Contrary to what many pundits have been saying (including our friend Big Bill), I do not think that the hurricane had an impact on the national election. States like New York and New Jersey were not likely to swing to the Republicans, changing the electoral vote count. Obama won by over 100 electoral votes; they were not all east coast swing states. His overwhelming defeat in the electoral college but small loss by popular vote can be better explained by demographics and ideology. The Republican party as a whole has failed to connect with minorities (especially Latinos and African Americans). They also failed to relay their plans and "pragmatic points" to voters, whose emotions play heavily into their voting choices. This trend was reflected across the board; many republican senators lost races as well. The defeat reflects one important national trend: Americans are becoming more and more inclined to favor liberty over order.
-The first openly gay senator was elected, marriage equality ballot proposals saw unprecedented support, and marijuana was decriminalized (not legalized--growing is still a federal crime) in two states. In an election where the economy was the primary issue, social issues received a lot of attention. -Liberty was favored over order with respect to the economy as well. On economic matters, almost all pre-election polling and exit polling sided with Romney and other republicans who called for simplified tax codes and regulations. In fact, the Romney campaign only saw and uptick of support after a debate that focused heavily on the economy, and his plans to "unleash it." -Furthermore, foreign policies in promotion of further involvement in the Middle East saw almost no support from either party, despite evidence that Al Qaeda experienced a recent resurgence, and the recent embassy attack. Previous national moods would have promoted more decisive action, if not troop deployment based on these findings.
I agree that the states actually affected by Sandy did not have a large part in the election, seeing as they were not swing states and they were predicted to go in Obama's favor anyway. However, I would say that it is more of an issue of equality vs. order, which also explains why the Republicans don't poll as well with minorities. I also think that there were parts of Sandy that did help Obama. There have been polls that show that Obama did better throughout the country as a result of his handling of Sandy, not just in the states directly affected by it. I also think that Chris Christie talking about how great Obama has been during the tough time for the state really helped Obama, seeing as Christie is a pretty strong Republican. I think that this showed Menand voters (whether it was correctly or incorrectly) that Obama can be bipartisan. I honestly have not seen foreign policy come into play in any important way among the vast majority of voters. For people who are actually interested in politics, it is important, but for most people, it is not. I think that it is true that the "October Surprises" don't affect the election as much as we might think. When you consider early voting and how many people had already made up their minds about the election, Sandy really could have only made a difference to a fraction of the voters, and it is not likely to assume that it made a difference to all voters that were still up for grabs.
I agree with Tori's statement about shifts in social views-- particularly among younger voters. The liberty over order can be seen in the marijuana votes and gay marriage state votes. I respectfully disagree on the effect of Hurricane Sandy, however. The president's opportunity to play the role of "comforter in chief" may have reassured and reminded the "Menand" voters that at a basic level they did like and respect the incumbent. The added bonus of Gov. Christie's praise certainly didn't hurt. For those of us who remember Hurricane Katrina, the contrast was pretty stark in terms of the president's arrival on the scene, photo ops, etc. Poor Gov. Romney was sort of pushed aside for five days while the media (understandably) focused on the colossal storm.
I agree with Tori that Hurricane Sandy did not have an overall impact on the national election. Most of the states where Hurricane Sandy hit have consistently voted democratic thus lower voter turn-out would likely not have changed that. There is no doubt though that the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy negatively effected voter turn out. The devastation caused by the storm was the major contributing factor that only 60% of registered voters in New Jersey cast a ballot. Hurricane Sandy also effected voter turn out in New York as it dropped from 59% in 2008 to 49% in 2012. It is unfortunate that some American citizens in those states could not exercise their right to vote.
Clearly, all major natural disasters pose some sort of threat to the livelihood of those who are directly affected. Hospitals, homes, workplaces, churches and lives can be lost as a result of their inherent destructive nature. Hurricane Katrina poses an interesting threat in that it took place only weeks before our national election. That being said, although Hurricane Sandy may have played a role in the outcome of the local and perhaps even state elections, it had little to no impact on the outcome of the presidential elections. When campaigning for a local position of power, it is of the utmost importance to prove to one’s electorate not only of one’s ability to directly improve the status quo, but to react quickly and effectively in times of crisis. It gives the candidate a time to “shine” so that when voters enter the booth on Election Day, they don’t necessarily have to vote based off of campaign slogans. Of course both of these qualities are necessary for our commander-in-chief, and certainly could have proved to some “manand” voters that the incumbent is doing a “good job of helping the people”, but generally speaking, the majority of the states that were directly affected by the crisis were conceded to be going to the president well before Hurricane Sandy hit the coast.
I think Hurricane Sandy did have somewhat of an effect on the election. I do not think it was a huge effect. In agreement with Mr. Baker's statement I believe that the hurricane gave Obama a chance to lead the nation through a crisis. He did so effectively instilling trust and faith in him by some of the voters. I am sure a few undecided voters may have voted left in this election because of effects of Sandy. It also may have had some effect because less voters turned-out than would have normally. However I believe there was probably a pretty accurate representation of the population in those states votes. I am sure the results would have been very similar, if not identical to what would have happened if Sandy had not struck.
I think that the results of the election had very little to do with Hurricane Sandy. States that were majorly affected by the hurricane were unlikely to change from democratic to republican simply due to the natural disaster, like New York, for example. I agree with Mr. Baker that the horrible storm may have had the effect of reassuring voters about President Obama and painting him in a positive light. However, overall, I do not think that the storm affected the results of the election.
