It is a standby of political journalism every four years to ponder what event will qualify as the “October surprise” of the election cycle. The assumption is that the incumbent administration will attempt to manipulate some incident in order to either discredit the opposition or to flaunt their leadership skills. Despite the fact that most presidential elections come and go without anything like that happening, it isn’t just paranoids who wait and watch for something that will change the fate of the candidates. So far in 2012 the only unexpected event that has occurred in October was the first presidential debate that showcased Mitt Romney’s strengths and Barack Obama’s weaknesses. But this week something may happen that could potentially play the role of the last-minute game changer: Hurricane Sandy.
With the East Coast battening down the hatches for a potential disaster, politics is the furthest thing from the minds of those in the storm’s path. But you can bet that both campaigns are pondering more than just changing their schedules to stay out of those areas affected by the hurricane. While the odds of this turning into the kind of political disaster for the president that Hurricane Katrina became for President Bush are fairly slim, some paranoid Republicans may worry that if President Obama is seen as doing an effective job leading rescue or recovery effort in the next week, it could give him a jolt of momentum that could make the difference in a close race. That is possible, but I think the idea that a natural disaster is going to impact the views of a critical mass of voters in such a way as to influence them to support Obama is pretty far-fetched. Though it is to be hoped that federal agencies acquit themselves admirably in the coming days and that no discredit is brought down upon the government or the White House, there is a reason why such events are called disasters. If history teaches us anything, storms provide politicians with more chances to screw up than to look good.
The circumstances that turned bad weather into the turning point for George W. Bush’s presidency were unique and probably can’t be replicated. Even if poor black coastal communities were to suffer disproportionately this week, no one will say it is the result of President Obama’s racism or blame him for the failures of local and state authorities. But when faced with distress of the kind that we are told to expect, it takes more than a sympathetic look from a president who helicopters in to look at the damage to convince people that things are okay. The potential for some failure or screw-up to make the government look bad is far greater than any opportunity for Obama to play the hero.
It should be admitted that it might be better for the president for him to spend a couple of days acting like a president rather than to be chasing around swing states engaging in name-calling against his foe or using expletives to describe him. But a mere photo op or the awarding of disaster aid to a region or city won’t win many hearts or minds in an election in which there are few truly undecided voters. The only political impact of the storm will probably be in how it influences turnout in coastal states, especially Virginia. But that’s unlikely to hurt one party more than the other.
The fact is the obsession with October surprises is based on the fallacy that the electorate is more fickle than it actually is. In a year when the economy is the main issue, a potentially damning incident like the fiasco in Libya last month has had little impact on the Obama-Romney race. Whatever they may think of what happened, Democrats are not likely to abandon their leader because of it since they prioritize domestic issues. Republicans who are outraged about the administration’s dishonesty and who rightly demand answers about what happened would not have supported Obama even if this had never happened.
If Sandy is this year’s October surprise, that’s just another way of saying that there isn’t one.
"… it might be better for the president for him to spend a couple of days acting like a president rather than to be chasing around swing states engaging in name-calling against his foe or using expletives to describe him." n nI hope Obama doesn't read this but acting presidential at this time might help him. Well put. Me thinks if 50 million people are devastated by this the whole political environment will spin more violently than this F1.
Actually, the hurricane story tends to freeze the race in place. Even if Obama tried to attack the Libyans or some other stunt, people would still be more worried about the storm and its aftermath.
It will have the effect of suppressing turnout. whatever you think the net result of that is.
The storm will give Obama the opportunity to look and to be presidential in the storm ravaged areas. From a crassly political point of view(and let's face it, such a discussion in the middle of a disaster is crass), the advantage to him is mostly in states in which he'll do well anyway. I doubt if national news pictures of him embracing someone who lost her home on the Jersey shore will move an undecided woman voter in Ohio coal country. Romney's and Obama's itineraries will be affected which means curtailed campaigning in New Hampshire and Virginia which will cancel out each other's potential advantages gained in personal campaign visits. Essentially, I agree with a couple of the aforementioned posts: keeping the presidential close to where it now is with the potential to affect turnout in areas severely affected by the storm.
I doubt Obama will use the opportunity to don a windbreaker and do all those photo opish things Presidents do in a time of calamity. He simply doesn't do those sorts of things. He hasn't as far as I know ever shown up at the scene of a flood, wild fire, tornado, natural or man made disaster.
Betting he will, this time, Empress. Sloshing about in hip waders even, the over-burdened Commander in Chief staring-down the storm, directing puzzled emergency workers hither and yon. Or if not, he'll attempt to micromanage, or pretend to lead FEMA. His minions will then forever ascribe his upcoming election loss to his having sacrificed "politics" for duty to the nation. Better way to depart the scene in a tropical storm than in a figurative storm of questions and challenges over Benghazi.
…In a year when the economy is the main issue, a potentially damning incident like the fiasco in Libya last month has had little impact on the Obama-Romney race…
I’ve been wondering why potential damnation hasn’t turned to actual damnation. This and another point in the post analyze that helpfully: the other point is that those whose votes are baked in aren’t going to change regardless of Benghazi. But maybe there’s further thought to be added: the increasing sense that independents are increasingly breaking for
Romney may have some source power in the awful mishandling of Libya, the worst part being the stand down during he seven hour fire fight.
Wrong, Mr. Tobin! This year's October surprise came and went on the evening of October 3d. Alseep-at-the-lectern Barack Obama WAS this year's October surprise. There will not be another. n nWhat occurred at the first debate—everyone conscious on earth seems to agree—was startling, unexpected, scarcely believable, completely unlooked for . . . hmmmm . . . . Say, exactly how many definitions/synonyms for "surprise" that the first debate more than met are needed here before the Bingo! lobe of the brain kicks in? Let me know. I've got a BIG thesaurus handy.
It is the economy. Why bloviate? nThe surprise was the total mishandling of Benghazi which should not affect the economy but show that even in foreign policy he is weak and hiding an agenda.
You guys are so naive. nOnce the rain and flood peaks, nPresident Zero plans to nPart the waves and walk on the water. nTop that, you mortals. n