patrick.net

Very sneaky!

Of course this was tongue and cheek and not true at all.
But I would like to ask Patneters how do you think the storm will effect voter turn out, in those states that every election map has already colored blue?

How will this effect electronic voting in Manhattan?
If this is true it looks like Red Hook and Rochester will be claiming NY as a Red state a week from now.

Some 7.5 million customers remain without power as of Tuesday morning, according to CNN estimates.

In Manhattan, a massive explosion at a ConEdison plant along the East River left a big chuck of the island in the dark.

Throughout the region, downed trees and flooding have taken out power lines that serve millions. Utilities say it could take 7 to 10 days to repair the damage, even with extra crews that have been brought in from other parts of the country.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/30/news/economy/hurricane-sandy-power-duplicate-2/index.html

Another question will be on what difference could be had given the President has the advantage of being in office during a major natural disaster. If he handles it well then that could be advantageous. If Romney wins due to low voter turnout due to a natural disaster then that would be a very sad thing.

Yeah but you gotta admit, the irony of electronic voting machines biting the very people championed it, in the ass.

Romney has it in the bag anyway. This would just give those Republicans in upstate a nice reprieve from being called a blue state. For them this will be a good thing.

edvard2 says

If he handles it well then that could be advantageous.

The last president that handled it well was H.W. Bush. He didn't stand in the way of free enterprise and the economy flourished not only from Andrew but from all of the Midwest flooding. There wasn't a factory in America that wasn't working overtime by time Clinton came in office. Where do you think all the income Clinton was able to raise taxes on came from? Before those disasters America was still crawling along from Reaganomics in a stagnate funk.

CaptainShuddup says

The last president that handled it well was H.W. Bush. He didn't stand in the way of free enterprise and the economy flourished not only from Andrew but from all of the Midwest flooding

That's supposed to be a joke... right?

NO I was there, and have been in every disaster since.
Hurricane Andrew and the flood put the whole nation back to work.
Hungry people weren't bussed off or sent formaldehyde trailers to live and watch from the sidelines.

p.s even though Bush handled it right, it still didn't win him a second term.
Also I don't think Obama can do anything in one week that will make a difference.
The writing is already on the wall. IF anything, lack of voting access for those effected will cost him more than anything else.

edvard2 says

Another question will be on what difference could be had given the President has the advantage of being in office during a major natural disaster. If he handles it well then that could be advantageous. If Romney wins due to low voter turnout due to a natural disaster then that would be a very sad thing.

At least you're not politicizing this nat disaster. It would be good if the storm is good for obama, and its bad if its good for romney. Hilarious

I'm wondering how many of the domestic Fukushimas got close scares over the storm and all the flooding. Has the media been reporting on all the events surrounding the nuclear PPs in the area?