The polarization of hurricane opinion?

A difference-in-differences analysis demonstrates that Trump/Clinton vote share strongly predicts evacuation rates, but only after the emergence of conservative-media dismissals of hurricane warnings in September 2017, just before Irma made landfall in Florida. Following this viral “hurricane trutherism”, we estimate that Trump-voting Florida residents were 10-11% less likely to evacuate Irma than Clinton-voters (34% vs. 45%) after controlling for key demographic and
geographic covariates, highlighting one consequence of political polarization.

Here is the full paper, by Elisa F. Long, M. Keith Chen, and Ryne Rohla.  Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.

Comments

"after controlling for key demographic and
geographic covariates"

Uh huh.

This is really weird. What would make someone look for these conclusions? To what end? And what does it tell us? Nothing! It appears to be fake news/statistics. But again, why???

To demonstrate the danger of weaponizing misinformation for political gain and calling anything you dont like "fake news".

Ironic.....

Ya think?

. . . So there is a desire to advance this climate change agenda, and hurricanes are one of the fastest and best ways to do it. . . You don’t need a hurricane to hit anywhere. All you need is to create the fear and panic accompanied by talk that climate change is causing hurricanes to become more frequent and bigger and more dangerous, and you create the panic, and it’s mission accomplished. . . I’ve lived here since 1997, and I have
developed a system that I trust, my own analysis of the data. -Rush Limbaugh, September 5, 2017

This is what the Right is now. Sorry, but you own it. It's exactly how you got to Rudy effing Giuliani directing US foreign policy. The political right is insane, and the rational right thinks their job is to keep their heads down. To know nothing, see nothing.

The irony is that you use this argument to feed your TDS, and rally against fake news. Hurricane experts, whether luker warmers or full blown CAGWists don't think hurricanes are worse.

Buddy, if Trump and Giuliani were enjoying 70% approval, and Hillary (not Manafort, Cohen, Gates, Flynn, Papadopoulos, and Stone) were heading for the hoosegow, you might have a point.

But at this point stupidity seems your only weapon.

That's your response to the fact you are wrong about the effects of GW on hurricanes? TDS might be too mild of a term for you.

I made no comment on hurricanes and GW. I outsource to NOAA on that. I did observe the preposterousness of right wing pundits declaring they had better models, and that it was all a plot.

The mouse is back! Your TDS flavored proclamations are lol funny and predictable. It's hard to tell if they are good satire or the real deal.

Anyway, people like yourself are helping to seal the deal in flyover country. I like that.

Keep up the good work.

"But it works" is exactly the tragedy of this hurricane piece. And revelling in it is deplorable.

To be perfectly clear, you are setting up rationality and respect for the law as the enemy. You then say "you have rational respect for the law, nerd, so we win!"

Maybe you can win elections that way, but if you do, you suck.

Good strawman, but maybe you better work on your steelman!

You are way off about me, but that is part of the fun. Your shtick is the blog analog of a sitcom. I hope you get paid for this.

The best part is you and yours are losing bigly, and you are desperately thrashing about like someone drowning.

You are not smart as you think.

Keep up the good work.

That's quite a song and dance. But here is the bottom line:

(Trump commits crimes)

Me: look at that, Trump committed crimes

You: OMG, you must be a big progressive. This is why we will never vote for you.

So that's the binding, even if I am not really a progressive .. but I see no profit in me backing down. If I keep quiet on the crimes, you aren't likely to moderate *your* position anyway.

You are setting it up so that progressives own law and order, and are the *only* group standing against corrupt crony capitalism at the top of government.

So be it.

And you are threadcrapping on this post why?

It's the same issue, hurricanes, impeachment, and whether truth matters in a democracy.

"FYI: I offered to go on Fox & Friends to answer all questions. I can’t change their viewers on Donald Trump but hoped to give them some actual facts about the FBI. They booked me for tomorrow at 8 am. They just cancelled. Must have read the report." - @Comey 12:46 PM · Dec 9, 2019

Does truth matter in a democracy? If yes, why?

To sane people it looks like this:

Biden brags about getting prosecutor looking into his son's corruption fired.

Trump has conversation showing concern about Ukrainian corruption.

IMPEACHMENT - because Trump won election and we don't give a crap about anything above IMPEACHMENT.

"You are setting it up so that progressives own law and order, and are the *only* group standing against corrupt crony capitalism at the top of government."

Between this, russiagate, and the house just passing their voter fraud help law, progressive have years before they are trusted with anything related to law and order. Put down the crack pipe.

No one moderately rational, moderately informed, and moderately moral themselves holds this position: Donald Trump has committed no crimes in his presidency.

