In the period just before and just after Hurricane Sandy reached landfall, there was considerable media speculation about how the storm -- and the response to the storm -- would affect the presidential campaign. A number of observers argued that the President could gain votes by effectively coordinating the recovery and rebuilding efforts on the east coast.
I did not necessarily agree with that observation a few days ago, and here's why. I think in these kinds of situations, a President can certainly lose support (remember Hurricane Katrina and the criticism of the Bush administration's ineffectiveness in the period after?). So, while I felt that a President could lose support, I wasn't so sure that a President could pick up support by handling the crisis effectively. It would be what voters expected, so no extra points for doing the right thing.
I still think that this is true. However, what I have seen is a couple of twists to the "aftermath" story that I believe has helped the President. Probably the most significant were the comments made by New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie, who praised the President's compassion and dedication in helping his state recover from the devastation of the storm.
Remember that Christie gave the keynote address at the Republican national convention this year, and is considered a leading light in the Republican party. Praise from the Governor in a climate where no Republican seems willing to compromise or otherwise give credit to any Democrat is both refreshing and a big boost for President Obama.
The positive media reports about the clean-up and the costs associated with full recovery also have given President Obama an edge over Mitt Romney on the question of FEMA and the proper role of the government in such situations. Governor Romney is on record as wanting to disband FEMA, but I'm guessing a lot of voters now believe that a private sector/non-profit/volunteer only solution to this crisis wouldn't be enough, and would be too ad hoc and uncoordinated (and therefore extremely inefficient).
I applaud both candidates for stepping down from the campaign for a few days, as they acknolwedged the seriousness and importance of this natural disaster compared to a political campaign. I have friends in New York and New Jersey whose lives have been greatly affected by the storm. My heart goes out to all of those who now must struggle to recover, rebuild, and in general re-establish some semblance of their normal routines.
John Klemanski
I did not necessarily agree with that observation a few days ago, and here's why. I think in these kinds of situations, a President can certainly lose support (remember Hurricane Katrina and the criticism of the Bush administration's ineffectiveness in the period after?). So, while I felt that a President could lose support, I wasn't so sure that a President could pick up support by handling the crisis effectively. It would be what voters expected, so no extra points for doing the right thing.
I still think that this is true. However, what I have seen is a couple of twists to the "aftermath" story that I believe has helped the President. Probably the most significant were the comments made by New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie, who praised the President's compassion and dedication in helping his state recover from the devastation of the storm.
Remember that Christie gave the keynote address at the Republican national convention this year, and is considered a leading light in the Republican party. Praise from the Governor in a climate where no Republican seems willing to compromise or otherwise give credit to any Democrat is both refreshing and a big boost for President Obama.
The positive media reports about the clean-up and the costs associated with full recovery also have given President Obama an edge over Mitt Romney on the question of FEMA and the proper role of the government in such situations. Governor Romney is on record as wanting to disband FEMA, but I'm guessing a lot of voters now believe that a private sector/non-profit/volunteer only solution to this crisis wouldn't be enough, and would be too ad hoc and uncoordinated (and therefore extremely inefficient).
I applaud both candidates for stepping down from the campaign for a few days, as they acknolwedged the seriousness and importance of this natural disaster compared to a political campaign. I have friends in New York and New Jersey whose lives have been greatly affected by the storm. My heart goes out to all of those who now must struggle to recover, rebuild, and in general re-establish some semblance of their normal routines.
John Klemanski
RSS Feed