Despite popular opinion, I think that Hurricane Sandy definitely affected the election. Did it affect the outcome? Not necessarily. It did, however, give President Obama an unexpected upper hand in the eyes of the American citizens. In accordance with Mr. Baker’s comment, Hurricane Sandy gave President Obama a chance to act like a president, taking care of the American people during a crisis. President Obama was seen as a leader, as a president. Envisioning him as a president allowed people to rally around the country and the president. There was a sense of nationalism and pride for the country. Gov. Mitt Romney, however, was not viewed in that sense. In addition, it did not help that earlier on the campaign trail, during a GOP debate, Gov. Mitt Romney claimed that the country cannot keep things, including disaster relief, like FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), when the national debt continues to rise higher and higher. Although Romney did not know it at the time, FEMA would be a necessity in aiding the victims of Hurricane Sandy. Romney advocated for disaster relief responsibilities to be returned to the states, even the private sector. That would not have been efficient during Hurricane Sandy as many states, like New Jersey and New York, were in ruins. Overall, the atrocities of Hurricane Sandy were not the turning point in the Obama campaign. Obama had already gained national support, according to many different Gallup polls before the hurricane, but the storm just reinforced his efforts. Any chance that Gov. Mitt Romney had to get ahead was pushed aside after the hurricane. Romney was not visible in the media during the disaster, and after it began to calm down, President Obama’s strength as a president stood out in the minds of the citizens, not Gov. Mitt Romney on the campaign trail. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=mitt+romney+cutting+fema&oq=mitt+romney+cutting+fema&gs_l=hp.3...7896.8459.1.8559.8.5.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.WhulBIDfqvw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=3ab92f0db93b23e7&bpcl=38093640&biw=1280&bih=709
I believe that Hurricane Sandy definitely affected the election. News stations on the left and the right have both acknowledged the impact of the storm. MSNBC's Chris Matthews has gotten into trouble for his recent comments on how he was "so glad we had that storm", because he believes the impeccable timing of the storm boosted Obama's campaign. And, as expected, many hosts of Fox News have been commenting on the unfortunate timing of the storm and how it stunted Romney's momentum. I tend to agree with these feelings because Romney was making some ground, but these were stopped by the storm. More importantly, Romney kind of disappeared from the news as the storm made the news and Romney was left out of all of the coverage. The election was no longer the focus of the news and the media focused only on Obama's efforts and Romney was nowhere to be seen. On the other hand, Sandy gave Obama the opportunity to act like a president and help aid those who were affected by the storm. Essentially, the storm gave Obama free air-time and advertising. This definitely helped Obama's caused and gave the American people a chance to see him being assertive in a leadership position. So yes, I definitely believe that Hurricane Sandy affected the election, although I do not believe it was a major factor.
Hurricane Sandy has definitely affected the election. When the hurricane hit, all attention was diverted from the election to the eastern coast, before diverting back to the hurricane. The hurricane also helped the candidates to have a chance to show the eastern coast how much they care for some votes through visiting and offering aide. For example, President Obama did help the eastern coast. He ordered 22 million gallons of gasoline to be split between New York and New Jersey. The gasoline was shipped to specific service stations. So, this boosted Obama's campaign. I agree with Margaret that the storm did leave Romney's side and boosted Obama's side. Once the storm hit, Romney was out of the picture. This storm was a major part of the election because it was right before the election and it was major turning point for the election because the candidates could win some last minute votes from the citizens. In this case, President Obama won many votes because of his aide to the citizens of the eastern coast and this was proven in his reelection. The hurricane did affect the outcome of the election because I believe that many undecided voters in the eastern coast voted for President Obama after his help in those states. He effectively instilled trust and faith for the eastern coast citizens.
I think Hurricane Sandy had little effect on the election. Although I originally thought it did have a strong effect, the more I thought about it the more I was rethinking that opinion. Hurricane Sandy hit REALLY close to the election (time-wise) and honestly how many undecided voters would there have been? The hurricane, in my opinion, wouldn't change anyone's mind who had already decided who to vote for. Also, many people were saying that it boosted the moral for President Obama's campaign, which doing the opposite for Governor Romney, and it very well may have. But the thing is, it wasn't Romney's job to help out over on the east coast - it was President Obama's job as president to do that. So again, nobody who was already voting for Romney was going to change there mind because he was lazy and didn't help out - it wasn't his duty to do that. If Romney had been the current president at the time and Obama was a governor the roles would have been reversed. Obviously the hurricane had an effect in regard to people who couldn’t get out and vote in those areas effected, but both New York and New Jersey have swung democratic in past elections anyways so I wouldn’t get too bent out of shape about that if I had wanted Romney to win.
Although the hurricane gave President Obama time to shine as a domestic leader, it would be an exaggeration to say it altered the winner of the national election. I'd like to agree with Tori that Obama's electoral sweep was not because of this hurricane--arguably the most important swing states he won were not in the areas devastated by it. Local elections on the other hand may have been affected. These cater to a smaller number of voters and if some of these voters were prevented from voting because of the storm, perhaps some of these elections may have swayed one way or the other.
