Last week, Hurricane Milton hit Florida, killing at least 16 people and leaving millions without power. It was the second hurricane in two weeks to devastate the southeastern United States: in late September, Hurricane Helene hit northern Florida and caused massive flooding in other states such as North Carolina and Georgia, killing more than 230 people and costing up to 47 US dollars caused billions of dollars in property damage.

First and foremost, it's about the human cost of these storms, but it's also worth noting that these states will have major elections in less than a month – and in at least two of them, there's tough competition between Democrats and Republicans. So what impact, if any, might Milton and Helene have on the 2024 election in these places?

It turns out there is a lot of research on this. Unfortunately, since the Atlantic hurricane season peaks in September and October, hurricanes often occur shortly before elections. This means that there have been numerous examples in the past of tropical cyclones striking in the background of a campaign. And according to political scientists who have studied how these storms affected the election, voters are responding exactly as you would expect: When the government does a good job on disaster relief, it helps the incumbent party, and when the Government does a good job, does a bad job, it hurts them.

For example, one study found that voters reward the president's party when the federal government provides disaster relief. Meanwhile, another study — on tornadoes, not hurricanes — found that voters punish the president's party when tornadoes cause extensive damage but the government does not issue a disaster declaration.

So the question becomes: How do Americans think President Joe Biden's administration is responding to this year's storms? While it's too early to tell for sure, particularly when it comes to Milton, polling so far suggests that Americans are divided along party lines. For example, according to a YouGov/CBS News poll from Oct. 8 to 11, 51 percent of registered voters approved of the way the Biden administration handled the hurricanes, while 49 percent disapproved. And 49 percent thought the response to Helene by federal agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Agency was too slow — while 47 percent thought it was “about right.”

Former President Donald Trump tried to smear the Biden administration by spreading false claims that FEMA spent disaster relief money on undocumented immigrants rather than hurricane victims. The YouGov/CBS News poll also shows that a strong minority (46 percent) of registered voters think these claims are “certainly” or “probably” true — but a majority (54 percent) think they are “certainly” or “probably.” ” incorrect .

An older poll conducted October 6-7 by YouGov/The Economist found that Americans' opinion of the response to Helene depends on how it was framed. In the poll, Americans disapproved of the way Biden handled the response to Helene by 44 percent to 38 percent. But they approved, 43 percent to 33 percent, how FEMA — which is, of course, part of the Biden administration — handled the response.

Finally, perhaps the worst poll for Democrats was a Data for Progress poll from October 2-3. It found that only 30 percent of likely voters thought the federal government was providing the right level of disaster relief assistance to Americans. 52 percent felt the government was not providing enough.

Of course, the strongest political impact of these storms may be felt within the affected states themselves. But it is particularly difficult to know where public opinion stands in these states, precisely because they have been hit so hard. With many people still displaced or out of power, polling in Florida is virtually impossible right now, and no one has polled the presidential election in the state since Milton's victory. And even in North Carolina and Georgia, it's unclear how accurate the polls are right now, as parts of those states are still recovering from Helene. However, post-Helene polls in these states remain virtually unchanged compared to before the storm: Trump is still ahead by about one percentage point in both North Carolina and Georgia.

But the storms could impact the election in ways other than changing people's votes—for example, by affecting voter turnout. It's easy to imagine how these disasters could make voting more difficult: Damaged buildings that once served as polling places may no longer serve that purpose this year; Road closures may make access to open polling stations difficult; Or people are just so busy rebuilding their lives that voting isn't high on their priority list. As a result, previous natural disasters have led to lower voter turnout: For example, the storm formerly known as Hurricane Sandy (at the time, it was technically a post-tropical cyclone) struck the northeastern United States eight days before Election Day in 2012, a study found noted that between 2008 and 2012 there was a 2.8 percent decline in voter turnout in the affected areas; Unaffected areas saw a decline of less than 1 percent.

Of course, election officials are doing everything they can to ensure people have access to voting in the wake of the storm. In North Carolina, for example, voters affected by Helene are allowed to drop off their mail-in ballots on Election Day at polling places in their county or even at another county's board of elections. Local election committees in affected areas are also allowed to change voting times, merge polling districts and move polling stations.

However, there is no guarantee that these changes will be helpful. After Hurricane Michael hit Florida four weeks before the 2018 election, another study found that consolidating polling places in the wake of the storm actually led to lower voter turnout – possibly because voters were unaware of the changes and location of their new polling place. Likewise, the share of voters in affected counties who voted by mail actually declined, even though Florida made mail voting easier in light of the storm.

But even if voter turnout drops in places hit hard by these storms, it is unlikely to have an impact on who wins in those states (except in the case of an extremely close election). That might seem surprising at first when you look at the partisanship of the counties declared federal disaster areas in Florida, Georgia and North Carolina: They voted for Trump in 2020, while the parts of the states not affected by the storms all did Biden voted for it.

But the differences aren't big, at least not in Florida and Georgia. The affected counties only voted for Trump by 5 points in Georgia and 7 points in Florida, so the storms there will theoretically hamper Trump and Biden voters almost equally.

In contrast, in North Carolina, the 25 counties affected by Helene voted for Trump 62 percent to 37 percent. However, they only made up 17 percent of the votes cast in North Carolina in 2020. A storm-related drop in voter turnout would disproportionately harm Trump, but in absolute terms it wouldn't cost him too many votes.

That won't happen, but as a thought experiment, let's assume that in 2024 everyone in North Carolina will vote the same way they did in 2020, but that voter turnout will drop by 5 percent in the counties affected by Helene. That would cost Democrats 17,482 votes and Trump 29,181 votes — cutting Trump's lead by 11,699. That could be important in an extremely close election, which is not impossible. But in 2020, North Carolina was pretty close (Trump won by 1.3 points), but Trump's margin was almost seven times that: 74,483 votes. So North Carolina would have to be within a fraction of a percentage point for anyone to make a valid argument that Helene influenced the election (even if voter turnout drops in the affected areas, which is not a given).

Of course, it is a problem if even one person is disenfranchised because of these storms, and hopefully all eligible voters who want to cast their vote can do so. But if Trump loses North Carolina (or Georgia or Florida), it probably won't be because of these natural disasters.