Natural disasters hurt incumbents
While voters might learn about politicians by observing how they respond to disasters, it also turns out that voters respond to events over which the government has no control whatsoever. A study examining college football found that a win by the local team in the 10 days leading up to Election Day gives the incumbent an additional 1.6 points to 2.4 percentage points at the polls.
If the past is any guide, Obama risks suffering a real electoral cost from the damage wrought by Hurricane Sandy, not just the apparent benefit from his strong response. Fortunately for him, such a cost would likely be borne in states — such as New Jersey — where people’s lives have been dramatically upended, states that he will almost certainly win anyway.Continue Reading
At the same time, research indicates that swift and decisive action may be able to overcome this effect, potentially even yielding electoral gains. In the United States, incumbent presidents who declared a disaster did not suffer an electoral cost following a tornado strike. More generally, disaster relief spending generated electoral support. Another study co-authored by one of us with Neil Malhotra of Stanford revealed that increases in FEMA relief spending predicted more votes for the incumbent party, enough to outweigh any electoral cost associated with the disaster itself. Similarly, in India, governments that undertook more election-year relief spending did better at the polls.
Through robust response, presidents also can influence the kind of voters who show up to the polls. A Michigan study takes advantage of individual-level public records of FEMA aid distribution, voter turnout, and partisan identification. FEMA relief spending after the 2004 Florida hurricanes increased turnout among Florida Republicans by about five percentage points, even as Democrat turnout dropped by three percentage points. Election-year relief spending both wins votes and convinces political supporters to turn out.
In the case of Hurricane Sandy, Obama will not have the time to send out the kinds of FEMA checks that help win an election. His position may be more similar to that of Michael Bilandic, the Chicago mayor who lost his primary election shortly after the severe blizzards of 1979. Like President George W. Bush after Hurricane Katrina, Bilandic was blamed for a variety of failures in the immediate response to the blizzards, such as a failure to adequately plow roads. His experience underscores the importance of the initial response to events that happen shortly before an election.
Long after his loss, Bilandic would insist that the storm itself and not an inept response had cost him the election. Such ideas run counter to how we think democracy should work. Nevertheless, these “acts of God” can indeed move close elections against incumbents. Obama is not only fortunate to have had competent local officials to showcase government at its best, but also fortunate that Sandy primarily struck states safely in his column.