With voting polls opening in less than 24 hours, many online polls are placing their final bets on the winner of the presidential election. Many polls are changing their predictions of a close race between Romney and Obama to a comfortable majority win in the electoral college. Obama seems to be ahead in most swing states, which will play a vital role in determining the election. Obama has substantial leads in Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire and Virginia, while Romney has a lead in North Carolina. Florida seems to be a wild card, with polls predicting an Obama or Romney win. Many polls attribute their predicted Obama wins as a result of the way he handled Hurricane Sandy, swing states, and a strong voter targeting.
Hurricane Sandy seems to have had a substantially positive outcome on Obama's campaign. Consider the statistic from FiveThirtyEight "Obama's chances of winning re-election were 73 percent" pre-Hurricane Sandy. After the hurricane "his chances have risen to 86 percent." Obama speaking out for those affected in the hurricane combined with dramatic pictures of flooded streets fits the recipe for sensational articles, which voters eat up like candy. Since most of the states affected by Hurricane Sandy were already leaning left, did the hurricane really have that great of a role in Obama's chances of re-election?
While both candidates have been heavily campaigning in swing states, Obama's campaigning in swing states seems to be increasingly paying off. Florida seems to be the only state with a near tie between the two candidates. The state will probably get more media coverage because there has not been a clear winner throughout the campaign. North Carolina aside, the majority of swing states appear to belong to Obama.
What prompted the swing to the left in the undecided states? It is possible that Obama targeted voters more than Romney did and encouraged more voters to register to vote. Or was Obama's campaigning simply more attractive to voters in those regions.
What do you think? Did Obama hit the electoral jackpot with the help of Hurricane Sandy? Did the hurricane have any affect in the electoral college?
Happy Election Eve!
6 comments:
I think that the way Obama handled the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy was admirable. He didn't do anything too drastic politically and just did his job: ensuring the safety of the citizens of America. Honestly, I don't think his actions in dealing with the hurricane will have a major effect on the election outcome. I'm pretty confident that most voters had their minds made up long before the hurricane even hit. So the president's composure during the crisis just reinforces the views of his supporters. An incident like this just doesn't seem like it would provide much swing in the swing states in my opinion. As for an explanation for the left-ward swing in those states: random sampling? I really don't know but to me, I think the votes are pretty set in stone right now.
I think that the bounce in support for Obama comes from the fact that he was more responsive to a natural disaster compared to the rather slow response after Hurricane Katrina. After natural disasters such as hurricanes, the way the person in charge handles it should affect apporval ratings because people want a strong, confident leader in times of crisis, which this country is arguably in now. I'm not sure if individual undecided voters have been swayed because at the end of the day, a vote should be cast for who they believe will bring the most efficient change and people have been disappointed concerning how the last term has gone. We'll just have to wait for the tallies to be finalized and see.
It's probably true that Hurricane Sandy had no significant effect on Obama's campaign. If anything is related to his slight boost in polls, it's probably Governor Chris Christie's public support of the president's actions. This is also pretty unlikely, but Christie's praise of Obama's bipartisan cooperation may have helped push some undecided voters to Obama's camp.
Overall, the storm might have helped Obama garner some slight percentage of the popular vote, but I don't think it'll make significant difference in the electoral college, if at all. It's good to remember that (well, we were actually all too young) in the weeks and months following Sept. 11, there was significantly more unity and support for George W. Bush than there had been previously. People look to their leaders in times of crisis, even if they don't particularly like them. That seems to be the case in this situation.
Though, that's not to say that Obama's response wasn't something to be proud of--he did a surprisingly good job.
I agree with James. Natural disasters, unexpected national crisis, or other surprised tragic events such as the 9/11 is always a big plus to the current leader as long as he or she does not make a significantly erroneous decision. As a result, Obama naturally would naturally come out of this hurricane as the better person for the presidency.
I do not agree that hurricane sandy helped Obama much either. The first presidential debate seemed to give Romney a huge boost, but Obama, although losing the first debate, was recovering after the second and third debate; in fact, it might be his strategy to do bad in the first one so his performance in the later ones would be highlighted.
Responding to one of the questions in the post regarding how Obama was able to obtain the lead in swing states, I do not think his campaign strategies are the most important factors in explaining his lead. I think Romney just kind of blew himself up. For instance, the false-jeep ad Romney launched in Ohio really made himself look bad at the end for failing so much in spinning the voters
Honestly, although national crises can perhaps boost the incumbent's reputation and somewhat secure his reelection, we must understand that a great number of Americans have already decided who their vote would count for. To say that hard lined Romney supporters would change their decisions because of Hurricane Sandy would be absolutely preposterous.
Humans are subject to confirmation bias, or the tendency to favor information that supports their own views while fading out the rest. For those who have already chosen sides, good luck trying to convince them otherwise.
However, despite all this, we must also acknowledge the impact such events on the undecided/vacillating population of the electorate. Such adept management of this disaster could potentially win numbers of votes. In the end, the role of natural disasters and other tragic events creates a subdued, yet quite significant, impact on the electorate.
I think that Obama's actions in response to Hurricane Sandy definitely increased his chances of winning re-election. He made no huge errors and responded to the natural disaster in a quick and proper way. Hurricane Sandy could have pushed those voters who were still undecided towards Obama, but like Kurtis said, strong Romney supporters most likely weren't swayed by Obama's actions. I also agree with James, that people look to their leader in times of crisis. Especially those who were severely affected by the hurricane, need to look towards a leader to move forward. The victims personally can't do anything to change their predicament, so they need to depend on someone who can provide help, like a president, who just so happens to be Obama.
Post a Comment