A curious thing is happening in the US, in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Chris Christie, the bulky Republican Governor of NJ, a previous harsh critic of Obama, is putting politics aside to team up with his opponent.

More than that, he is actually outspoken in his praise for the President, on several separate occasions extolling Obama’s quick actions and help in cutting through red tape to advance necessary aid to stricken areas. With less than a week to go before the US elections, this is unprecedented.

Prior to the chaotic arrival of Sandy, Obama was lagging in the polls. His dispirited, lack-lustre performance in the debates, his seeming unwillingness to use Romney’s own gaffs against him and, of course, his previous four-year struggle to set America to rights, might cost him the Presidency. At least, a week ago, that would have been the safe bet. Now, the odds have shifted.

Nature, it seems, has something to say. While the aftermath of the hurricane spells further gloom for Americans, it couldn’t have come at a better time for Obama. Wisely, he has suspended all election campaigning concentrating instead on leading his people, possibly one last time. To the stricken electorate, this move, coupled with a strong working relationship with Christie, could spell a turning point in the election.

Romney, working up his own storm on the campaign trail in Florida today, may prove no match for Sandy.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-01/obama-tours-storm-ravaged-new-jersey/4345118?WT.svl=news0

Of course, it could be argued that Christie is playing a game of his own. Tipped to be the next Republican candidate should Romney fail to secure the Presidency this time round, Christie may be using this opportunity to display his own leadership skills, with his willingness to bury the hatchet with Obama. Sadly for Romney, that hatchet appears to be falling his way.

This is Christie’s last chance for another eight years, should Romney secure the White house. Renowned for being as sharp as he is blunt, it is hardly cynical to suggest Christie is taking advantage of Sandy’s destruction to advance his own position, despite any protestations to the contrary.

Romney now finds himself squeezed between a rock and an overweight fellow Republican. Not being President, and therefore not needed in this time of crisis, he is the proverbial fifth wheel and there’s little he can do except continue on the campaign trail. It will be interesting to see what he says over the next few days, as he can scarcely be seen to denigrate a President who has chosen, in the final hour (no doubt acting on the advice of his campaign manager), to fall upon his sword for the sake of the American people.

Add to this interesting mix the final ingredient: fear. In times of trouble, people tend to stick with what they know. In the countdown to the election, reeling from the damage of the storm, facing projected costs in the tens of billions of dollars and, now more than ever, in need of aid and welfare, America is faced with choosing between a President who is seen to ‘be there’ when needed and who understands, more than Romney, what lies ahead, and a candidate who has vowed to strip away the very funding needed to recover from such disasters; one who is, as yet, un unproven leader, both nationally and abroad.

Sandy has already cast her vote. Christie, it seems, has too. It remains to be seen if America will follow suit.

Added: Independent Bloomberg has also now endorsed Obama. Curiouser and curiouser.

Well said, scribbler.

Added to the points you have already raised is the memory in the minds of Americans of the debacle that ensued in the wake of Hurricane Katrina - presided over by a the Bush Administration.

Scribbler well said share your interest in this.
Weather will play its part in our election too or post it.
First concede defeat, Gillard will not win.
But Abbott,s plan to reach the same reduction target clearly is a shonk, he after the election, seeing how few country,s do it that way will stick with current plans.
Or if Turnbull replaces him, before the election, in one of a few back on the rails moves by him, Turnbull will turn the election in to a landslide.

Scribbler>> More than that, he is actually outspoken in his praise for the President, on several separate occasions extolling Obama’s quick actions and help in cutting through red tape to advance necessary aid to stricken areas. With less than a week to go before the US elections, this is unprecedented <<

Remember Scribbler that every sentiment that comes from their lips has been sanctioned by their campaign and spin advisers. So I am not sure you can take any praise as praise, more ploy than praise I would surmise.

Belly>> Or if Turnbull replaces him, before the election, in one of a few back on the rails moves by him, Turnbull will turn the election in to a landslide >>

Landslide for who Belly?

Sonofgloin, writing slow try to keep up.
First only you can take the praise being given to the American President, and warn its a ploy!
Funny stuff.
Turnbull, if leading , would smash my ALP lead by Gillard.
For goodness sake SOG! say something controversial.
So we can have an argument!
Turnbulls first act as leader? crush Abbottism.
Help turn the boats a around, get out of the way of Carbon trading scheme.
Stop the Negativity.
And win the popularity numbers Rudd had.
Not my wish, just truth, it still has value for me.

