How can hurricanes create complications ahead of an election?

A massive hurricane disrupts people’s lives in many important ways, including affecting people’s personal safety and where they can live. Ahead of an election, there are a lot of practical limitations about how an election can be executed – like if a person can still receive mail-in ballots at home or elsewhere, or if it is possible to still vote in person at their polling location if that building was destroyed or damaged.

Another issue is whether people who have just lived through a natural disaster and will likely be dealing with the aftermath for weeks to come are focused on politics right now. Some might sit out the election because they simply have more important things to worry about.

Beyond practical concerns, how else can a natural disaster influence an election?

The other side of the equation, which is what political scientists like myself are mostly focusing on, is whether people take the fact that a natural disaster happened into consideration when they vote. 

Two scholars, Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels, have argued that sometimes voters are not great at figuring out how to incorporate bad things that happened to them into a voting position. In some cases, it is entirely fair to hold an elected official responsible for bad outcomes that affect people’s lives. But at other moments, bad things can happen to us without that being the fault of an incumbent president or governor. And voters should ideally be able to balance out these different types of bad things – those it is fair to punish elected officials for, and those for which it isn’t fair to hold them responsible. 

How else do voters consider bad events when they vote?

Scholars like John Gasper and Andrew Reeves argue that voters mostly care whether elected officials respond appropriately to a disaster. So, if the president does a good job reacting, voters do not actually punish them at all in the next election. However, voters can punish elected officials if they feel like the response is not correct. 

The fact that Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana in 2005 was not the fault of then-President George W. Bush. But the perceived slowness of the government response is something a voter could have held him responsible for.

How do voters’ political affiliations affect where and how they lay the blame?

Colleagues and I have shown that how people interpret the combination of a disaster and the government response is likely colored by their own partisanship. 

We looked at both the effects of Superstorm Sandy on the 2012 presidential election and natural disasters’ impact on elections more broadly from 1972 through 2004. One core finding is that when presidents reject state officials’ disaster declaration requests, they lose votes in affected counties – but only if those counties were already more supportive of the opposite party. 

If there is a strong positive government response, the incumbent president or their party can actually gain votes or lose voters affected by a disaster. So, Republicans affected by the hurricanes could become more inclined to vote against Harris if they feel like they are not getting the help they need. But it could also help Harris if affected Democrats feel like they are getting enough aid.

The major takeaway is that if the government responds really effectively to a natural disaster or other emergency, there is not a huge electoral penalty – and there could even be a small reward. 

That is not irrelevant in a close election. If Republicans in affected areas in North Carolina feel the government response has been poor and it inspires them to turn out in higher numbers to punish Harris, that could matter. But if they feel like the response has been adequate, research suggests either no real effect on their support for Harris – or possibly even an increase in Harris voters.

Read the full interview here.

“One of the things that stood out to me about Tim is how his convictions on fighting for middle-class families run deep. It’s personal,” Harris wrote in an Instagram post announcing her choice of Walz.

Walz, 60, is a former high school teacher and football coach who served in the U.S. Army National Guard for 24 years. He also served as a congressman for six terms before running for governor in 2018. He is in his second term as governor after being reelected in 2022.

Doubling Down on ‘Weird’

Walz was the first to call the Republican candidates “weird”—a term that has taken off among Democrats in the campaign against former President Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, a U.S. senator.

Fordham experts agree that Walz should appeal to middle-class voters, and also say that popularizing “weird” probably helped his chances.

“Walz will add to the already increased excitement among the Democratic base, since he’s already been an effective spokesperson for the campaign introducing the ‘weird’ angle that Harris and other Democrats have doubled down on,” said Boris Heersink, Ph.D., associate professor of political science.

“Harris’s final list of vice-presidential options was a strong one and each of the candidates she was reportedly considering could have contributed something valuable to the ticket and in office. That being said, the selection of Walz to me seems like a smart choice,” Heersink added. “His record in Minnesota as governor includes a long list of policies that Democratic voters strongly support. And while Minnesota is not a swing state, he may appeal to middle and working-class voters in the Midwest.”

Jacob Smith, Ph.D., assistant professor of political science, said, ““He was not an initial favorite in the VP search, but got a lot of attention popularizing the line of Trump and the GOP being ‘weird.’ His ‘happy warrior’ style was likely appealing to Harris.”

Progressive Record

One group that was behind Walz early on was progressives, Smith said, despite him having a more moderate voting record in Congress that fit his moderate to right-leaning district. 

He has been more progressive during his governorship. For example, Minnesota passed laws supporting free school breakfast and lunch, universal background checks for guns, and legalized marijuana, Smith said.

Winning in Conservative Areas

Walz got his start in politics winning a seat in Congress in 2006. Smith said he was what is often known as a “wave baby”—he won in 2006 largely because of George W. Bush’s lack of popularity when a lot of Democrats without previous political experience won. The district he won was Republican-leaning. But Walz’s background as a teacher, football coach, National Guardsman, and rural Nebraska native may have held particular appeal to the small-town Midwest voters, he added.