What's happened is that the Republican party has bifurcated(*). People who are moderately rational, moderately informed, and moderately moral themselves are keeping quiet. It's a bit immoral but it is what it is. People who are less rational, less informed, or less moral do as you do, and attempt to obfuscate. If you understand what you are doing, shame. If you don't .. as I say, bless your heart.

Still, this does leave the Republican party in a poor moral position. How can they champion any positive moral good at this point? If they try to argue against crony capitalism, for instance, they run right into Rudy and Igor and Lev and a sweetheart gas deal negotiated while all the same parties were mixed up in Republican donations and secret missions for the President.

And don't even get me started on "evangelicals" for porn star payoffs as God's plan.

* - Apparently it is only a negligible slice of Republicans, like me, who abandoned the party on moral principle.

How far back would you have to got to sanely believe in a president that committed no crimes in office? William Henry Harrison?

While we are discussing dysfunctions, certainly this is one. As I have observed, any bad behavior by Trump is "ipso facto" proof that both sides do it. That a "fill in the blank alternative" would always be as bad.

Trump illegally used campaign funds to pay off a mistress?

Well, obviously (you implicitly say) Elizabeth Warren has a mistress too! And her lawyer is guilty! And she lied about it!

I really don't understand it, but the pattern repeats. A certain sort of apologist, or fake centrist, will make up out of whole cloth "same crimes" to balance the books. To absolve themselves of moral responsibility.

It's the same issue, hurricanes, impeachment, and whether truth matters in a democracy.

Love it. Sometimes you push it too far and the mask slips. Bravo, you’re ten times the troll Thiago is.

Trump definitely broke campaign finance regulations. His campaign should definitely pay a fine like the Obama campaign did. Equality before the law. But that’s been known for years at this point.

I’d love a full reckoning, as I believe sunshine is the best disinfectant.

I want the IRS to publish tax returns and audit everyone with two degrees of separation from Congressmen, Senators, Presidents and White House staff. And all nonprofit employees. And public sector union members.

Grab every failed son and plaster them on the front page of the New York Times. Including Kushner. But I want to know how far the rabbit hole goes.

I’m sure the troll will disagree.

Even coming from the most tone-deaf MR poster, this is especially tone-deaf if you swap Trump with, I don't know, Hilldawg.

There needs to be a tag for “conclusion in search of evidence”.

I thought it was a neat paper. Pretty cool method using GPS tracking. Very clever. Precinct level data isn’t ideal, but probably works well enough.

I do wonder how much of this is simply a function of rural areas and home ownership driving the lack of evacuation though.

“ were 10-11% less likely to evacuate Irma than Clinton-voters (34% vs. 45%)”

10-11 percentage points less likely. 25% less likely overall.

I just skimmed the paper, so maybe I missed it, but is there any attention given to the effects of living through previous hurricanes? Potentially, if people have lived through previous hurricane watches without much damage, there is learning going on there.

It would make sense for people in more rural areas to have experienced hurricanes without the same damage and complications that people in more urban areas experienced (usually hurricanes are going to be less expensive, plus you're generally moving away from the coast), and because last time it wasn't so bad, they decided to stick it out.

Just having your power out for days is a huge pain in the rear. And in rural areas that means no running water either.

People in rural areas are likely to be more used to inconsistent power, and to have backup generators.

I live in a quasi rural area on a heavily wooded mountain with highly erodible soils - treefalls, mudslides, and power outtages are common. Almost all my neighbors have generator. Mine is a dual fuel model. When the power goes out the generators sing like songbirds. We have a reliable community owned and operated water company that never fails us. Almost everyone has a pickup and chainsaw - I have two of both - and many have guns - I have a large safe full of them. Best of all, we have the greatest asset of all - we all know each other and newbies are immediately welcomed into the neighborhood. Among the biggest social functions are the annual road work projects for our private roads - yes plural - and the associated lunch and chit chat. It is a big bonding event with many latent functions. It is considered rude to not wave at your neighbors as you drive by them. We do a lot of waving.

When a tweeker stole all of one of our neighbor's tools we all pitched in and either bought or gave him a replacement, including an expensive blower rig, chainsaws, and all manner of hand tools. He is a single man in his sixties, and has lived in houses, trailers, and probably sheds on the property of various neighbors for forty years, making a simple life doing odd jobs and hauling. He has numerous friends on the mountain and never spends a holiday or weekend alone, watching sports games with his buds, drinking beer around a campfire, and weekly or even daily BBQs. He lives a good life.

