It will be interesting to see the political fallout that takes place on account of the storm. Any momentum Romney may have had up til now gets put on hold for a few days at least as far as the east coast is concerned. From Wall Street to early voting, this storm may turn out to be our October surprise.

Difficult to see how this can end up favouring Obama. If he puts a foot wrong it could be his own Katrina moment, if it depresses turnout in key swing states it could cost him the election.

Given there's been little movement in the polls recently, I don't see how it would stop anyone's momentum. But it could repress any late surge that was coming. of course it may cause a late surge/slump, but it's not clear for whom.

For the most part there has been a political truce in the affected states, and governors of both parties are working with the Federal side. The main tests of unity will come in the next couple of days, especially if some recovery efforts don't reach everyone quickly. Power outages, heavy snow and rain, damage to transportation and communication infrastructure will all hamper efforts to get back to normal, but there are other ways that things can go wrong.

Often, adversity met well will boost incumbents, but of course failure or perceived failure in adversity can cripple their support. But as Sass says, the one likely outcome is depressed turnout. The people most likely to be affected in ways that stop them voting are more likely to be Obama supporters.

If things are still bad in a week's time, could they postpone the election in some places? Is that even legal?

If things are still bad in a week's time, could they postpone the election in some places? Is that even legal?

My understanding is that the legal basis for postponing elections is extremely challenging. The feds are constrained by state perogative, and the states are constrained by federal law.

You guys do love to tie your government up in knots, huh?

Hypothetical- if a state uses voting machines that run on electricity, but some areas are still having power outages by Nov 6, that means moving people to places with power (which could be some distance away), or reverting to paper methods meaning that loads of tellers need to be found, or people not being able to vote.

In such a situation, the chances are that there will also be lots of factors making it hard for people to vote anyway.

Here's my understanding. Feel free to Google away to complete your and my educaiton:

Election day is set by Congress and cannot be changed by the States. If Congress were to change the date, I believe they would have to do it for all states, and not just the ones impacted by the emergency. You can imagine how the two Parties would try to manipulate the system to their own benefit, making a deal very challenging.

Within the constraint of the chosen election day, the individual states can set up their own rules such as poll closing time, ballot methodology, etc. as long as it is within federal and state consitutional confines. The State Secretary of States may be very important in these situations, and they are generally positions that are held by a loyalist of one party or the other.

I have seen similar in a USAToday article. Basically, a State could try it and argue exigent circumstances, but there would probably be lawsuits. I do, however, note that there is a second deadline date - the EC members have to be chosen by Dec 11. So even if an election could be cancelled or postponed by a state, it would have to complete the process by then.

There is no precedent for it, even during the 1812 War or Civil War (WWII was less disruptive domestically), for any federal election to be cancelled or postponed.

I guess it is pretty much not going to happen.

I just recall that in 2001 our local elections were put back due to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (which may only be dangerous to livestock, but did mean restrictions on movements in severely affected areas, as it is highly contagious) but it is obviously easier to shift election days here. They did it again in 2004 simply to coincide with elections to the European parliament (meaning I had an extra month as a borough councillor). While we did recently have a law passed to set the date of the next election, it could still be held earlier if the government collapses (fingers crossed!)

It would require delaying the whole election surely ? Otherwise you'd have a situation where anybody voting in the delayed poll already knew the results of the rest of the election. This wouldn't be an insurmountable problem but it's not ideal either, and could lead to a constitutional crisis in the event that the election becomes really close.

Well thankfully we have mail in ballots. Our 15 Army Corp can have already voted and head off to dig the easterners out of trouble.

Sassenach wrote:It would require delaying the whole election surely ? Otherwise you'd have a situation where anybody voting in the delayed poll already knew the results of the rest of the election. This wouldn't be an insurmountable problem but it's not ideal either, and could lead to a constitutional crisis in the event that the election becomes really close.

People already vote in places like Alaska and Hawaii knowing what the likely outcome is based on the states in the East - the state results are often 'called' within a very short time of the polls closing.

In 2000 (I think it was) there was controversy because the media 'called' Florida before the panhandle - which is in a different time zone from the bulk of the state - had finished voting. So it would be more of a problem to do it within a state than with a whole one.

Chris Christie has high praise for Obama.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=17596845

Just off the phone with friends on Long Island.

The majority of coastal towns on the north and south shore are under water at sea level and out of power.

I believe the entire CBS network is down as well. No real loss there I suppose except for Letterman.

What a mess to put it lightly.

The candidates better proceed with caution as to how they behave this week and next.

Romney's "lets save the east coast routine" in Ohio is on thin ice in my view.

Here's an interesting take from Yahoo reporter Jeff Greenfield....

http://news.yahoo.com/why-hurricane-san ... 25687.html

Seems that some on the right are annoyed at Christie's praise for Obama and the Federal government.

danivon wrote:Seems that some on the right are annoyed at Christie's praise for Obama and the Federal government.

Nah, not really.

Of course, all he has to do is say "yes." It's not like it's his money or anything.

It is quite heartening to see him in the situation room. He never quite made it there when four Americans were murdered in Benghazi, but he managed to get there for the Sandy photo-op.

Heckuva job, Mr. President!

Good thing no one from the Romney camp is clinging to the "lets keep government out of our affairs" mantra this week.

And that's not an attack on Romney or Ryan. I recognize that both favor shifting emergency funds from the fed to the states. Unfortunately, the popular liberal quip today in the news has been to make Romney and Ryan out to be in favor of abandoning FEMA altogether. I don't think that's fair. Their position is more nuanced than that. Of course Romney and Ryan see the value in assisting folks in desperate need during a calamity. Nonetheless, now is not the time to dwell on that position. On the contrary, now is the time for the two of them to pipe down on that particular point.

Christie's emotional response to the storm is refreshing as far as I'm concerned. It takes a massive, unprecedented storm to quell the worn out polemics for a day or two. In fact, this week is eerily reminiscent of the immediate days following 911 at least for the northeast.

My hope is that THE ONE keeps his trap shut on stumping over the next several days in order to be percieved as simply getting on with being the President during a national dilemma. That alone could win him some of the fencers.

Romney's best bet is to lay low in the weeds and cease and desist with his lies in Ohio about the auto industry bailout and the so called outsourcing of jobs to Italy.