HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Surely Superstorm Sandy h...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:38 AM

Surely Superstorm Sandy had SOME effect on the election?

I am surprised not to see any discussion of this topic here. I have been thinking about it fairly continuously since the election.

Just because Rove and Romney are pathological liars, that doesn't mean they won't sometimes mix some true words in with their streams of lies. I really think that we should be attempting to consider REALITY, even when parts of it get linked into the right-wing reality distortion field.

Short summary: I think the election never should have been close because President Obama should have pinned Romney against his right-wing nuttiness so strongly that he couldn't pretend to move to the center. As the campaign actually developed, Romney was making a three-week play to the center, and Sandy crushed it. Romney's lie-of-the-week was that Obama was weak, ineffective, and too partisan to lead America. Then Superstom Sandy arrived, and suddenly Obama got a week of free publicity showing him as strong, effective, and quite bipartisan. Obviously the reality had not changed an iota, but Romney didn't have time to create fresh lies and the supporting ads.

My own belief is that Romney had at least a billion dollar advantage over President Obama, though I'm not sure we'll ever get the full tally on those mostly secret funds. However, with the week of free publicity and the loss of airtime for his attack ads, Romney's money advantage was cancelled. I'm not sure if Romney could have bought the election, but I am sure that he thought he had found enough attack-ad-persuadable suckers to swing the deal his way.

My longer rant on the topic:

http://anti-dubya.blogspot.jp/2012/11/luck-of-obama-but.html

6 replies, 884 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Surely Superstorm Sandy had SOME effect on the election? (Original post)
shanen Nov 2012 OP
InsultComicDog Nov 2012 #1
Drunken Irishman Nov 2012 #2
shanen Nov 2012 #3
djean111 Nov 2012 #4
JohnnyRingo Nov 2012 #5
Skittles Nov 2012 #6

Response to shanen (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:48 AM

1. some effect?

Maybe, but it wasn't even close to the difference between winning and losing. Obama won all the states he needed to get over 270 with 4.5+ point margins. Ohio, Florida, and Virginia were closer than that, but they were not needed to reach the 270 point.

Furthermore there were signs before Sandy that Romney's post-first-debate improvements were already starting to recede.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InsultComicDog (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:53 AM

2. The Sandy argument is the exact same as the debate argument was for Obama...

You're absolutely right that the polls were moving in Obama's direction prior to Sandy. Likewise, Romney's numbers were moving in his direction prior to the debate. The fact is, on both accounts, both had a smaller impact on the overall race than the media would lead you to believe.

The race was tightening before the first debate and Obama was opening up a small lead prior to Sandy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InsultComicDog (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:55 AM

3. I wonder if we'll ever know?

I don't actually believe the "momentum" thing was at all important except insofar as they were hoping to use it to suppress more of the Democratic vote. I think that Romney's base was going to show up and vote, and they must have known it was too small.

My theory is that they had calculated how many voters they needed to swing for how many days in front of the election. They only needed to fool a few of the voters to make it work, but I still think Sandy broke their timing. I actually think the Romney campaign staff must have some detailed models of which voters they thought they could swing in sufficient numbers.

However it mostly reminds me of the subtitled video that shows Hitler getting the news about the 47% video of Romney. "Why couldn't Sarah run?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shanen (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:56 AM

4. I think Sandy could have had a dampening effect if it had been mishandled.

But - I think so many people will vote for the party that they always vote for, and nothing will change that.
I say this as someone who would not vote GOP no matter who they nominated, because to a great extent the president represents his party and does not just do whatever he wants.

No, Bush didn't do whatever he wanted, he was carefully led.

I think Romney was assured that the fix was in. He and Rove looked way too shaken for me to think otherwise.
You don't have that kind of arrogant confidence, seeing almost all the polls against you, without thinking something else has assured your victory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shanen (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 03:07 AM

5. Maybe because Obama took away the "Mittmentum" a week before the storm

Obama eclipsed the narrow lead Romney gained after the 1st debate well before Sandy reached the Jersey shore. I guess one can argue that voters anticipated that the president would handle the storm with aplomb, but that's a reach.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shanen (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 06:05 AM

6. LOL

If Romney had won the Obama states of Maine, Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey, AND his home state of Massachusetts he would STILL have lost to Obama 272 to 266. That storm didn't do SHIT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread