More about the autor

Campus Question – November 5, 2012

November 5, 2012

Today's Buzz

Campus Question – November 5, 2012

Tonight’s question, greetings, and banter here. (More)

Today both Nate Silver and Paul Krugman wrote about Sandy’s potential impact on the election. Krugman explained vividly why Sandy was not “Obama’s Katrina” – as right-wing pundits have insisted – and that President Obama earned whatever bump the storm provided. But as Silver notes, President Obama was gaining in national and key swing state polls before Sandy, and was never an Electoral College underdog. Did Sandy change the arc of the 2012 presidential election?

  • NCrissieB

    Today on Campus

    Morning FeatureWhat’s a Gnu? (Meta Monday)
    Things We Did This WeekShare your stories of offline political activism!
    Midday Matinee – addisnana with One Undecided Voter
    Evening Focus – Dr. F with The “But for the Grace of God” Principle
    Our EarthNew Research Vessel to Probe Arctic

  • NCrissieB

    Today’s final Gallup poll and many Republicans insist Sandy was the “October Surprise” of 2012. I just don’t see that supported by other data. Romney got a bump after the first debate, but it faded as Vice President Biden and the President Obama shone in the remaining debates. The aggregate of polls show the race returned to pre-Democratic Convention levels, with President Obama holding a tiny national popular vote lead but also holding statistically significant leads in enough states to be a clear Electoral College favorite.

    Sandy changed the arc of many voters’ lives, perhaps permanently, and may have changed the arc of our conversations about climate change over the coming years. But I don’t think Sandy changed the arc of the election.

  • I think that it’ll be a convenient excuse for Republicans, not the reality. Any “momentum” Romney had was more of a “bump,” and that was fading. Silver is saying what I’ve been saying myself for a while. The “national polls” are meaningless, it’s the Electoral College tally that counts. Mitt’s had a problem moving above the 190 vote level, while Obama has routinely had at least 250. So Mitt has always had a much harder road to get to 270 than Obama, and it’s the states that he needs to take (and take away from Obama) that are the critical ones.

  • Jim W

    The key swing states, Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), were not in Sandys’ bulls eye. The contrast between the FEMA response to Katrina and Sandy bent the arc slightly toward the Democrats. It would be hard to notice any shift in electoral college votes.

  • addisnana

    I find a bit of inconsistency in saying A) “we don’t believe in climate change” and B) “Republicans are losing because of this super storm called Sandy. If you don’t believe in climate change, how do you explain the big storm?

    I could ask if perhaps God intended Romney to lose so he sent the big storm. I could ask if Romney’s bump was just a pimple you know where. I could also ask if they are reconsidering the strategy of lying their way to defeat.

    • NCrissieB

      Someone tweeted a few days ago that “Benghazi is Obama’s 9/11, Sandy is Obama’s Katrina, and a pimple on Sean Hannity’s butt is Mount Everest.” 😉