Will presidential election loser blame hurricane Sandy?
Will the loser in next week鈥檚 presidential election blame his fate on hurricane Sandy? 鈥溾�� over at NBC News raised that question Wednesday, and we think it鈥檚 interesting. That鈥檚 because it gets at the fine line between actual effects and magical thinking, which is part of so many expert narratives about political campaigns.
As the First Read gang notes, 鈥淕iven how close this election is, it won鈥檛 be surprising if the losing side ends up blaming Sandy, whether it鈥檚 fair or not.鈥�
If President Obama fails in his bid for a second term, his staff may turn around and point at the three days of campaigning he鈥檚 lost to Sandy-related activities.聽
If Mitt Romney falls short in his bid to unseat Mr. Obama, his campaign could ascribe the loss to the perception that Sandy 鈥渆levated the president and stopped the momentum narrative for Romney,鈥� First Read writes.
There are ways Sandy could really affect voting outcomes next Tuesday, of course. Pennsylvania got hammered; if flooding and lack of power depresses turnout in heavily Democratic Philadelphia, it is possible the Keystone State could swing to Mr. Romney, providing him a path to 270 electoral votes. If New Jersey鈥檚 Republican Gov. Chris Christie continues to praise Obama for his storm response, it is possible some swing voters in, say, Virginia will be impressed.
Single events have already appeared to sway the course of the 2012 campaign. Romney rose substantially in the polls following his strong performance in the first presidential debate.
But 鈥渆levated the president and stopped the momentum narrative for Romney鈥�? Please. Saying that wouldn鈥檛 be punditry. It would be soothsaying.
We鈥檙e not picking on First Read here: They鈥檙e not saying they believe that stuff themselves. They鈥檙e saying other people might say it in the face of defeat, and they鈥檙e right about that. Romney, Obama, it wouldn鈥檛 matter. Both sides have officials/surrogates/partisans who could utter that kind of thing with a completely straight face.
Which brings us to our main point: We鈥檝e come to political punditry at a relatively advanced point in our journalistic career, and we鈥檙e constantly surprised by its imprecision. It鈥檚 like sportswriting (which we鈥檝e also done) without the intellectual discipline imposed by the feedback loop of player stats and game scores.
鈥淪haping the narrative鈥� is one of our favorite phrases. When you hear somebody say that on one of the shouting-pundit cable shows, your internal horse-patty detector should go off. 鈥淒efining expectations鈥� is another. 鈥淢omentum鈥� is in general a suspect subject, though it鈥檚 a bit more solid since you can always check actual polls. And so on. If you鈥檝e made it this far, we鈥檙e sure you can provide plenty of your own examples.
So beware folks spouting off about the 鈥淪andy effect鈥� as if they鈥檙e sure what it is. Losers need scapegoats, and it鈥檚 easier to point the finger at a 500-mile-wide storm than at their candidate or his campaign.
