What do you think the effect on the U.S. election would be if al Qaeda succeeded in delivering a major terrorist blow on U.S. soil within two weeks of election day?
Would enough of the electorate think “Best not to change leaders in such a critical time” so that Bush gets the “bounce” and wins?
Or would enough of the electorate think “Bush failed to prevent this attack, let’s go with somebody new” so that Kerry gets the “bounce” and wins?
Or would there be a mixture of opinions that doesn’t clearly help either side?
As a sidelight, wanna bet each camp has researched this extensively and has prepared several statements ready to get out to the press the instant such an attack occurs?
I think it would could go either way. The default setting, I think, would be for it to help Bush, as people tend to “rally round.” Then again, if it comes via a route that people think Bush might/should have been able to see and prevent, it’d kill him.
One think I think won’t be in play is the “he brought it on us” factor. Americans are much more likely to be pissed and angry and vote for whoever is more likely to find and kill the perpetrators; and I think that would help Bush.
But he could easily blow it. One can very easily argue that what killed the PP in Spain was not the attack, but the botched handling of it, in being quick to blame ETA. If Bush’s immediate response strikes people as wrong, and Kerry can refrain from “I told you so / this wouldn’t have happened if …” Bush would be gone.
Rephrase: “Americans are much more likely to be pissed and angry and vote for whoever they believe is more likely to find and kill the perpetrators; and I think that would help Bush.”
Well, I think it’s safe to say that the Bushista party line will be something like: “A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for Bin Laden.” Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma has already said it, in fact. The whole Republican approach to terrorism and the election is: 1) if there’s a bombing, then a vote for the Democrat is a vote for appeasement; and 2) if there’s no bombing, then Bush has kept us safe and deserves re-election. Frankly, I think they’re doing a pretty good job of framing the issue their way.
To divert this in a direction different from the other 20 or so similar OP’s, how should Americans react and vote if a terrorist attack against American citizens occurs between now and the elections?
Not who should they vote for, but how should the event, and action by politicians after the event effect the American publics voting?
I think Furt got part of it right. Americans would be pretty pissed off in general. I’m not sure it would clearly help either candidate, except whoever is preceived to be the one most likely to bring them back a pound of flesh for payment. Definitely a difference attitude than in Spain (and I’m not saying either is good or bad…just different). I think that, in the vengence case, Bush MIGHT be perceived as the better choice, as he has show he isn’t exactly reluctant to shed blood in vengence for wrongs against the US. If it happened a week before, I think you’d see huge voter turn out though…and that might help the Democrats more than the Republicans.
If the attack happened between now and the election, as BtB states, then its even harder to say. I guess it would depend most on what exactly they did and the perception by the public as to who was at fault for ‘allowing’ it. If it was something really out of the blue (like 9/11 was itself) then that might work for Bush. If it was the same thing (i.e. planes hijacked into buildings) then it would probably sink Bush.
Personally I think this is an academic excersize as I have serious doubts that AQ is in a position to mount a successful attack against the US. Such attacks as 9/11 take plenty of prep time and planning, as well as funds, and the disruption to AQ after Afghanistan is still being felt…and I think will continue to be felt that way for a while to come. The US is awake now. Its always easier to kick the sleeping bear in the nuts, than to do so when the bear is out hunting for YOU…and we are out there beating the bushes for these guys and making their lives more difficult. I think AQ is and will continue to go after the low hanging fruit so to speak as they have been doing…places where security is laxer and they have easier access too…and where they can kill a lot of civilians and make a big splash with little effort.
How about a series of attacks, such as three within a week? Would that still give Bush a “rally around the leader” bounce, or would it result in a “proof that Bush’s efforts aren’t working” backlash?
Don’t think it would matter. Any attack on US soil will prompt an immediate and lethal backlash. The people will demand that the perpetrators be caught, executed, wrapped in pigskin, and fed to the dogs, and they will vote for whomever will do that most efficiently, ie Bush.
The better tactic for the terroridiots is to continue to attack our allies, and to drive wedges between the US and other countries. Not like Bush needs much help in that area, but that would be the most effective course of action.
