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.