I think that the hurricane definitely affected the election. Although we were all pretty decided about who we all would have (or did if we were able to) vote for, there were many undecided voters still, even on election day. When Hurricane Sandy hit, President Obama directed his attention to the affect east coast states. This put him in the spotlight and gave him the opportunity to show his leadership skills. Mitt Romney, however, was out of the media for a few days while the nation recovered from the hurricane. There was a picture of President Obama talking to some victims of the hurricane. A specific picture was one of him hugging a woman while looking at her house that was severely damaged by the storm. The image was resonating and gave President Obama the image of being a fatherly figure in a time of crisis. Some political bloggers said that if this image went viral then it would be the reason that President Obama was re-elected because it showed that he clearly cared about the citizens. Although not a very credible source for political news, it is something to think about. Voter turn-out was obviously affected by the storm and who knows whether some states' electoral votes would have changed with a higher turn out. However, it is entirely possible that President Obama's actions during the hurricane swayed some undecided voters' minds.
The image I referenced: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walshs-Washington/2012/11/05/obama-riding-hurricane-sandy-poll-bounce-into-election-day
I believe that Hurricane Sandy had some affect on the election. Although it might not have affect the outcome. According to polls taken before and after the hurricane, Romney's supposed momentum from the debates had dropped somewhat. When Obama went and talk to the survivors of the hurricane, many people, like Erin mentioned, saw him as a helping figure. Also, when the picture surfaced of Obama and Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey and a big endorser of the tea party, many people saw that maybe he could work with people of the other party. This had been a big criticism, not being able to work with other parties, but if one of Obama's biggest critic is praising him, then maybe he can work with people of the other party.
An article that I got some information from: http://online.wsj.com/article/APdb025ad1d8694fdca1e28c32e91c3cf5.html
After re-reading the comments, I still believe that the hurricane had a effect on the outcome of the election because it became a major turning point for the election. I have to agree with Margaret that "Sandy gave Obama the opportunity to act like a president and help aid those who were affected by the storm. Essentially, the storm gave Obama free air-time and advertising. This definitely helped Obama's caused and gave the American people a chance to see him being assertive in a leadership position". President Obama diverted all of his attention to the eastern coast. I have to disagree with Katie with her statement that it would be an exaggeration to say that the hurricane affected the outcome of the election because many undecided voters of the eastern coast probably, at a large margin, decided to vote for President Obama after his aid to the eastern coast. So, I still believe that the hurricane was a major factor.
Your claim that "President Obama diverted all of his attention to the eastern coast" is a bit of an overstatement. As I stated in my initial post, all major natural disasters pose some sort of threat to the livelihood of those who have been impacted directly, but the fact of the matter is the president, as the commander in chief, has many other concerns besides natural disasters that he must attend to as well, including campaigning to "ensure his re-election" or, in other words, keep his job. So what is the job of the president, exactly? Yes, I concede to your point that the president should remain actively seized in natural disasters such as these. One of the main criticisms of the Bush presidency was he did not respond to the domestic Hurricane Katrina crisis swiftly and effectively, and he has accepted responsibility for not addressing an issue. (1 )But there comes a point when we must decipher between responsibilities and requirements. In order to receive a promotion in a job, you must not only address and excel at what is in your ”job description” but also improve upon the current status quo.
I would have to disagree with Payas's comment that the hurricane really effected the undecided voter. Referencing the Election Night Survey powerpoint- Only 7% of voters made up their mind on who to vote for the last few days before the election. Majority of the population already knew he they wanted to vote for before September (67%). So I don't think Hurricane Sandy really made a difference with undecided voters especially in a state where it has consistently voted democratic and wasn't likely going to change that. I do agree with a lot of previous comments that the hurricane gave President Obama a chance to show his leadership in a time of crisis.
I also disagree with Payas in stating that this hurricane had a major affect on the outcome. Most of the states in the eastern coast were set on voting democrat anyways. The only state that it may have affected the outcome was Virginia. But even if Romney won Virginia he still would not have had enough electoral votes. I do not think that one thing can be blamed for how the election turned out. In our first article that we had to write an analysis on though stated that a heuristic that people may use to vote is the weather. Was the weather bad enough that it swayed their vote one way or another. We won't know. The only thing that we do know is that for whatever reason, more people voted for Obama than Romney.
I still strongly believe that Hurricane Sandy definitely affected the election. While the campaigns of Romney and Obama were affected, the end result of the vote in the states hardest hit was not altered. The voters in New York and New Jersey had a hard time getting out to vote, but both of those states have traditionally been blue states. Obama won by a majority that would have allowed him to win even if voter turnout in these affected states were low. As I said earlier, the only real effects of the storm were on the respective campaigns. Obama embraced the situation as an opportunity to get himself into the public eye as the leader of the country, which many opponents believe is a role he performs poorly. However, this storm was devastating for Romney, as Obama got all of the attention and this stunted the momentum that Romney had slowly been building ever since his debate performances. These factors definitely affected some undecided voters so close to the election and, therefore, impacted the election.
I think that Hurricane Sandy somewhat had an affect on the Presidential Election. During the time of the storm both candidates stopped many of their advertisements which put both candidates in the shadows a bit. However, since Obama is the president and had to take care of the people there and see the damage he was more in the public eye which could have made undecided voters pick a candidate. I think it also affected the people who pay no attention to politics and what the candidates stand for... I think that the storm helped President Obama a lot more than it helped Governor Romney!
After reading the comments, I still think that Hurricane Sandy did have some effect on the election. The states on the east coast have historically voted blue, however if there was a higher voter turn out in those states, who knows what could have happened. It is possible the Mitt Romney could have picked up a few undecided voters in the eastern states. However, President Obama was able to display leadership skills in a time of crisis for many Americans. This, too, affected the election by allowing President Obama to pick up a few Menand voters who saw something about the way the President handled Hurricane Sandy.
