It’s traditional in American politics to fret about “October surprises,” the unanticipated events that throw off years of plans and calculations. October has barely begun, but Hurricane Helene with its terrible destruction already has people wondering, so I wrote some preliminary thoughts about how to assess it at New York:
The upcoming presidential election is so close that it could easily be swayed by external developments. Perhaps a widening war in the Middle East will turn heads in one direction or the other, or possibly a dockworkers strike will shake the steadily improving economy and help Republicans. But the major event we already know about is Hurricane Helene, which took a horrific toll on a swath of coastal and inland communities stretching from Florida to Virginia. Confirmed deaths from the storm have already reached 175, with more likely as rescue crews sift through the wreckage and reach remote areas. Damage is expected to reach as much as $160 billion, making the storm one of the deadliest and costliest in U.S. history.
While the human tragedy of Helene remains front and center, it’s impossible to forget entirely that the nightmare storm hit late in a very close and highly consequential presidential election, and two battleground states (Georgia and North Carolina) were very much affected. Here’s what we know about the possible political fallout.
A lot of what we know about the impact of a major destructive storm on the willingness and ability of citizens to vote comes from Hurricane Sandy, which hammered parts of Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York in October 2012 during the run-up to a reasonably competitive presidential election. Sandy, to be clear, was much more proximate to Election Day (hitting the United States on October 29, eight days before the election) than Helene. On the other hand, early voting has become more significant since 2012, and mail ballots were going out in North Carolina when Helene roared across the area. The major study on the electoral impact of Sandy concluded that the famous “superstorm” did not have a significant impact on voter turnout in 2012.
There’s some talk in North Carolina of flooded polling places that may not be usable any time soon and fears of extended disruption of mail service. However, in all but a few isolated places, there should be plenty of time for recovery in the month before Election Day. Individuals, of course, may experience dislocations and psychological effects that might interfere with all kinds of civic participation, but it will be hard to anticipate the magnitude of such collateral damage.
The Washington Post took a look at the communities experiencing the most death and destruction from Helene and quickly concluded Trump country was most affected:
“As of writing, the federal government has issued disaster declarations in 66 mostly rural counties across four states: 17 in Florida, 11 in Georgia, 25 in North Carolina, and 13 in South Carolina. The declarations follow Helene’s path, from the section of Florida where the state bends along the Gulf of Mexico, through eastern Georgia and into the western Carolinas …
“Overall, counties in those four states that weren’t declared disaster areas voted for Joe Biden by a slight margin. Counties that were declared disaster areas backed Trump by a nearly 16-point margin. In all four states, counties that were included in the federal government’s disaster declarations were more supportive of Trump than were counties that didn’t receive that designation. In Georgia and North Carolina, non-disaster counties gave more votes to Biden.”
The disparate impact is most notable in North Carolina, a red-hot battleground state and the one where Helene’s impact was most heavily concentrated:
“Trump won North Carolina by a bit over one percentage point in 2020. If no one in the counties currently undergoing a Helene-related disaster had voted, Biden would have won by more than three points. If those counties are unable to vote at the same level as they did four years ago by the time Election Day arrives, that could spell trouble for the former president.”
But again, it’s a long time until Election Day.
People who have lost homes or other possessions to high winds and (especially) flooding and/or who lack power or other essentials for an extended period of time are especially dependent on emergency assistance and may be grateful if it arrives expeditiously. Beyond for those immediately affected, the perceived competence and compassion of government entities dealing with disaster relief and recovery efforts can affect how voters assess those in office, particularly in a high-profile situation like that created by Helene.
An American Enterprise Institute study of Sandy suggested that the Obama administration’s response to the storm was a major factor in the incumbent’s ability to win late deciders in 2012, topped by this finding: “Fully 15 percent of the electorate rated Obama’s hurricane response as the most important factor in their vote.”
At the other end of the spectrum, the George W. Bush administration’s tardy, confused, and seemingly indifferent response to the calamity of Hurricane Katrina in August and September of 2005 had an enduringly negative effect on perceptions of his presidency, even though it occurred nowhere close to a national election, as Reid Wilson explained:
“Voters, already turning skeptical over the mismanaged war in Iraq, blamed Bush for the unfolding disaster in New Orleans. Bush’s approval rating hit 45 percent in Gallup surveys the month after Katrina; they never again reached that high. The number of Americans who said the country was headed off on the wrong track rose north of 60 percent and stayed even higher for the rest of Bush’s presidency.”