When another neighbor's building contractor died suddenly and tragically, leaving his poor wife a financial and physical (tools, building supplies, disorganized paperwork, vehicles) the whole neighborhood helped clean her yard, organize tools and supplies, and provided meals and what ever else she needed. The neighbors organized, scheduled, and ran a yard sale to help her clean up and generate much needed cash. I was out of town but paid good money to buy some of his tools sight unseen. When her truck broke down I and other neighbors drove her back and forth to work. Since she worked at a 24 hr. supermarket (Safeway) that means dropoffs and pickups at 6am or even midnight. Sometimes I ferried her back and forth during my work commute. Other times I jumped up and left my house to go pick her up and drive her home at 11 pm.

Over the last 30 plus years - I am 65 - I have been to funerals, weddings, birthdays, 4th of July BBQs, Labor Day celebrations, Christmas and New Year's parties, summer and fall road crews in the neighborhood, and every weekend there are multiple tv sports gatherings. Sometimes we just stop and chat by the mailboxes.

We have social capital.

I've lived in cities, including a nice stretch in downtown Boston a stone's throw from Copley Square. I know the wonders of a metro area like Boston/Cambridge. I loved it.

City people have no clue what it's like to live like I do now.

They don't know what they are missing.

When another neighbor's building contractor HUSBAND died suddenly and tragically ...

One missing word makes a big difference.

They just prefer the other way. Nothing wrong with either preference. Aren't you about individual freedom?

You Boomers are clueless about the world today. Your parasitic lifestyle was created on the backs of all future generations and on the largesse of the Greatest generation. Can't think of a more selfish bunch.

City people lack the storage space for an extensive set of large tools. However we're not helpless in an emergency. After "Snowzilla" dumped 30 inches on us on 2016, the people on my street, which is very much a back street, and at the bottom of the city's Plow List, all got out and started shoveling the street out by hand. Then someone from another block showed up with a plow on their pickup and finished the job. I was also gratified to see the sidewalks were all shoveled, even in front of vacant houses

. "In a study published last month, the research institute PRRI found that 55 percent of “Republicans for whom Fox News is their primary news source say there is nothing Trump could do to lose their approval, compared to only 29 percent of Republicans who do not cite Fox News as their primary news source.” That 26-percentage-point difference is driven not just by politics but by the media source." Source: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/07/trump-impeachment-america-divided-077221

See also the book and free source for it I mentioned in the comment section to the previous post for a link at the Berkman Klein Institute on the Internet and Society.

Cause and effect confusion, in my view.

I see this argued a lot. Just why should Trump supporters abandon their support? What do they gain if they do? Their support costs them nothing amongst other Trump supporters.

You may note a distinct lack of studies asking Democrat viewers of CNN et al. whether there is anything Orange Man could do to not be Bad. Much like the earlier post on political polarization, the expectation is that the gap must close only from one direction.

Shark, I think you have it wrong.

From a Harvard Study using Politifact data:

"Comparing FoxNews to CNN, MSNBC and ABC is revealing. As figure 3.3 shows, the proportion of Fox News statements that are mostly false or worse is almost 50% higher than for MSNBC, and more that twice that of CNN." From: Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation and Radicalization in American Politics (Oxford Press 2018) at pp. 83-84

You can find a free version of the book at the Berkman Institute and the study.

Didn't 'Politifact data' just scream at you? Politifact is routinely caught with the most obnoxious slants. They make the Onion look reliable.

Your proof please. Not your opinion.

"PolitiFact.com was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2009 for "its fact-checking initiative during the 2008 presidential campaign that used probing reporters and the power of the World Wide Web to examine more than 750 political claims, separating rhetoric from truth to enlighten voters".[32] Source: Wikipedia

LOL. Wow, Politifact said that?!?!?!? And they won an award?!?!?!?!? Big if true!

I'm going to go ahead and mark you down for Orange Man Bad No Matter What.

So, you have nothing to say other than name call.

I guess this is supposed to be good news? Relax, the Fox News tribal effect is only 11% at the margin? And important elections are never that close?

You don't seem like the best spokeslady for promoting open-mindedness in political matters.

Seriously? You bite my ankles as your entire argument?

Bless your heart.

Are you worth the time and effort of anything more than derision? Not to me, at least.

Kudos for writing three whole comments without mentioning impeachment, tho

That's funny, two ways.

First, this entire topic on "hurricanes" is actually referencing (or sub-tweeting) impeachment. Tyler knows. The irrational right won't comprehend the details of this impeachment for the same reason they skipped details of that hurricane. They are taught by right wing media in real time that it is a partisan issue with one answer for their side. A litmus test.

Second, you preposterously choose this topic as a place where you can hide out, and not think about all those pesky details if truth, democracy, and rule of law.

Maybe turn on the TV.

TV rots your brain, my friend. You start paying too much attention to the 24-hour news channels, you start rearranging your life around Orange Man and how evil he is. Then you come out into the real world talking about it nonstop, just like you hear about it nonstop, and people think you have some kind of derangement syndrome. Or whatever, I'm not a doctor.