While I do agree with Margaret and others that media coverage of the election changed because of the storm, "stunting Romney's momentum," I do not agree that Romney would have won if the storm had not happened.
About 6% of voters in swing states told pollsters that they were undecided in the week leading up to the election. That being said, the percentage of of people who were undecided remained relatively stagnant between the 2nd last and last weeks of the campaign compared to previous election. People got sick of being asked who they wanted to vote for. At work I got several "undecided" responses--some of the respondants then proceeded to rail one candidate or the other, the entire electoral system, the campaigns, or me for violating their rights by asking that question. In my opinion, the actual percentage of people who were truly undecided was closer to 4-5%.
While many of the states were decided by that small of a margin, what is the probability that all the undecided voters based their votes on the media's coverage of the storm? Probably slight, especially since 40-50% of the population have T not F personality types--meaning they are more likely to base decisions on facts or realities not emotional perceptions or feelings. People who process information in a very right-brained way, need numbers or tangible "proof" to be persuaded. These people are unlikely to support the President because he visited victims and hung out with Christie during the storm. Assuming that the sample of undecided voters polled is large enough for national averages to apply, almost half of the undecided voters are unlikely to base their vote off of news coverage of the storm.
If there was 2% of the population that was somewhat likely to cast their vote based on media coverage, then to assume that this 2% decided the election would also be assuming that all of these people had almost no interest in the issues. Personally, I am less inclined to believe that people that are this disinterested in politics are going to be watching the news this closely. I am also slow to presume that, if in fact this 2% of undecided voters is watching the news to make an informed decision, (even though this grouping is dominated by F personality types), that they are likely to take everything that the media says at face value.
The assumption that the storm changed the outcome of the national election assumes that all of those conditions were true, essentially accusing the undecideds of being Menand voters. If enough of the population to influence the election does vote this way: 1) Was this election legitimate? 2) Are elections ever legitimate? 3) Were the framers correct to distrust citizens to govern themselves? 4) Does this justify the electoral college?
I still stand with my previous opinion that Hurricane Sandy had little effect on the election. There is actually an estimate that I read about that stated President Obama lost about 300,000 to 500,000 votes in the aftermath of the hurricane. As I said before, those states could be constituted as blue states generally. But then again, who really knows. So, in essence, if anyone was hurt by the election it was - in terms of numbers and my opinion- Obama. Sandy basically cost him a more decisive win in the popular vote - which, in my opinion anyways, doesn't really matter because if you win, you win. Obviously the storm also helped Obama socially, for lack of a better word. He was able to really get out there and help people who needed it first-hand, but quite frankly, it was shown in that "who would you rather sit down and have a beer with" contest type thing, that President Obama was already a pretty likeable guy -socially. I mean obviously the hurricane was more serious than having a beer, but it's kind of relatable, I think. On another note, I think the republicans that freaked out about how much Chris Christie "helped" the President out in the election were really annoying. And sad. I mean honestly - there was a freaking hurricane in this guy's state, the President helped him a bunch, and people are mad about him giving him a hug because he's a republican and Obama's a democrat?! What is the world coming to?! And since when can republicans and democrats not work together on anything (especially when it's completely irrelevant to an election)?!
As Mr. Baker pointed out in class, 1/3 of eligible voters voted before the hurricane. The potential impact of this "October Surprise" on the electorate is inevitably weakened--it was not even a factor for over 30% of the electorate when they casted their ballots. Prior to the hurricane, the President was already gaining leads in the polls. His chances of winning re-election were 73 percent in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, whereas pst Sandy they were 86%. Additionally, the past month has brought a series of encouraging economic news, including strong jobs reports in October and the Friday prior to the election. This would be a sway factor or the "tangible proof" as Tori calls it that the Menand voters needed to make their decision.
I still believe that Hurricane Sandy had an effect on the election. I do not think it was major or very noteworthy, but it did affect the people’s perception of President Obama. One interesting point, though, is Gretchen’s point. As Mr. Baker showed in class, increasingly, people are voting earlier in the election process, through absentee ballots or earlier polling. It was surprising to see how many people had already voted by October! Thus, it is doubtful to say that many people were undecided at the time, and the hurricane was the perfect heuristic to solve their dilemma. In addition, some people’s comments have insinuated that Hurricane Sandy hurt Romney because it put him in a bad light for not helping to aid the victims. However, I do not think the hurricane positively or negatively affected Romney, and it only boosted President Obama’s portrayal on the campaign trail. Due to the fact that the election turned out to be less of a nail-biter than anticipated, the hurricane probably did not affect the overall outcome of the election, but was another factor that slightly helped President Obama. If one were to dissect the aspects of Hurricane Sandy’s effect, I think the most important effect was that of Chris Christie’s comments about President Obama. His complimentary comments about President Obama’s facilitation of Hurricane Sandy indicated compromise and unity between parties, in the time of a crisis. In a time with such polarized political parties, many people are fed up with the power struggle between parties and want a government that has the best interest of its citizens in mind over the obsession of competing with opposing parties.
