rating on any issue tracked in the poll.

“What’s different this time is the U.S. economy is still fragile,” Nivola said. “If we had a sustained gasoline hike, it would be like imposing a substantial tax on the economy at a very inopportune moment.”

Eventually, consumers will look for someone to fault if gas prices remain high. Obama’s the likely target, and Republicans are trying to hasten the blame game.

“His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security,” said Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential candidate who is considering a White House run of her own. “The good news is there is nothing wrong with America’s energy policy that another good old-fashioned election can’t solve. 2012 is just around the corner.”

History, however, offers no certainty that a different president would dramatically change how Americans deal with energy.

For decades, a national energy policy has proven elusive because Republicans and Democrats sharply differ over how to make America closer to energy independent. Progress has been impeded by not-in-my-backyard fights over nuclear plants and wind farms, battles over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, and election-year sloganeering.

The same cycle has persisted. Gas prices rise, Americans complain and politicians raise alarms.

Consider the words that came out of one president’s mouth: “This country needs to regain its independence from foreign sources of energy, and the sooner the better.” That was Republican Gerald Ford — in 1975.

Nearly four decades later, Obama said: “As long as our economy depends on foreign oil, we’ll always be subject to price spikes.”

He’s probably not the last president who will give voice to that notion, given the complexities of the issue. As Levi puts it: “The nature of energy is that it matters because it gets entangled with so many other things. But those other entanglements are what make it precisely so difficult to deal with.”

___

EDITOR’S NOTE — Liz Sidoti has covered national politics for The Associated Press since 2003.

Online:

http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com

 

How the poll was conducted

 

By The Associated Press

The Associated Press-GfK Poll on gas prices was conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications from Mar. 24-28. It is based on landline and cell phone telephone interviews with a nationally representative random sample of 1,001 adults. Interviews were conducted with 701 respondents on landline telephones and 300 on cellular phones.

Digits in the phone numbers dialed were generated randomly to reach households with unlisted and listed landline and cell phone numbers.

Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish.

As is done routinely in surveys, results were weighted, or adjusted, to ensure that responses accurately reflect the population’s makeup by factors such as age, sex, education and race. In addition, the weighting took into account patterns of phone use — landline only, cell only and both types — by region.

No more than one time in 20 should chance variations in the sample cause the results to vary by more than plus or minus 4.2 percentage points from the answers that would be obtained if all adults in the U.S. were polled.

There are other sources of potential error in polls, including the wording and order of questions.

The questions and results are available at http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com .

 


New poll finds that belief in JFK assassination conspiracy still strong, but slipping slightly

By The Associated Press

 A clear majority of Americans still suspect there was a conspiracy behind President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, but the percentage who believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone is at its highest level since the mid-1960s, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

 Cheryl Casati, 62, who retired from the Air Force after 20 years, watched it all unfold on television back in November 1963. She said she’s “extremely sure” there was a conspiracy. The killing of Oswald, the accused shooter, just days after the assassination is part of the reason why.

 ”There’s too many holes in explanations,” the Phoenix-area woman said. “That just could not have happened easily in that time and place. And (Jack) Ruby shooting (Oswald) could not have happened as easily as it did.”

 Pat Sicinski sees it differently. She and her husband recently visited the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. Looking out the sixth-floor window from which Oswald allegedly fired on Kennedy’s motorcade helped reaffirm the retired school employee’s faith in the Warren Commission conclusion that Oswald was the lone gunman.

 ”Some skepticism is always justified,” the 68-year-old Houston-area woman said. “I just think when people take it to extremes, they lose me.”

 According to the AP-GfK survey, conducted in mid-April, 59 percent of Americans think multiple people were involved in a conspiracy to kill the president, while 24 percent think Oswald acted alone, and 16 percent are unsure. A 2003 Gallup poll found that 75 percent of Americans felt there was a conspiracy.

 The Oswald-acted-alone results, meanwhile, are the highest since the period three years after the assassination, when 36 percent said one man was responsible for Kennedy’s death.

 Robert Mawyer of Blairsville, Ga., is one of them. The 44-year-old IT salesman recently finished reading Bill O’Reilly’s “Killing Kennedy.” Assuming all of that information is correct, he has no problem accepting that Oswald went solo.

 ”The Warren Commission says that’s what happened, so I tend to believe that, I guess,” he said. But, he added, “I don’t suppose anybody can be completely positive.”