While FEMA and HUD are typically the federal agencies most involved in disaster response and recovery, presidential leadership in a disaster always gets attention, too, and the risk of negative publicity or graphic displays of unmet needs won’t go away immediately. Bureaucratic backlogs in distributing funds and approving applications for assistance could cause voter unhappiness long after the initial damage is addressed.
Barring unexpected developments or a major series of screwups in the federal response, Hurricane Helene is likely to mark a big moment in the lives of people in and near the areas of devastation but probably won’t much affect their voting behavior. Obviously the campaigns and their allies will need to adjust their get-out-the-vote operations and show some sensitivity to the suffering of people whose lives were turned upside down. We can only hope the election itself and its aftermath don’t add violence and trauma to the damage done.
My motivation for writing anything usually comes from a feeling I need to say something. (probably from the poison of the internet) Of those somethings these list/ kitchen sink posts come out of noticing something that needs to be mentioned or been given attention and as far as I know, it has not. like “hey, you dropped something”
And with my previous post here sometimes unrelated anger can be a meandering force. wow (not all of that was entirely serious) also there are many government responsibility somethings that are all over the place. what to do.
I don’t share complete pictures of what I support, believe or am angry about online or even to most people I know unless it happened to be something I thought was important to mention AND it hadnt been given adequate attention to, so never. And with all of these links to articles about the full employment option most everything was already covered.
Anyhow I’m thinking its looking like a good time to retire from commenting on all of this stuff online anywhere – for my own reasons but also for the public good. 🙂 Some things need to be finalized.
well wishes to the Democrat party!
on the arguments against they say the skill set (or lack of) that the unemployed or underemployed has isn’t needed by the government, but there is plenty of work that would serve the public good and it doesn’t all have to be about infrastructure. There could be more retraining or self improvement. concerts, theater, art displays outside or in.. promoting inventions.
I think something similar was mentioned already but delivering food to seniors, disabled or anyone who isn’t able to get out for whatever reasons is nice too.
There could also be people who putting boxes of food, clothes, hygiene related products together for people in the Middle East, or anywhere –again Nice.
It wouldn’t hurt to be paid to learn a foreign language, preferably having something to do with your heritage. Because as a person or as a collective if we bury our heads in the sand or enriched soil as it were, in our own problems we will suffocate. But you could also learn Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese because Republicans.
As far as the problem of the “impossible” task of assigning everyone a job: aren’t there already structures in place that could be adjusted for that?
DSHS, Temporary employment agencies, public schools all levels. state job programs… just expand them, (or get contracts or follow business model) add options.
you could open something like a public computer facility similar to a library for some kind of online training (and the a bonus would be getting the computers out of the library and the traffic that comes with them) You would pay something small per hour to use them. Add cafes for revenue
You could break up Homeland Security and send some of that funding over to Americans financial security. You ask the people buying our elections/representatives to make a donation. “Dark money source #4 bought the software for this certification you’re using today.”
the other problem mentioned was small business owners or was it just private business would take a hit. As a temporary fix couldn’t small business owners have their employees wages partially paid to make up the difference in wage? (whatever they agree is the correct amount. I think it was 11.84 to 15.00) .
If you argue our economy or a good one cant survive by everyone having a decent job, youre saying failure is built into the system but also you’re arguing for building up the safety nets, which might not be a bad idea. But instead of work requirements only add a choice of self-improvement requirements. (Sure it has a patronizing feel, some syrupy ickness but could be ultimately for the public good. Actually more free places to go where you have to be doing something productive, which would include music would be for self improvement and the public good as well. If there could be a place for the homeless to hang out and get them out of the library where they could shower add that on the list too.)
If you are against safety nets too then you’re arguing for a vision of crime, jail, and drug addiction for America. With Republican control, you’re most likely arguing for our public schools to become religious-military preparation facilities for their religious and social wars and/or your life being an income source for their private prison or international war buddies.
(I hope I’m wrong but these people do have a vision. They aren’t failing because they’re dumb.)
So yes full employment option. This needs to happen. Aim high