Contrary to what many pundits have been saying (including our friend Big Bill), I do not think that the hurricane had an impact on the national election. States like New York and New Jersey were not likely to swing to the Republicans, changing the electoral vote count. Obama won by over 100 electoral votes; they were not all east coast swing states. His overwhelming defeat in the electoral college but small loss by popular vote can be better explained by demographics and ideology. The Republican party as a whole has failed to connect with minorities (especially Latinos and African Americans). They also failed to relay their plans and "pragmatic points" to voters, whose emotions play heavily into their voting choices. This trend was reflected across the board; many republican senators lost races as well. The defeat reflects one important national trend: Americans are becoming more and more inclined to favor liberty over order.
ReplyDelete-The first openly gay senator was elected, marriage equality ballot proposals saw unprecedented support, and marijuana was decriminalized (not legalized--growing is still a federal crime) in two states. In an election where the economy was the primary issue, social issues received a lot of attention.
-Liberty was favored over order with respect to the economy as well. On economic matters, almost all pre-election polling and exit polling sided with Romney and other republicans who called for simplified tax codes and regulations. In fact, the Romney campaign only saw and uptick of support after a debate that focused heavily on the economy, and his plans to "unleash it."
-Furthermore, foreign policies in promotion of further involvement in the Middle East saw almost no support from either party, despite evidence that Al Qaeda experienced a recent resurgence, and the recent embassy attack. Previous national moods would have promoted more decisive action, if not troop deployment based on these findings.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree that the states actually affected by Sandy did not have a large part in the election, seeing as they were not swing states and they were predicted to go in Obama's favor anyway. However, I would say that it is more of an issue of equality vs. order, which also explains why the Republicans don't poll as well with minorities. I also think that there were parts of Sandy that did help Obama. There have been polls that show that Obama did better throughout the country as a result of his handling of Sandy, not just in the states directly affected by it. I also think that Chris Christie talking about how great Obama has been during the tough time for the state really helped Obama, seeing as Christie is a pretty strong Republican. I think that this showed Menand voters (whether it was correctly or incorrectly) that Obama can be bipartisan. I honestly have not seen foreign policy come into play in any important way among the vast majority of voters. For people who are actually interested in politics, it is important, but for most people, it is not. I think that it is true that the "October Surprises" don't affect the election as much as we might think. When you consider early voting and how many people had already made up their minds about the election, Sandy really could have only made a difference to a fraction of the voters, and it is not likely to assume that it made a difference to all voters that were still up for grabs.
DeleteI agree with Tori's statement about shifts in social views-- particularly among younger voters. The liberty over order can be seen in the marijuana votes and gay marriage state votes. I respectfully disagree on the effect of Hurricane Sandy, however. The president's opportunity to play the role of "comforter in chief" may have reassured and reminded the "Menand" voters that at a basic level they did like and respect the incumbent. The added bonus of Gov. Christie's praise certainly didn't hurt. For those of us who remember Hurricane Katrina, the contrast was pretty stark in terms of the president's arrival on the scene, photo ops, etc. Poor Gov. Romney was sort of pushed aside for five days while the media (understandably) focused on the colossal storm.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tori that Hurricane Sandy did not have an overall impact on the national election. Most of the states where Hurricane Sandy hit have consistently voted democratic thus lower voter turn-out would likely not have changed that. There is no doubt though that the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy negatively effected voter turn out. The devastation caused by the storm was the major contributing factor that only 60% of registered voters in New Jersey cast a ballot. Hurricane Sandy also effected voter turn out in New York as it dropped from 59% in 2008 to 49% in 2012. It is unfortunate that some American citizens in those states could not exercise their right to vote.
ReplyDeleteMr. Baker, did you (gasp) just agree with the pundits on the Bill O'Riley Show? ;)
ReplyDeleteClearly, all major natural disasters pose some sort of threat to the livelihood of those who are directly affected. Hospitals, homes, workplaces, churches and lives can be lost as a result of their inherent destructive nature. Hurricane Katrina poses an interesting threat in that it took place only weeks before our national election. That being said, although Hurricane Sandy may have played a role in the outcome of the local and perhaps even state elections, it had little to no impact on the outcome of the presidential elections.
ReplyDeleteWhen campaigning for a local position of power, it is of the utmost importance to prove to one’s electorate not only of one’s ability to directly improve the status quo, but to react quickly and effectively in times of crisis. It gives the candidate a time to “shine” so that when voters enter the booth on Election Day, they don’t necessarily have to vote based off of campaign slogans. Of course both of these qualities are necessary for our commander-in-chief, and certainly could have proved to some “manand” voters that the incumbent is doing a “good job of helping the people”, but generally speaking, the majority of the states that were directly affected by the crisis were conceded to be going to the president well before Hurricane Sandy hit the coast.
I think Hurricane Sandy did have somewhat of an effect on the election. I do not think it was a huge effect. In agreement with Mr. Baker's statement I believe that the hurricane gave Obama a chance to lead the nation through a crisis. He did so effectively instilling trust and faith in him by some of the voters. I am sure a few undecided voters may have voted left in this election because of effects of Sandy. It also may have had some effect because less voters turned-out than would have normally. However I believe there was probably a pretty accurate representation of the population in those states votes. I am sure the results would have been very similar, if not identical to what would have happened if Sandy had not struck.