Belly why do you people always look for a messiah? You gave us that drop kick Rudd by looking for a god, & what we got was a god awful fool.

Now you want to inflect another self proclaimed god on us. I can see the attraction of Turnbull to you & your mates, you can see a reflection of your god, Rudd in him.

Any similarity to Ruddy is to be avoided at any cost.

Belly,
Please stop that nonsensical feigned promoting of Turnbull. The good citizens of Australia don't want him as a leader. Abbott will do fine in comparison to Rudd/Gillard.
If you're so concerned about the next Prime Ministership being handed to the wrong person then you have to stop promoting the wrong people.

Scribbler,

A natural disaster is always a good opportunity for an incumbent.

Just look what Yasi did for Anna Bligh.

Correct SM, but a little too simple. Katrina, for instance, was a political disaster for Bush.

In any kind of disaster – natural or man-made – opportunities arise for all leaders. But opportunities can be missed, as easily as they can be embraced. When Yasi hit, Anna Bligh surprised everyone with her resolve and her leadership. She showed herself to be a decisive leader, but also to be one of the people too, suffering as they suffer, on the ground, standing in the soaking rain, working around the clock. Of course, it was her job to do so, but many others would have failed the test.

Chamberlain was a hopeless wartime PM, Churchill a brilliant one. Some leaders are good in a crisis, others not.

Obama’s decision to suspend the campaign for a total of three days in order to assess and assist his affected people, at a time when he was lagging in the polls, will be seen by many American voters (most particularly the those in key swing states) as more than a function of his office, or an opportunity to gain public respect, but as a supreme sacrifice. It was a big risk for Obama. What clinched it for him were the very unexpected endorsements by Christie and now Bloomberg.

It remains to be seen whether his play will have the desired effect on the election outcome, but even if Obama is ousted from office, he will be remembered as much for his actions and resolve over the past few days as for anything else he has done.

Scribbler the fact is Bush failed totally this bloke is, so far not.
Good thread leaving now, the red necked three winged, only we know birds have arrived.
I know my place so with draw.

Scribbler,

Opportunities go both ways. For US presidents incumbancy is far more important with very few !st term presidents losing.

As far as Sandy is concerned, NY and Jersey were typically Democratic states, and while it might increase Obama's vote, it may not get any collegiate representatives.

How many of the "battleground states" were affected by Sandy? The answer is none.

SM,

Actually, the odds of reelection for incumbent US Presidents are not as high as you might think.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/23/for-u-s-presidents-odds-for-a-second-term-are-surprisingly-long.html states that “of the 42 men who served as President before <Obama>, only 15 won two consecutive elections.

Of the 15 presidents who won two consecutive terms (or four consecutive terms, in the case of FDR), nearly all of them count as historical giants and successful, significant chief executives. The only two arguable exceptions would be Ulysses S. Grant (1869-77) and George W. Bush (2001-09) …”

It goes on to evaluate and breakdown the statistics, but the bottom line is that it is not a given that the incumbent will be reelected. Obama’s policies have angered many, and while he is considered to be a true democrat, his first term has effectively been wasted because he inherited such a mess.

Sandy struck at a most opportune moment and, since Christie and Bloomberg have effectively stated that Obama is the President America needs in a crisis, what many Americans will be asking themselves is, would Romney have done the same thing? On the back of Katrina (where the Republican President failed dismally) can they risk voting in another Republican, one who may, in times of need, fail them again? This is what matters to them, regardless of their home state.

Good thread leaving now,
I know my place so with draw.
Belly,
You somehow remind me of the Captain of the COSTA CONCORDIA with those remarks.

Let me be straight with from the beginning --I like Obama. Can’t help liking the guy. You just know from his demeanor that if anyone (with more than half a brain) was picking a team, Obama would be one of your first picks.Even if he hadn’t a clue about basketball or football or whatever it was the team was for. Just having him on-board would inject the group with positive vibes.

As Bill Clinton said he’s a “cool” guy. And anyone who wooed and won Michelle had to have had a lot of good sense.
And Bill should know, he’s had more experience than most in wooing and winning.

Now, I know they don’t just elect a president because s/he is cool. S/he also needs to have cool policies.
(Bloomsburg at least thinks Obama --King Canute like - has enough cool policies to calm the seas and snuff out global warming)

On my part Obama wins points for foreign policy. His approach on Iran & Syria (and Libya earlier on)strike me as more cool and considered than anything the Republicans have announced.