 Jon Genova is positive that no one person could have pulled off this crime.

 ”There are just a number of factors that don’t seem to zero out in my mind,” the 46-year-old Denver mechanical engineer said. “How some evidence seemed to be suppressed, and the results are sealed for how many years? And the fact that … it just seemed like the whole political winds change at the point when Kennedy was assassinated. It just seemed as if he was probably an impediment.”

 Those who were adults in 1963 were almost as likely as younger Americans to say that Kennedy’s killing was a conspiracy involving multiple people _ 55 percent, compared to 61 percent.

 As for who might have been behind a conspiracy, Genova’s money is on the Central Intelligence Agency. Casati, who wouldn’t divulge her rank or military occupation, was a little more circumspect.

 ”I will tell you that Jack Kennedy was too much of his own person,” she said. “And he made decisions that were not popular with some agencies, as far as I’m concerned.”

 The Associated Press-GfK Poll was conducted April 11-15, 2013 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications.  It involved landline and cellphone interviews with 1,004 adults nationwide. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points; it is larger for subgroups.

___

 AP Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta and News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.

 __

 Online:

http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com

 

How the AP-GfK poll on the assassination of John F. Kennedy was conducted

 The Associated Press-GfK poll on the assassination of John F. Kennedy was conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications on April 11-15. It is based on landline telephone and cellphone interviews with a nationally representative random sample of 1,004 adults. Interviews were conducted with 601 respondents on landline telephones and 403 on cellular telephones.

 Digits in the phone numbers dialed were generated randomly to reach households with unlisted and listed landline and cellphone numbers.

 Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish.

 As is done routinely in surveys, results were weighted, or adjusted, to ensure that responses accurately reflect the population’s makeup by factors such as age, sex, education and race. In addition, the weighting took into account patterns of phone use — landline only, cell only and both types — by region.

 No more than 1 time in 20 should chance variations in the sample cause the results to vary by more than plus or minus 3.9 percentage points from the answers that would be obtained if all adults in the U.S. were polled.

 There are other sources of potential error in polls, including the wording and order of questions.

 Topline results are available at http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com and http://surveys.ap.org.

The questions and results are available at http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com.

 


AP-GfK poll: 4 in 5 Americans say don’t change Redskins nickname; 11 percent say change it

 

By BEN NUCKOLS, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s been a rough offseason for the Washington Redskins, and not just because of the knee injury to star quarterback Robert Griffin III.

The team’s nickname, which some consider a derogatory term for Native Americans, has faced a barrage of criticism. Local leaders and pundits have called for a name change. Opponents have launched a legal challenge intended to deny the team federal trademark protection. A bill introduced in Congress in March would do the same, though it appears unlikely to pass.

But a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows that nationally, “Redskins” still enjoys widespread support. Nearly four in five Americans don’t think the team should change its name, the survey found. Only 11 percent think it should be changed, while 8 percent weren’t sure and 2 percent didn’t answer.

Although 79 percent favor keeping the name, that does represent a 10 percentage point drop from the last national poll on the subject, conducted in 1992 by The Washington Post and ABC News just before the team won its most recent Super Bowl. Then, 89 percent said the name should not be changed, and 7 percent said it should.

The AP-GfK poll was conducted from April 11-15 and included interviews with 1,004 adults on both land lines and cell phones. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

Several poll respondents told The AP that they did not consider the name offensive and cited tradition in arguing that it shouldn’t change.

“That’s who they’ve been forever. That’s who they’re known as,” said Sarah Lee, a 36-year-old stay-at-home mom from Osceola, Ind. “I think we as a people make race out to be a bigger issue than it is.”

But those who think the name should be changed say the word is obviously derogatory.

“With everything that Native Americans have gone through in this country, to have a sports team named the Redskins — come on, now. It’s bad,” said Pamela Rogal, 56, a writer from Boston. “Much farther down the road, we’re going to look back on this and say, ‘Are you serious? Did they really call them the Washington Redskins?’ It’s a no-brainer.”

Among football fans, 11 percent said the name should be changed — the same as among non-fans. Among nonwhite football fans, 18 percent said it should change, about double the percentage of white football fans who oppose the name.

In Washington, debate over the name has increased in recent months. In February, the National Museum of the American Indian held a daylong symposium on the use of Indian mascots by sports teams. Museum Director Kevin Gover, of the Pawnee Nation, said the word “redskin” was “the equivalent of the n-word.”