Irma was an unexpected unpleasant experience for me. Television weathermen were dismissing the threat right up until late Sunday afternoon. Overnight the storm's right quadrant (which is the strongest) exploded east well out into the Atlantic, producing hurricane force winds along the east coast of Florida, Georgia, and S. Carolina. The lesson: don't listen to weathermen. For folks who rely on television news for hurricane information (as opposed to the NHC site and other hurricane related web sites) don't receive the most current and accurate information. Boy, did I regret not evacuating. It was a long and miserable night. The sound of hurricane force winds whipping through the trees and trees cracking and crashing to the ground in the dark of night is not something I would want to experience again. Of course, we know the profile of those who rely on Fox News.

Is the profile people who don't complain about how scary a storm is when they don't suffer any apparent tangible damage from it?

No the profile is: white, obese, chain smoker, stupid. There are exceptions, but that is the profile.

Chain smoker? Almost certainly not.

And of course " white, obese, and stupid" is the profile of MSNBC and CNN too.

What would you now about the profile, you a city conservative. Go to Ubly Michigan and scawffff

I would be interested in the evacuation reactions of those folks in Alabama who were drawn in to Trump's hurricane map earlier this year.

Due consideration of "the polarization of hurricane opinion" might well entail taking pains to address "the politicization of hurricane opinion" that Americans arguably first encountered with Hurricane Katrina.

The charge among Democratic Louisianans was that DC is or should be responsible for local hurricane evacuations and emergency response, a novel and thoroughly ridiculous position for any American to adopt, especially those who have lived entire decades in hurricane-prone zones.

Across the decades I lived in hurricane-prone areas, I NEVER thought once to rely on or wait for Federal notification of prevailing meteorological conditions--nor did anyone of my acquaintance. (Native South Carolinians, at least, often continue to betray skepticism concerning Federal competencies and Federal philanthropic zeal, some enduring accident of history, no doubt.)

Private satellites only?

The NOAA is 100% South Carolina =)

"some enduring accident of history, no doubt."

You can call it that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

A tautology.
'Staying put' is the very definition of conservative and visa versa for the liberals.

i would be curious to hear why people stay or leave.

“to protect my property from looters” seems to be oft cited anecdotally

Also the fear of not being able to get back home for an extended period (or being prohibited by authorities from getting back in), Better to be stranded at home than stranded at a motel five hours away wondering if your home is still there.

I suspect "Because I didn't see a need to leave" and "The danger wasn't great enough to leave" also being string contenders. The problem here is that evacuating seems to be presented as the "correct" thing to do. I suspect the true motivation breaks down to the Left saying "If the government thinks I should evacuate, then I must" and the Right thinking "If *I* think I should evacuate, then I must".

Not mentioned is the correlation of r/K-selected psychology to political affiliation. It seems intuitive that a person who skews towards K would be more likely to stay put, whereas a person who skews r would be more likely to flee.

Absent that, what is the practical effect of this finding? Were more injuries or deaths suffered by Trump voters? Did they require rescue or medical attention? Were they better prepared to shelter in place than evacuate?

Not surprising that Clinton voters trust and obey the authorities more, or that Trump voters are more skeptical.

Were the Trump voters wrong to shelter in place presumably with reasonable supplies? I doubt it.

It depends a lot on where you are. If you're in a flood zone under mandatory evacuation then you're at risk of drowning (see: NOLA, Katrina) . If you're on high ground and in a house built to code (not a mobile home) evacuation is not necessary and you'll just be adding to the traffic jam

Conservatives do sometimes point out that a lot more storms of various kinds are now deemed worthy of names -- bestowed in an apparent effort to sensationalize climate change or just pump up the drama.

The bar has been lowered to the point where some typically lousy weather suddenly becomes "Winter Storm Bruce!!" and a few stray 35-mph gusts are quickly dubbed "Tropical Storm Heather!!"

I don't think that's about pumping climate change. Just regular old media sensationalism.

'zactly. Back when The Weather Channel was just a wee updraft of warm moist air, they rode any handy severe weather event to fame by scaring the bejeez out of Midwesterners over this or that tropical event occurring 2,000 miles away.

Yeah, I'm very over the naming of winter storms like hurricanes, or screaming about cold waves as if they were the onset of nuclear winter. We can name any truly memorable storm ourselves, and probably with greater creativity: Snowzilla or Snomageddon.

I'd like to see an evacuation by income bracket mapped onto these results.

Going to be a higher percentage of urban poor who don't evacuate if for no other reason they can't afford to. I would suspect that would also map nicely onto the voting preference results and frankly be more meaningful.

Trump causes chicken pox, too.

Is this an elite blog?

Comments for this post are closed