ReplyDeleteI think that the results of the election had very little to do with Hurricane Sandy. States that were majorly affected by the hurricane were unlikely to change from democratic to republican simply due to the natural disaster, like New York, for example. I agree with Mr. Baker that the horrible storm may have had the effect of reassuring voters about President Obama and painting him in a positive light. However, overall, I do not think that the storm affected the results of the election.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDespite popular opinion, I think that Hurricane Sandy definitely affected the election. Did it affect the outcome? Not necessarily. It did, however, give President Obama an unexpected upper hand in the eyes of the American citizens. In accordance with Mr. Baker’s comment, Hurricane Sandy gave President Obama a chance to act like a president, taking care of the American people during a crisis. President Obama was seen as a leader, as a president. Envisioning him as a president allowed people to rally around the country and the president. There was a sense of nationalism and pride for the country. Gov. Mitt Romney, however, was not viewed in that sense. In addition, it did not help that earlier on the campaign trail, during a GOP debate, Gov. Mitt Romney claimed that the country cannot keep things, including disaster relief, like FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), when the national debt continues to rise higher and higher. Although Romney did not know it at the time, FEMA would be a necessity in aiding the victims of Hurricane Sandy. Romney advocated for disaster relief responsibilities to be returned to the states, even the private sector. That would not have been efficient during Hurricane Sandy as many states, like New Jersey and New York, were in ruins. Overall, the atrocities of Hurricane Sandy were not the turning point in the Obama campaign. Obama had already gained national support, according to many different Gallup polls before the hurricane, but the storm just reinforced his efforts. Any chance that Gov. Mitt Romney had to get ahead was pushed aside after the hurricane. Romney was not visible in the media during the disaster, and after it began to calm down, President Obama’s strength as a president stood out in the minds of the citizens, not Gov. Mitt Romney on the campaign trail.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=mitt+romney+cutting+fema&oq=mitt+romney+cutting+fema&gs_l=hp.3...7896.8459.1.8559.8.5.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.WhulBIDfqvw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=3ab92f0db93b23e7&bpcl=38093640&biw=1280&bih=709
I believe that Hurricane Sandy definitely affected the election. News stations on the left and the right have both acknowledged the impact of the storm. MSNBC's Chris Matthews has gotten into trouble for his recent comments on how he was "so glad we had that storm", because he believes the impeccable timing of the storm boosted Obama's campaign. And, as expected, many hosts of Fox News have been commenting on the unfortunate timing of the storm and how it stunted Romney's momentum. I tend to agree with these feelings because Romney was making some ground, but these were stopped by the storm. More importantly, Romney kind of disappeared from the news as the storm made the news and Romney was left out of all of the coverage. The election was no longer the focus of the news and the media focused only on Obama's efforts and Romney was nowhere to be seen. On the other hand, Sandy gave Obama the opportunity to act like a president and help aid those who were affected by the storm. Essentially, the storm gave Obama free air-time and advertising. This definitely helped Obama's caused and gave the American people a chance to see him being assertive in a leadership position. So yes, I definitely believe that Hurricane Sandy affected the election, although I do not believe it was a major factor.
ReplyDeleteHurricane Sandy has definitely affected the election. When the hurricane hit, all attention was diverted from the election to the eastern coast, before diverting back to the hurricane. The hurricane also helped the candidates to have a chance to show the eastern coast how much they care for some votes through visiting and offering aide. For example, President Obama did help the eastern coast. He ordered 22 million gallons of gasoline to be split between New York and New Jersey. The gasoline was shipped to specific service stations. So, this boosted Obama's campaign. I agree with Margaret that the storm did leave Romney's side and boosted Obama's side. Once the storm hit, Romney was out of the picture. This storm was a major part of the election because it was right before the election and it was major turning point for the election because the candidates could win some last minute votes from the citizens. In this case, President Obama won many votes because of his aide to the citizens of the eastern coast and this was proven in his reelection. The hurricane did affect the outcome of the election because I believe that many undecided voters in the eastern coast voted for President Obama after his help in those states. He effectively instilled trust and faith for the eastern coast citizens.
ReplyDeleteI think Hurricane Sandy had little effect on the election. Although I originally thought it did have a strong effect, the more I thought about it the more I was rethinking that opinion. Hurricane Sandy hit REALLY close to the election (time-wise) and honestly how many undecided voters would there have been? The hurricane, in my opinion, wouldn't change anyone's mind who had already decided who to vote for. Also, many people were saying that it boosted the moral for President Obama's campaign, which doing the opposite for Governor Romney, and it very well may have. But the thing is, it wasn't Romney's job to help out over on the east coast - it was President Obama's job as president to do that. So again, nobody who was already voting for Romney was going to change there mind because he was lazy and didn't help out - it wasn't his duty to do that. If Romney had been the current president at the time and Obama was a governor the roles would have been reversed. Obviously the hurricane had an effect in regard to people who couldn’t get out and vote in those areas effected, but both New York and New Jersey have swung democratic in past elections anyways so I wouldn’t get too bent out of shape about that if I had wanted Romney to win.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the hurricane gave President Obama time to shine as a domestic leader, it would be an exaggeration to say it altered the winner of the national election. I'd like to agree with Tori that Obama's electoral sweep was not because of this hurricane--arguably the most important swing states he won were not in the areas devastated by it. Local elections on the other hand may have been affected. These cater to a smaller number of voters and if some of these voters were prevented from voting because of the storm, perhaps some of these elections may have swayed one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteI think that the hurricane definitely affected the election. Although we were all pretty decided about who we all would have (or did if we were able to) vote for, there were many undecided voters still, even on election day. When Hurricane Sandy hit, President Obama directed his attention to the affect east coast states. This put him in the spotlight and gave him the opportunity to show his leadership skills. Mitt Romney, however, was out of the media for a few days while the nation recovered from the hurricane. There was a picture of President Obama talking to some victims of the hurricane. A specific picture was one of him hugging a woman while looking at her house that was severely damaged by the storm. The image was resonating and gave President Obama the image of being a fatherly figure in a time of crisis. Some political bloggers said that if this image went viral then it would be the reason that President Obama was re-elected because it showed that he clearly cared about the citizens. Although not a very credible source for political news, it is something to think about. Voter turn-out was obviously affected by the storm and who knows whether some states' electoral votes would have changed with a higher turn out. However, it is entirely possible that President Obama's actions during the hurricane swayed some undecided voters' minds.
