Paul Krugman, whose home was in the path of Hurricane Sandy, is kind of storm-sensitive, storm-aware. He sees the clear difference between Romney and Obama when it comes to forecasting, preparation for storms, and rescue. He also knows a lousy excuse when he sees it.
Some Republicans have already started using Sandy as an excuse for a possible Romney defeat. It’s a weak argument: state-level polls have been signaling a clear and perhaps widening Obama advantage for weeks. But as I said, to the extent that the storm helps Mr. Obama, it’s well deserved.The fact is that if Mr. Romney had been president these past four years the federal response to disasters of all kinds would have been far weaker than it was. There would have been no auto bailout, because Mr. Romney opposed the federal financing that was crucial to the rescue. And FEMA would have remained mired in Bush-era incompetence.
So this storm probably won’t swing the election — but if it does, it will do so for very good reasons. ...Paul Krugman, NYT