Romney cancels appearances and fund raisers, while Obama gets to look presidential. Yeah, it could affect the election.
Romney didn’t cancel all appearances. Probably is going to more than Obama. But even if he hadn’t, who would cover them?
I’m glad at least that O is keeping close watch on FEMA. We should see emergency relief handled a lot more efficiently. If it helps O look Presidential then so be it. The country will be hurting for awhile and needs the help.
No doubt this will effect the voting. Early voting has already been shut down on the East coast in the storm’s path. I’m sure votes will be cast Nov 6 but with many voters unable to participate. Which party benefits is hard to know.
Romney is going to have to suppress his natural instinct to respond to any bit of bad news by sprinting to a microphone, blaming Obama for it, and smirking.
I don’t know. “Frankenstormagate” has a nice ring to it.
I would suspect that suppressing voter turnout on November 3 won’t affect the election much.
Getting his message out will be a big problem for Romney this week. The news will be crammed first with storm coverage and then the damage. Next is coverage of the recovery.
Politics on the back page isn’t a good thing for Romney. Especially with the President front and center handling the storm efforts.
Romney needs to chill out and be supportive. Start private relief funds and stay out of the way. Hopefully his previous campaigning all summer was enough to get the message out.
Attacking the prez right now will backfire. I hope he knows that.
I was flipping channels last night after the World Series, and the show on Fox was supposed to be Hannity pimping some anti-Obama movie, but it was all hurricane coverage instead.
If our political system was anything but an amoral shell game, of course the hurricane would sway the election: Romney proposed eliminating or privatizing FEMA
Where most government policies affect people in abstract ways - wars in places we’ve never been, quibbles over fiscal policy we barely comprehend, esoteric arguments on regulation that has nothing to do with our daily life - there is no better barometer to someone’s politics then how, when, and in what capacity they want the government to deal with a hurricane that fucking crushes most of the eastern United States.
If you’re Republican, or libertarian leaning, and believe as Mitt does - that FEMA shouldn’t exist, or should be replaced by private corporations - speak up now, when Americans are about to suffer. If you truly believe that we’re all in it for ourselves and that the federal government should have no part in disaster relief, say it now, when it actually matters.
I think this is why American politics is so frustrating anymore. Democrats, regardless of whether you agree with them, do seem to be trying to have an honest political discussion - atleast by historical standards (they are politicians after all). But many on the right believe so many toxic, vile things that they have to use obfuscation, or smoke screens, or they have to rig the system to even get elected.
If Mitt Romney believes federal disaster relief should be replaced by private corporations, now’s the time to make his case. There’s no reason to shy away from this belief if he has a reasoned, sound basis for his argument - supported by facts, experts, etc. That’s how debates and politics should work, and what a democratic election should be about. And if he was to do this, I would listen and hear out his plan - because that’s what being a good citizen is about.
However, if there are no facts or arguments, if Mitt Romney hides from this belief right when the reality of the situation makes it self-evident that privatization would be a terrible idea, then it should be obvious that he has ulterior motives.
I’d have no problem if he was conservative, right-wing, whatever - a healthy democracy thrives on a healthy discourse. But if he’s conservative only when politically expedient - expounding on libertarian ideas only when reality doesn’t knock him flat on his ass - then it should be obvious that there’s no use for him as president. An election should be a war of ideas - but if a candidate doesn’t actually believe in his ideas, then what the hell is the point?
I personally think FEMA should exist, but not entirely as it does now. FEMA should be responsible for maintaining/restoring the road systems, assisting in infrastructure (power, water, etc) and providing temporary shelters.
I don’t think one dime of federal dollars should be spent to restore companies who locate in areas that are prone to hurricanes and tornadoes. They locate in those areas to take advantage of the ‘vacation traffic’ or the economy or what ever. It isn’t exactly a shocker that hurricanes go through every few years. Those companies should pay for insurance policies and get no assistance from FEMA at all.
For homeowners, their assistance should be capped at something in the area of $15k. They should have to buy insurance for anything else or else just don’t rebuild. If you want a house on the beach, then it is your responsibility to insure it, not the Federal taxpayer.
Finally, insurance companies should be required to pay out at the amount INSURED, (as opposed to how they come in after the fact and say that the $75k house was really only worth $30k). IF they write and bill for a policy for a $75k house, I don’t care if it is a shipping crate, they have to pay out according to the policy that the homeowner paid for and they have to pay out within 30 days of the event. If they don’t then maybe FEMA should pay the policy out and charge the insurance company a 10% fee on top of the policy value for handling the case for them.
Wait, it’s not that one-sided a debate, is it? Sure, FEMA helps people during disasters, but then along with all that help we have to take the FEMA concentration camps. Is that a good deal?!
I really have no fucking clue how the hurricane is going to play into the election.
I guess that if you’re just looking at the map, the hurricane poses the biggest risk to the battleground states of Virginia and North Carolina, so the biggest concerns for both campaigns would ostensibly be reduced turnout in light of massive damage and cleanup efforts.
On the other hand, Obama probably has the better position insofar as he actually has a job to do in managing FEMA and dealing with the crisis. For the next three or four days, then, every news headline is going to deal with the storm and cleanup efforts, so anything that Romney does won’t get much traction nationally. Meanwhile, if the POTUS does a good job in handling the storm then he’ll probably receive some degree of benefit by appearing presidential.
I really don’t know, though. Talk about a fucking wildcard.
Why is it that the government only accomplishes things in an efficient, single-minded, and driven fashion when they’re trying to Bring Some Evil to the People?
You think major disasters only hit vacation areas? You do know that this storm is supposed to have a major impact on New York City, don’t you?
\
And it will be a huge task just getting their infrastructure dried out and back in service.
Insurance companies make their living rating risks, so they need to carry the burden of their trade when disasters happen instead of pawning their losses off on the tax payers.
So… you’re saying there should be NO companies along the entire East and Gulf Coasts of the US? (Hurricanes, right). And NO companies between the Appalachians and the Rockies? (Tornado country). I suppose you think we should depopulate the West Coast due to earthquake and volcano risk?
Pretty much everywhere is susceptible to one sort of disaster or another.
NO, I’m saying they should buy insurance and insurance companies should provide what they’re selling.
Don’t forget the Great Basin and surroundings – fire hazard.
Then for shiggles we can throw in Alaska, the Rockies, and the rest of New England on account of we won’t pay for massive snow damage. We’ll basically be left with the Shenandoah Valley. Until climate change brings hurricanes there, too.
Well, here’s an example of the Electoral College system actually having a rather obvious benefit.
Unless the hurricane somehow has the effect of stopping supporters of one party, but not the other, from voting, it can’t make a difference. It doesn’t matter if the State of New Jersey has a lower turnout if the votes split more or less the same way. New Jersey doesn’t get fewer EVs for having a lower turnout.
I could see a hypothetical situation where people in the NYC area had a harder time getting to the polls (flooding or whatever) than people in upstate NY, and if NYC trends more blue than the rest of the state, that could have an impact. I mean, I really don’t think NY is going to Romney no matter what, but I’m just saying, the storm impact might not affect everyone in a particular state equally.