ReplyDeleteThe image I referenced: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walshs-Washington/2012/11/05/obama-riding-hurricane-sandy-poll-bounce-into-election-day
I believe that Hurricane Sandy had some affect on the election. Although it might not have affect the outcome. According to polls taken before and after the hurricane, Romney's supposed momentum from the debates had dropped somewhat. When Obama went and talk to the survivors of the hurricane, many people, like Erin mentioned, saw him as a helping figure. Also, when the picture surfaced of Obama and Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey and a big endorser of the tea party, many people saw that maybe he could work with people of the other party. This had been a big criticism, not being able to work with other parties, but if one of Obama's biggest critic is praising him, then maybe he can work with people of the other party.
ReplyDeleteAn article that I got some information from:
http://online.wsj.com/article/APdb025ad1d8694fdca1e28c32e91c3cf5.html
After re-reading the comments, I still believe that the hurricane had a effect on the outcome of the election because it became a major turning point for the election. I have to agree with Margaret that "Sandy gave Obama the opportunity to act like a president and help aid those who were affected by the storm. Essentially, the storm gave Obama free air-time and advertising. This definitely helped Obama's caused and gave the American people a chance to see him being assertive in a leadership position". President Obama diverted all of his attention to the eastern coast. I have to disagree with Katie with her statement that it would be an exaggeration to say that the hurricane affected the outcome of the election because many undecided voters of the eastern coast probably, at a large margin, decided to vote for President Obama after his aid to the eastern coast. So, I still believe that the hurricane was a major factor.
ReplyDeleteYour claim that "President Obama diverted all of his attention to the eastern coast" is a bit of an overstatement. As I stated in my initial post, all major natural disasters pose some sort of threat to the livelihood of those who have been impacted directly, but the fact of the matter is the president, as the commander in chief, has many other concerns besides natural disasters that he must attend to as well, including campaigning to "ensure his re-election" or, in other words, keep his job. So what is the job of the president, exactly? Yes, I concede to your point that the president should remain actively seized in natural disasters such as these. One of the main criticisms of the Bush presidency was he did not respond to the domestic Hurricane Katrina crisis swiftly and effectively, and he has accepted responsibility for not addressing an issue. (1 )But there comes a point when we must decipher between responsibilities and requirements. In order to receive a promotion in a job, you must not only address and excel at what is in your ”job description” but also improve upon the current status quo.
Delete1. http://ann.sagepub.com/content/604/1/26.short
I would have to disagree with Payas's comment that the hurricane really effected the undecided voter. Referencing the Election Night Survey powerpoint- Only 7% of voters made up their mind on who to vote for the last few days before the election. Majority of the population already knew he they wanted to vote for before September (67%). So I don't think Hurricane Sandy really made a difference with undecided voters especially in a state where it has consistently voted democratic and wasn't likely going to change that. I do agree with a lot of previous comments that the hurricane gave President Obama a chance to show his leadership in a time of crisis.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with Payas in stating that this hurricane had a major affect on the outcome. Most of the states in the eastern coast were set on voting democrat anyways. The only state that it may have affected the outcome was Virginia. But even if Romney won Virginia he still would not have had enough electoral votes. I do not think that one thing can be blamed for how the election turned out. In our first article that we had to write an analysis on though stated that a heuristic that people may use to vote is the weather. Was the weather bad enough that it swayed their vote one way or another. We won't know. The only thing that we do know is that for whatever reason, more people voted for Obama than Romney.
ReplyDeleteI still strongly believe that Hurricane Sandy definitely affected the election. While the campaigns of Romney and Obama were affected, the end result of the vote in the states hardest hit was not altered. The voters in New York and New Jersey had a hard time getting out to vote, but both of those states have traditionally been blue states. Obama won by a majority that would have allowed him to win even if voter turnout in these affected states were low. As I said earlier, the only real effects of the storm were on the respective campaigns. Obama embraced the situation as an opportunity to get himself into the public eye as the leader of the country, which many opponents believe is a role he performs poorly. However, this storm was devastating for Romney, as Obama got all of the attention and this stunted the momentum that Romney had slowly been building ever since his debate performances. These factors definitely affected some undecided voters so close to the election and, therefore, impacted the election.
ReplyDeleteI think that Hurricane Sandy somewhat had an affect on the Presidential Election. During the time of the storm both candidates stopped many of their advertisements which put both candidates in the shadows a bit. However, since Obama is the president and had to take care of the people there and see the damage he was more in the public eye which could have made undecided voters pick a candidate. I think it also affected the people who pay no attention to politics and what the candidates stand for... I think that the storm helped President Obama a lot more than it helped Governor Romney!