District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray, a Democrat, suggested that the team would have to consider changing the name if it wanted to play its home games in the city again. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat who represents the district in Congress, said she’s a fan of the team but avoids saying “Redskins.” Just this week, a D.C. councilmember introduced a resolution calling for a name change, and it appears to have enough support to pass, although the council has no power over the team.

“We need to get rid of it,” said longtime local news anchor Jim Vance in a commentary that aired in February. Vance, of WRC-TV, revealed that he has avoided using the name on the air for the past few years.

Other media outlets have done the same. The Washington City Paper substitutes the name “Pigskins,” and DCist.com announced in February that it would avoid using the name in print. The Kansas City Star also has a policy against printing “Redskins.”

In March, a three-judge panel heard arguments from a group of five Native American petitioners that the team shouldn’t have federal trademark protection, which could force owner Daniel Snyder into a change by weakening him financially. A decision isn’t expected for up to a year, and the Redskins are sure to appeal if it doesn’t go their way. A similar case, ultimately won by the team, was filed in 1992 and needed 17 years to go through the legal system before the Supreme Court declined to intervene.

Several poll respondents told AP that they were unaware of the ongoing debate.

“If we’re going to say that ‘Redskins’ is an offensive term, like the n-word or something like that, I haven’t heard that,” said David Black, 38, a football fan from Edmond, Okla., who doesn’t think a change is necessary.

George Strange, 52, of Jacksonville, Fla., who feels the name should change, said people might change their minds if they become more educated about the word and its history.

“My opinion, as I’ve gotten older, has changed. When I was younger, it was not a big deal. I can’t get past the fact that it’s a racial slur,” Strange said. “I do have friends that are Redskins fans and … they can’t step aside and just look at it from a different perspective.”

There’s precedent for a Washington team changing its name because of cultural sensitivities. The late Washington Bullets owner Abe Pollin decided the nickname was inappropriate because of its association with urban violence, and in 1997, the NBA team was rechristened the Wizards.

Other professional sports teams have Native American nicknames, including the NFL’s Kansas City Chiefs and baseball’s Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians. But former U.S. Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, who is Native American, said “Redskins” is much worse because of its origins and its use in connection with bounties on Indians.

“There’s a derogatory name for every ethnic group in America, and we shouldn’t be using those words,” Campbell said, adding that many people don’t realize how offensive the word is. “We probably haven’t gotten our message out as well as it should be gotten out.”

Numerous colleges and universities have changed names that reference Native Americans. St. John’s changed its mascot from the Redmen to the Red Storm, Marquette is now the Golden Eagles instead of the Warriors and Stanford switched from the Indians to the Cardinal.

Synder, however, has been adamant that the name should not change, and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has said he supports the team’s stance. General Manager Bruce Allen said in March that the team isn’t considering a new name.

Following the symposium at the museum, the team posted a series of articles on its official website that spotlighted some of the 70 U.S. high schools that use the nickname Redskins.

“There is nothing that we feel is offensive,” Allen said. “And we’re proud of our history.”

___

AP Sports Writer Joseph White, AP Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta and News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.

___

Follow Ben Nuckols on Twitter at https://twitter.com/APBenNuckols.

___

Online:

The questions and answers from the poll: http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com

 How the AP-GfK poll on the Washington Redskins was conducted

 The Associated Press-GfK poll on the Washington Redskins was conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications from April 11-15. It is based on landline telephone and cellphone interviews with a nationally representative random sample of 1,004 adults. Interviews were conducted with 601 respondents on landline telephones and 403 on cellular telephones.

Digits in the phone numbers dialed were generated randomly to reach households with unlisted and listed landline and cellphone numbers.

Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish.

As is done routinely in surveys, results were weighted, or adjusted, to ensure that responses accurately reflect the population’s makeup by factors such as age, sex, education and race. In addition, the weighting took into account patterns of phone use — landline only, cellphone only and both types — by region.

No more than 1 time in 20 should chance variations in the sample cause the results to vary by more than plus or minus 3.9 percentage points from the answers that would be obtained if all adults in the U.S. were polled.

There are other sources of potential error in polls, including the wording and order of questions.

The questions and results are available at http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com.

 Topline results http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com and http://surveys.ap.org