What if Katrina occurs a year earlier?

[Mr. Morden]

Suppose Hurricane Katrina had hit the Gulf Coast *exactly* one year earlier, making landfall on August 29th, 2004, rather than August 29th, 2005.  Keep in mind, the 2004 Republican National Convention in NYC began on August *30th*, just one day later.  Would the government's response have been any different in this situation?  Would it swing the election to Kerry?

[MarkWarner08]

Suppose Hurricane Katrina had hit the Gulf Coast *exactly* one year earlier, making landfall on August 29th, 2004, rather than August 29th, 2005.  Keep in mind, the 2004 Republican National Convention in NYC began on August *30th*, just one day later.  Would the government's response have been any different in this situation?  Would it swing the election to Kerry?

Bush's black support falls --- costing him Ohio, and the Presidency.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Kerry - 289
Bush - 240

I have LA as toss-up since I really have no idea. I also think FL would have been very close.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Why would this change the out come?

[Jake]

Bush makes his acceptance speech from Louisiana. Louisiana has a bitch of a time holding elections in November. Depending on how it's handled, the Democrats could win the Presidency and not lose the Louisiana Senate seat.

[minionofmidas]

Kerry - 289
Bush - 240

I have LA as toss-up since I really have no idea. I also think FL would have been very close.

There were several hurricanes in FL in 2004, and help functioned extremely well, which may have notched up Bush's margin there by 0.1 or 0.3 or thereabouts. Of course the danger level was not really Katrinaesque.

Yeah, the Bush admin's reaction to a hurricane in 04 would be really interesting to see... if they bungle it as badly as they did IRL, Bush loses. If they do much better than they really did, Bush wins by a higher margin than he did.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Hurricane Katrina was not as much Bush's fault as people make it.  How bout the fact Kathleen Blanco didn't know it was her responsibility to call up the national guard?  Or Ray Nagin letting those infamous school buses sit under water.  Either way, Ray Nagin did the most awful job, made racist statements about the incident, and won election easily.

[Mr. Morden]

One other thing about Katrina being a year earlier is that Ridge was SoHS in '04, rather than Chertoff.  I don't know if that would have changed the quality of the government's response one way or the other, but it's another factor to consider.

[Lincoln Republican]

If Hurricane Katrina takes place one year earlier, less than 3 months before the election, you can be sure the Bush administration would have handled this crisis with the utmost urgency, and would have done everything in their power to ensure the crisis was handled in an exemplary manner.

They would have used the crisis as a rallying cry for the nation to support Bush and the great work the administration was doing in the crisis.  They would have urged Americans to come together, under the leadership of George W Bush, and to work together, united and strong, in combating this crisis.

Voters would see plenty of footage of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials, personally on site at devastated areas, and talking to and helping the victims.  These photo ops would be turned into campaign ads for the Republicans.   

America gets behind Bush in the crisis, which happens shortly before the election, and Bush wins by a much larger margin.

One must keep in mind the poor performance of Louisiana Democratic Governor Blanco and New Orleans Democratic Mayor Nagin.  Bush would not reference this, however, it would get plenty of reference from others in the campaign.

One must also keep in mind that Kerry was not a particularly great candidate.

I noticed this is post 1776 for me.  Defining date in U.S. history, not my post, the year.
   

[minionofmidas]

If Hurricane Katrina takes place one year earlier, less than 3 months before the election, you can be sure the Bush administration would have handled this crisis with the utmost urgency, and would have done everything in their power to ensure the crisis was handled in an exemplary manner.

They would have used the crisis as a rallying cry for the nation to support Bush and the great work the administration was doing in the crisis.  They would have urged Americans to come together, under the leadership of George W Bush, and to work together, united and strong, in combating this crisis.

Voters would see plenty of footage of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials, personally on site at devastated areas, and talking to and helping the victims.  These photo ops would be turned into campaign ads for the Republicans.   

America gets behind Bush in the crisis, which happens shortly before the election, and Bush wins by a much larger margin.

One must keep in mind the poor performance of Louisiana Democratic Governor Blanco and New Orleans Democratic Mayor Nagin.  Bush would not reference this, however, it would get plenty of reference from others in the campaign.

One must also keep in mind that Kerry was not a particularly great candidate.

I noticed this is post 1776 for me.  Defining date in U.S. history, not my post, the year.
   

Oh, your post is pretty good as well. -_-

[Mr. Morden]

I guess the question is, how much of the bungled Katrina response was simply a function of the Bush administration not trying hard enough?  Winfield argues that if Katrina had happened just before the '04 election, the administration would have made sure that the Katrina response went well, so it wouldn't be such a political albatross for Bush.  But what if, instead of the Bushies simply not having tried hard enough, the Katrina problems were a result of one or more of these factors?:

1) The Bush administration is simply incompetent when it comes to dealing with disasters like this, so it doesn't matter how hard they try.  They'll screw it up regardless.

