How would a terrorist attack affect the election?
 

I keep hearing how a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would affect the election, but in which direction? Would Bush once more get strong U.S. support, as after 9/11, or would the attack be seen as a result of an ineffective administration, making him lose support?

After Spain was attacked in March, the opposition won. Now, this may be incorrect, but I read that the opposition would have won regardless of a terror attack, so perhaps using Spain as an example of what could happen here would not apply.

Because some people have an irrational fear if another terrorist attack happens, that Bush will postpone the election indefinately.

I think that both sides would get more entrenched in their positions and wouldn't change anything. Both sides would use it to defend their position. Bush people would say that they need to be elected cause they will chase them down, Kerry people would say Bush is wrong cause the Iraq effort didn't stop it, Badnarik would say if we had more troops at home and took a more nuetral stance it would have been prevented. It will likely not effect the outcome in my opinion.

About the Spain bombing, the ruling conservative party was already very unpopular, particularly for their involvement in Iraq, and the race was a dead heat. After the bombing the ruling party tried to blame the action on Basque seperatists even though their own intelligence indicated that it was Al Qaeda related. This duplicity may have been the last straw for the Spanish voters.

As for the American reaction to a similar bombing, I'm pretty sure that it would galvanize support for Bush but such things are pretty much impossible to accurately predict.

Ironicly a terrorist attack would help Bush, when lack of a terrorist attack would mean the Bush admin is doing its job.

Well, since you would need a constitutional amendment for that, something tells me that would be impossible.

I think it depends on the timing of the attack. If it's right before the election, it would most likely throw the few remaining undecideds to Bush. If it is around a week before (I guess tomorrow through Thursday or so), it might give people time to get various messages out as to putting blame on one side or the other, which could easily make it a Kerry win.

My feelings exactly, though with better wording.

I would hope that another attack would not effect the election in any way. If they influence the election, then they win.

The way things look right now,

an attack on the Supreme Court might have an effect on the outcome.

I think at this point any major attack would help Bush, because people complaining about the Patriot act and the lost of civil liberties, real or imagined, would look pretty stupid, and Americans would want to 'kick someones ass', something most, even many Kerry supporters, don't think he would be good for.

After the election it might come out that floundering in the Bush admin allowed the attack to happen, but it would be to late for Kerry.

Anyone trying to spin the attack for their side would be in trouble as well, as I don't think that would sit well with the American people. I read a report many months ago where the Kerry campaign did some focus group adds trying to blame Bush for 9/11 and the people watching got mad to the point of physical violence they were so pissed off by the add (not pissed at Bush btw).

That's the scariest thing I've ever heard (or read, rather). I would very much like to know more about this study. I know that Bush has this effect on people. The Bush effect. I could win a nobel prize in psychology for a book like that....

Since it was a report about a Kerry focus group, #1 it may not be true, and #2 there would be no report other than 'DO NOT RUN THIS ADD!!'.

No report on how the add presented the idea that Bush caused 9/11 was given, but apparently they weren't buying it.

A lot of people don't seem to know that the Socialist opposition pary in Spain had already stated that they would withdraw from Iraq before the bombings.

Whether more people voted for them due to the attack itself is a moot point.


Mr Mephisto

No, its the whole point.

As strange as this election is and the paranoia on both sides as well as conspiracy theories..... I'd say both sides would lose and add people. I think the net gain/loss wouldn't make that much of a difference.


There is also the unknown of what the CANDIDATES (the talking heads on both sides will point fingers and conspiracies) would do/say. I think if one of them came right out and blamed (security/not voting for a spending bill/etc) the other people would see the bad taste.



However, I think they would talk about postponing the elections at least in major cities if not everywhere.

No, it's a moot point.

I was posting a little understood or known fact about the Spanish election. Little understood or known by many Americans that is.

Same way that a large proportion of Americans still think Iraq had large stockpiles of WMD immediately prior to the invasion or that Hussein was directly responsible or linked to 9/11.

Sometimes facts get mixed up with spin. Especially... most especially here.


Mr Mephisto