The Democrat wind?

British historians sometimes refer to a "Protestant wind" in 1688 that enabled William of Orange to land at Torbay with little opposition in England, the problems came in Scotland and Ireland where the aftermath lasted 300 or so years but in England there was a peaceful change.

Hurricane Sandy hit the Eastern seaboard of the United States just before the elections effectively discrediting climate change deniers and also showing that there is a role for government.

It may have been the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy that swung the the election in favour of Obama giving thought to religous fundamentalists who regard the weather as an act of a diety that the diety may not have been on their side.

My quesion is what is there had been no Hurricane Sandy?
 
Firstly it should be Democratic Wind, use of 'Democrat' when referring to the Democratic Party is both incorrect and a dissparaging term used by the right in contempt.

As to the question, well most likely higher overall voter turnout, with thoe extra votes being 55/45 Obama/Romney, if anything the Hurricane reduced the amount of Democratic voters, given it hit one of the core areas of Democratic Party support.

Also, it's deity, not diety
 
Polls showed Obama still ahead before the hurricane, so I guess he still would have won, perhaps with a slightly smaller margin, and with one less reason for people on the other side to pretend "He's not really a legitimate President, he doesn't have a mandate, he didn't really win, if not for factors X, Y and Z we would have won."
 
Probably impacted the margin more than the outcome. It also probably lowered the democratic popular vote since it hit states that were already going for Obama anyway than convinced some independants and Republicans in other states to vote for O.
 
Sites like 538 and Votamatic were showing OTL's election results (with Florida a true toss-up) before Hurricane Sandy, so I think the worst-case scenario for Obama with no hurricane is 303 EVs instead of 332. Given that a) it's still over 300 and b) Florida wasn't called for five days anyway, that amounts to basically no difference both in terms of the actual result and in terms of the post-election analysis.
 
I also didn't see that much of a shift after Sandy.

The effects of the floods in Eastern Germany on the elections of 2002 were far more easily to read, also Gerhard Schröder even more than Obama jumped with both feet into the water to put himself in scene. His standing immediately and henceforth constantly recovered.

Obama before Sandy was likely to win, though not safe.
Schröder before the Elbe floods was not expected to make a comeback in the polls in the last 3-4 weeks but managed to just get victory home.
 
Religious fundamentalists did not and would never see a hurricane striking New York City as judgement against them (the fundamentalists), but against liberals, homosexuals, Jews, black people, immigrants, etc. Really, it could be God's judgement on everyone BUT them.

You see, it is their modus operandi to stay true to their convictions and bend their perception of reality to match it, not to change their thoughts or behaviours based on outside stimuli. This is why some argue they're actually non-sentient.
 
Top