2) The Katrina disaster was just so extraordinary that no administration--nobody--could have done a "good" job of responding to it.  No matter what anyone did, it was bound to end up as a fiasco, so Bush had no chance of coming out looking good.  The fact that it was an impossible situation doesn't lead the public to give Bush a pass though, because it's impossible to *prove* that the situation was hopeless.

3) The bungled response was mostly due to state and local officials, which Bush has no control over.  But of course, this distinction gets lost on the public, so he gets blamed regardless.

If you believe that either 1, 2, or 3 is true (or some combination thereof), then the timing of Katrina wouldn't be able to make the response any better.  Bush is simply incapable of having handled things better, even if he *really* wanted to.

OTOH, if you believe the problem was that Bush didn't care enough--it wasn't enough of a priority for him--then of course having it occur right before the election would have had a big impact on how well the government response to the storm went.

I would assume that most Bush defenders believe either #2 or #3 is true.....and that most Bush opponents believe either #1 (the "Bush is incompetent" scenario) or believe the "Bush doesn't care, so yes, he would have responded better if it happened before the election" scenario.

[Nym90]

Assuming everything goes the same as it did otherwise, Kerry.

[memphis]

Hurricane Katrina was not as much Bush's fault as people make it.  How bout the fact Kathleen Blanco didn't know it was her responsibility to call up the national guard?  Or Ray Nagin letting those infamous school buses sit under water.  Either way, Ray Nagin did the most awful job, made racist statements about the incident, and won election easily.

Katrina wan't anybody's fault as much a people make it. The scale of the event was nearly unprecedented and I don't know how much more anybody could have done.

[kashifsakhan]

Louisiana decide to delay the election due to the aftermath of the hurricane.

Kerry manages to win Ohio, but just barely, which is enough to win the presidency.

If the relief effort was done better than it was done in OTL, then Bush wins Louisiana, but if its the same as OTL, then Kerry just might sneak away with it.

Bush - 257 (potentially 266)
Kerry - 272 (potentially 281)

[adam]

The administrations horrid handeling of the crisis costs Bush big in the swing states and Louisiana.

Kerry Wins 273-265 in the electoral college, and wins the popular vote 50-49

[Josh/Devilman88]

It would have been the same out come.

[Stranger in a strange land]

If Katrina had occured in 2004, I'd have to think the government response would have been better, if only because Bush and his staff would know their political lives were at stake. If the result and response to the hurricaine had been the same, kerry would have won a Reagan-type landslide with 400+ EVs.

[sldhfwrt87345]

Kerry wins 308 to Bush's 230, with a 50s to 40s lead in the popular vote.

[SPC]

Suppose Hurricane Katrina had hit the Gulf Coast *exactly* one year earlier, making landfall on August 29th, 2004, rather than August 29th, 2005.  Keep in mind, the 2004 Republican National Convention in NYC began on August *30th*, just one day later.  Would the government's response have been any different in this situation?  Would it swing the election to Kerry?

Bush's black support falls --- costing him Ohio, and the Presidency.

Bush had Black support?

[ilikeverin]

If Katrina had followed the same pattern of development precisely a year earlier, we would be talking about the devastation of Hurricane Frances.  Which is kinda unfortunate, because if it had become a tropical storm just a day later (in this new timeline) then we would have been talking about Hurricane Gaston.  And Gaston is just a way cooler name.

[Soaring Eagle]

If Katrina had followed the same pattern of development precisely a year earlier, we would be talking about the devastation of Hurricane Frances.  Which is kinda unfortunate, because if it had become a tropical storm just a day later (in this new timeline) then we would have been talking about Hurricane Gaston.  And Gaston is just a way cooler name.

A hurricane named after the villain in Beauty and the Beast would be quite interesting, I must admit.

[phk]

Suppose Hurricane Katrina had hit the Gulf Coast *exactly* one year earlier, making landfall on August 29th, 2004, rather than August 29th, 2005.  Keep in mind, the 2004 Republican National Convention in NYC began on August *30th*, just one day later.  Would the government's response have been any different in this situation?  Would it swing the election to Kerry?

Bush's black support falls --- costing him Ohio, and the Presidency.

Bush had Black support?

He won like 17% of Ohio Blacks.

[pbrower2a]

Suppose Hurricane Katrina had hit the Gulf Coast *exactly* one year earlier, making landfall on August 29th, 2004, rather than August 29th, 2005.  Keep in mind, the 2004 Republican National Convention in NYC began on August *30th*, just one day later.  Would the government's response have been any different in this situation?  Would it swing the election to Kerry?

Some people hold that the statewide vote in Ohio was rigged and thus utterly unreliable. Kenneth Blackwell promised that he could "deliver" Ohio -- and he did -- with little conventional campaigning.

Bush's black support falls --- costing him Ohio, and the Presidency.

Bush had Black support?

He won like 17% of Ohio Blacks.

How much of that vote was genuine, and how much was from tampering with voting devices?