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the comments, I still think that Hurricane Sandy did have some effect on the election. The states on the east coast have historically voted blue, however if there was a higher voter turn out in those states, who knows what could have happened. It is possible the Mitt Romney could have picked up a few undecided voters in the eastern states. However, President Obama was able to display leadership skills in a time of crisis for many Americans. This, too, affected the election by allowing President Obama to pick up a few Menand voters who saw something about the way the President handled Hurricane Sandy.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree with Margaret and others that media coverage of the election changed because of the storm, "stunting Romney's momentum," I do not agree that Romney would have won if the storm had not happened.
ReplyDeleteAbout 6% of voters in swing states told pollsters that they were undecided in the week leading up to the election. That being said, the percentage of of people who were undecided remained relatively stagnant between the 2nd last and last weeks of the campaign compared to previous election. People got sick of being asked who they wanted to vote for. At work I got several "undecided" responses--some of the respondants then proceeded to rail one candidate or the other, the entire electoral system, the campaigns, or me for violating their rights by asking that question. In my opinion, the actual percentage of people who were truly undecided was closer to 4-5%.
While many of the states were decided by that small of a margin, what is the probability that all the undecided voters based their votes on the media's coverage of the storm? Probably slight, especially since 40-50% of the population have T not F personality types--meaning they are more likely to base decisions on facts or realities not emotional perceptions or feelings. People who process information in a very right-brained way, need numbers or tangible "proof" to be persuaded. These people are unlikely to support the President because he visited victims and hung out with Christie during the storm. Assuming that the sample of undecided voters polled is large enough for national averages to apply, almost half of the undecided voters are unlikely to base their vote off of news coverage of the storm.
If there was 2% of the population that was somewhat likely to cast their vote based on media coverage, then to assume that this 2% decided the election would also be assuming that all of these people had almost no interest in the issues. Personally, I am less inclined to believe that people that are this disinterested in politics are going to be watching the news this closely. I am also slow to presume that, if in fact this 2% of undecided voters is watching the news to make an informed decision, (even though this grouping is dominated by F personality types), that they are likely to take everything that the media says at face value.
The assumption that the storm changed the outcome of the national election assumes that all of those conditions were true, essentially accusing the undecideds of being Menand voters. If enough of the population to influence the election does vote this way:
1) Was this election legitimate?
2) Are elections ever legitimate?
3) Were the framers correct to distrust citizens to govern themselves?
4) Does this justify the electoral college?
I still stand with my previous opinion that Hurricane Sandy had little effect on the election. There is actually an estimate that I read about that stated President Obama lost about 300,000 to 500,000 votes in the aftermath of the hurricane. As I said before, those states could be constituted as blue states generally. But then again, who really knows. So, in essence, if anyone was hurt by the election it was - in terms of numbers and my opinion- Obama. Sandy basically cost him a more decisive win in the popular vote - which, in my opinion anyways, doesn't really matter because if you win, you win.
ReplyDeleteObviously the storm also helped Obama socially, for lack of a better word. He was able to really get out there and help people who needed it first-hand, but quite frankly, it was shown in that "who would you rather sit down and have a beer with" contest type thing, that President Obama was already a pretty likeable guy -socially. I mean obviously the hurricane was more serious than having a beer, but it's kind of relatable, I think.
On another note, I think the republicans that freaked out about how much Chris Christie "helped" the President out in the election were really annoying. And sad. I mean honestly - there was a freaking hurricane in this guy's state, the President helped him a bunch, and people are mad about him giving him a hug because he's a republican and Obama's a democrat?! What is the world coming to?! And since when can republicans and democrats not work together on anything (especially when it's completely irrelevant to an election)?!
As Mr. Baker pointed out in class, 1/3 of eligible voters voted before the hurricane. The potential impact of this "October Surprise" on the electorate is inevitably weakened--it was not even a factor for over 30% of the electorate when they casted their ballots.
ReplyDeletePrior to the hurricane, the President was already gaining leads in the polls. His chances of winning re-election were 73 percent in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, whereas pst Sandy they were 86%.
Additionally, the past month has brought a series of encouraging economic news, including strong jobs reports in October and the Friday prior to the election. This would be a sway factor or the "tangible proof" as Tori calls it that the Menand voters needed to make their decision.
ReplyDeleteI still believe that Hurricane Sandy had an effect on the election. I do not think it was major or very noteworthy, but it did affect the people’s perception of President Obama. One interesting point, though, is Gretchen’s point. As Mr. Baker showed in class, increasingly, people are voting earlier in the election process, through absentee ballots or earlier polling. It was surprising to see how many people had already voted by October! Thus, it is doubtful to say that many people were undecided at the time, and the hurricane was the perfect heuristic to solve their dilemma. In addition, some people’s comments have insinuated that Hurricane Sandy hurt Romney because it put him in a bad light for not helping to aid the victims. However, I do not think the hurricane positively or negatively affected Romney, and it only boosted President Obama’s portrayal on the campaign trail. Due to the fact that the election turned out to be less of a nail-biter than anticipated, the hurricane probably did not affect the overall outcome of the election, but was another factor that slightly helped President Obama. If one were to dissect the aspects of Hurricane Sandy’s effect, I think the most important effect was that of Chris Christie’s comments about President Obama. His complimentary comments about President Obama’s facilitation of Hurricane Sandy indicated compromise and unity between parties, in the time of a crisis. In a time with such polarized political parties, many people are fed up with the power struggle between parties and want a government that has the best interest of its citizens in mind over the obsession of competing with opposing parties.