On the other hand, Obama’s approach to illegal immigration –the original occupy movement – is very ill-considered and is like a giant advertisement for bigger inflows of illegals.

So based on the above I would be what they might call an undecided voter.

[TBC]

As far as Christie cozying-up to Obama post hurricane Sandy. One wonders what people would have said if he had distanced himself
and resorted to pot shots? All Christie has to do is allow things to play-out, there are already reports emerging about failures of the Obama administrations handling of the relief effort. Christie did the statesman like thing and rallied around the commander-in-chief in a crisis. It takes a big man to put aside party politics in such times –and Christie certainly qualifies as a big man.

But what irks me is the unChristie like behavior of some of Obama’s advocates. Who in the best tradition of tabloid journalism make it sound like a modern day resurrection of Lazarus:

1) <<Prior to the chaotic arrival of Sandy, Obama was lagging in the polls>>
“Languishing”? most reports indicate it is/was neck an neck.
2) <<. His dispirited, lack-lustre performance in the debates>>
Practically all reports awarded 2 of the 3 of the debates to Obama.
3) <<, his seeming unwillingness to use Romney’s own gaffs against him>>
So where did “Romnesia” come from & what was all the kerfuffle about “binders full of women ” ?

I don’t know what media sources some were tuned into, to have arrived at the above . I know it couldn’t have been the (Australian) ABC – since the ABC has had all its commentators out door knocking for Obama –and telling us that he’d already won the election, for at least 12 months

an undecided voter.
SPQR,
I agree with your statement but sadly, your self-assessment is precisely what's causing most of our political woes. People simply MUST make up their mind on grounds of outcome not merely on personal like/dislike. I quite like many Labor pollies but I could not get myself to be party of putting them into Government. I'm not that selfish nor inconsiderate towards other people or to put it into simpler language, Labor's victims.

SPQR I too like Obarma, will be sad if he fails to win.
Of more importance, to me at least, Republicans look dangerous to me, in the extreme.
And just what America would get, if electing them, looks grim.
I have to question one poster, he almost infers Labor is unelectable, ok but too, in post after post defames us who vote for them.
I remain forever, unhappy with the power brokers actions, and Gillards betrayal, of both Rudd and my party.
But hope against current odds she too will go as Rudd did, soon.
Still this country is not well served by the thought Labor voters are in any way inferior.

Belly,
When did I infer you are inferior ? I say you are inconsiderate to anyone who cares, you only care about Labor, you belittle every Coalition member but I never called you inferior.
And yes, I think President Obama is indeed a likeable character & rally should get another term.
Do not liken the Democrats & democratic system of the USA to those in Australia. Totally & utterly different in philosophy & competence.

Scribbler,
Time will tell if Obama is advantaged by the disaster. It could well be, however I notice that now some victims are now starting to complain, saying the richer areas are getting favourable help while the poorer suburbs are not getting any. Peoples perceptions can change quickly.

The thing that amazes me about US elections is why some people here and our media devote so much time to it. Over the years there has been a number of Presidents both Democrat and Republican and I have not noticed any difference in our relationship with the US. So in reality it has no effect on us one way or another. Maybe for US citizens there is a difference, but not for Australia or Australians.

Another thing that is of concern is that people here that want a Republic hold the US up as an example. They want us to have the same costly election circus that the yanks have and I have to ask why?

The circus in the US goes on for months and frankly I can see no good reason why such an election system should be inflicted on us. This circus happens every few years.

If anyone can point out any practical advantage I would like to hear it.

Scribbler,

I was talking of more recent times, where the proportion of incumbents losing is lower than winning. The primaries held by the republicans did a lot of damage and cost a lot of money that the democrats were not saddled with.

I understand your logic, but from the polls I am reading, I don't see much change since Sandy.

PS, you can also include Clinton as a 2nd term loser. He got almost nothing done, and his loosening of banking regulations which played a huge part in the GFC.

Sad thing about the effect of Sandy on democracy is that the American electors could be affected by a weather event. Seems democracy is dependent on whether it is a nice day or not.

It's also sad that some American electors may believe that Sandy is proof of the existence of god and others proof of the existence of the devil, depending upon whether their preferred candidate wins or loses, when it actually proves that warming oceans may be effecting weather patterns, something that the entire nation and their politicians seems to be in complete denial about.

Doesn't seem to matter who wins in that election, because nothing will change anyway. The only thing that will change is the pace of the status quo.