Public Reaction: Charitable, Skeptica

ATIME-HarrisPoll

THE American public takes a generous and forgiving view of Ted Kennedy and his Chappaquiddick troubles.

At the same time, there is a high degree of skepticism about Kennedy's explanation of the accident and his behavior afterward--and about the incident's bearing on his presidential aptitude.

In a national poll for TIME, Louis Harris found that a substantial majority of Americans interviewed (68%) feel that "it is unfair to be critical of the way Senator Kennedy reacted to the accident, because the same thing could have happened to anyone." By 58% to 30%, the public felt that "he has suffered and been punished and should be given the benefit of the doubt." Yet, by 44% to 36%, a plurality thinks that Kennedy has failed to "tell the real truth."

Much of the doubt is focused upon whether or not Kennedy was drunk at the time of the accident. The TIME-Har-ris poll showed that only 38% believe the Senator's claim that he "was not driving under the influence of alcohol"; 32% think that he was indeed affected by liquor, with 30% "not sure." By 51% to 31%, a majority agrees that "there still has been no adequate explanation of what he was doing at the party or with the girl who was killed."

Americans are inclined to accept many of the details of Kennedy's explanation: that he took the wrong turn onto the bridge road by mistake, that he dived several times in an effort to rescue Mary Jo Kopechne, that he returned later with Paul Markham and Joseph Gargan in an effort to reach the girl. By a plurality of 44% to 31%, those interviewed also accept his statement that he impulsively swam from Chappaquiddick to Martha's Vineyard.

When asked whether, on the night of the accident, Kennedy seemed more interested in his political future than in what happened to Mary Jo Kopechne, 38% agreed. By an overwhelming 77% to 14%, respondents said that Kennedy was wrong not to report the accident immediately.

By 65% to 16%, the public gave Kennedy high marks for his performance in the Senate. Yet the TIME-Harris poll reflects a widespread uneasiness about Kennedy as a presidential possibility. Forty percent agreed with the statement that "he panicked in a crisis and showed that he should not be given high public trust, such as being President"; 15% were not sure; 45% disagreed with the judgment.

In terms of the overall respect in which Kennedy is held, the poll indicated no radical shift as a result of Chappaquiddick: 63% said that they held him in the same degree of esteem now as before; 5% said that they had more respect; 28%, less respect. Trial heats now in anticipation of 1972 would be meaningless in ordinary circumstances, but in this case they give an indication of Kennedy's before-and-after standing. In a new three-way match with Richard Nixon and George Wallace, Kennedy received 38%, Nixon 48%, Wallace 8%. A Harris survey in late May gave Kennedy 37%, Nixon 46% and Wallace 11%.

The TIME-Harris poll found that the least damage to the Senator's appeal seemed to be among groups that have always supported the Kennedys: the less educated, blacks, Catholics, Jews and those with modest incomes. Kennedy's standing was more severely hurt among the more affluent and better educated. The college-educated rejected Kennedy's television explanation by 49% to 30%, and in the trial heat voted 54% to 33% for Nixon over Kennedy. This group, essentially independent-minded, represents 30% of the electorate and an important swing vote. The long-range effects of the Chappaquiddick incident upon Kennedy's political career may well be determined among these voters.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.