“Walz survived a number of tough reelections in Congress and barely won reelection in 2016 as his seat shifted heavily towards Donald Trump. He has lots of experience winning tough reelections in conservative areas,” said Smith.

Walz would be the third Democratic vice president from Minnesota elected in relatively recent years after Hubert Humphrey in 1964 and Walter Mondale in 1976.

“It’s unprecedented. Kamala Harris would be the second person of color who ever served as president,” said Dr. Christina Greer, an associate professor of political science at Fordham University who is a regular commentator on cable news. “We’re one of the last democracies in the world [that’s] never elected a woman to the highest office. The silver lining is, even though it’s late in the game, it’s not too late. And it’s before the convention.”

Greer said that Harris will likely continue Biden’s radical attempts to relegate, reform, and abolish student loan debt, something that has actively changed the lives of millions of student borrowers. Some of Biden’s policies for higher education were more popular than others, so Greer added that Harris will have to thread the needle carefully when sharing the Biden administration successes while highlighting her own policies.

“This is a historic moment,” said Boris Heersink, associate professor of political science at Fordham. “There are no similar cases where an incumbent president in the modern era had every intention to run for reelection, won the delegates necessary to get nominated, but was effectively forced out.”

Pressure mounted for Biden, 81, to step aside after his June 27 debate performance, which many called “disastrous,” and raised doubts about his fitness for office only four months before the election. Since then, dozens of prominent Democrats have pressed him to withdraw so they could nominate a candidate who would fare better against former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee. But as late as Friday, Biden continued to insist that he would stay in the race.

Heersink said the campaign to oust Biden was “not just because of one bad debate but because that debate confirmed a lot of preexisting views of his age and fueled a growing frustration among many that this current generation of politicians refuses to step aside.”

Avoiding a ‘Free-for-All’

It remains to be seen, however, if the party leadership will back Harris for the nomination, and reports of division among Democrats are already surfacing.

“The delegates that were elected during the primaries this past spring will need to vote, and they theoretically are free to vote for whoever they want,” Heersink said. “However, it seems likely to me that Biden and other party leaders will want to avoid this becoming a free-for-all.

“While Biden stepping aside obviously adds considerable confusion to the race, it does also provide Democrats with the opportunity to put together a ticket that will excite people in their base and make not just the case that voters need to reject Trump, but that there also is a positive argument for voting for the Democrats in November,” said Heersink.

Christina Greer, associate professor of political science, said, “It’s historic, complicated, and not yet decided. Chicago will bring much to light, and luckily for Dems, Biden decided to make this decision before the convention.”

‘Sighing With Relief’

Jacob Smith, assistant professor of political science at Fordham, said, “I think a lot of Dems are sighing with relief today.” He added, “Also, the behind-the-scenes action once again shows nobody should bet against Nancy Pelosi.”

“I think enthusiasm among younger voters will be higher [for Harris],” said Smith. “While incumbents usually have an edge, the age issue was just going to dominate the fall campaign for Joe Biden. Harris won’t have that baggage.”

If Democrats choose another nominee, however, it would “ignore the crucial role of Black voters in the Democratic Party in addition to being pretty rude to Harris as the sitting VP,” Smith said. “Everyone will need to be vigilant against racism and sexism, but I do believe that Harris is the stronger candidate and that is why President Biden ultimately stepped aside.”

Heersink said, “A majority of voters has very consistently indicated that they do not want Trump to be president again. But a majority of voters also believed Biden was incapable of executing the job for another term. Trump is still the Republican nominee, but Democrats now have the space to overcome the major obstacles to a victory in November.”

“This is unprecedented,” said Christina Greer, an associate professor of political science at Fordham University.

For some Democrats, the calculus is deeply personal as they decide whether to abandon a man whom many respect and have worked with for decades. Others are thinking strategically about whether the party can coalesce around another candidate with just weeks until the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Greer said.

“What would it look like to change course now?,” she said. “What would it look like to stay with a candidate who some argue had one bad night while others argue it’s part of a much more concerning pattern?”

Heersink said, “The biggest part of it … is that essentially it makes it very unlikely that this particular January 6th case is going to be concluded by the time the election happens. And that’s particularly relevant for two reasons. One, it means that there wouldn’t be a conviction before people vote, which could be relevant to people making up their minds. And two, should Trump actually win the election in November and become president again come January, he’s effectively in charge of the Department of Justice and he can end this prosecution, which means that the entire thing can fall apart.”

“That’s the extremely weird part about this, right? It’s very specifically a Trump case because no other president has ever been prosecuted for things that they’ve done while they were president,” he said. “But the amount of space this provides presidents, regardless of who you support in this election, should kind of terrify. Because essentially anything that a president does as long as it relates to them being president is entirely okay.”

“Lots of things fall into the category of something that theoretically the president could be doing as president. And this ruling today essentially means that it doesn’t matter how clearly legal that is, they can never be prosecuted for it.”