I’d like to think that the benefit would go to the candidate who took the high road and used the event (or events) to begin a truly national dialogue on what the proper role the country should take in combatting these attacks:
– Do we triple the budget of the CIA, the FBI, and/or the Dept. of Homeland Security? (I know MY answer to that one! :rolleyes: )
– What civil liberties are we willing to give up in the name of greater security?
– Should we continue to act unilaterally, or should we act in unison with other nations?
This would be good to see. But, I won’t hold my breath.
P.S. To Rashak Mani: There are currently 235,273 other SDMB threads. Please feel free to peruse any of them if you find this one so annoying.
I think a successful attack on the US would be disaster for Bush. Bush’s top selling point in all the controversial things he’s done is that he did them to make the US safer. Any proof that the US is no safer as a result of them would throw a heck of a lot of lukewarm potential Bush voters into Kerry’s column.
I’m not sure if I understand this line of reasoning. It seems pretty easy to me to commit a terrorist act. The '95 Oklahoma bombing was said to have used materials that one can purchase at Eagle Hardware and Garden, and that killed over 100. I’m sure that whatever the issue is, it would not be lack of bomb-making capability.
Terrorists could also just purchase a decent automatic weapon and start mowing people down at Disney World or the NY MOMA or Penn Station, or perhaps take the sniper route like the DC-area snipers. It’s not that hard to get decent guns in the US.
An issue may of how to get in the country, but I don’t think we’re impenetrable, especially along the Canadian border. And guys with poor English are a dime a dozen in certain places, so it’s not like they would stand out TOO much (and language training is something they can do in a lot of places before getting here).
Soft targets outnumber hard targets in the US by a long shot; it is impossible for it to be otherwise. And heck, a terrorism wave at random local malls throughout the country may have much more of a terror impact than an attack on a government building.
As discussed, the effects of a REAL attack are really varied depending upon many factors, including what kind of attack and when…
BUT what the Bush camp may very well do to lock up this election is “STOP A HORRIBLE ATTACK” before it a happens. Whether that attack is REAL or not, we will never know. All they have to do is, 2 weeks before the election, hold a press conference proclaiming that they found out about a MAJOR ATTACK, and stopped it before it happened. Then arrest some people that look like terrorists and parade them on the news. Give “details” about how horrible the attack would’ve been if it wasn’t for them stopping it. Then ride that momentum all the way into another 4 years. By the time any real investigation is done, they’ll be elected already and they’ll bomb some other country to dirvert our attention away from it.
Or since they probably already have Bin Laden in custody, they’ll just “catch” him a few weeks before the election…But that’s for another thread
Take as many polls of the US populace as you want. Only ONE poll really counts, and that’s the one the first Tuesday in November.
I know a lot of Bush “supporters” who are currently sitting on the fence between the two candidates. I know a lot of former Bush supporters. Add to that the fact that in 2000 it wasn’t at all clear a majority of electoral college (much less the popular vote) supported Bush and ya’ll realize this election the results are very much up in the air.
I’m pretty sure a terror attack would work against Bush. Yes, we would tend to rally 'round the flag and the guy in the Oval Office but it’s by no means guaranteed. A bungle in how the current administration handles such an attack could well get them voted out of office.
The most disturbing comments I’ve heard about the Spain bombing were from some folks who think the Spanish should have postponed the general election. NO! You do not cancel or postpone an election. If the US could hold a presidential election during a Civil War (and we did - that’s how Lincoln earned a second term) then a terror attack - no matter how horrific - is not excuse enough. If the current administration attempted to postpone an election due to a terror attack I think it would result in some very ugly street politics.
Suppose Al-Queda started launching suicide=bomb attacks , like the ones in Israel? If a suicide bomber went in to Grand Central Station at rush hour, he might well kill THOUSANDS of people? What then? I think the only effect would be to enormously strengthen Bush…it is hard to see people flocking to Kerry, should such a disaster come to pass.
Think “Bay of Pigs”. Kennedy botched that one, and his approval ratings went up.
Any terrorist attack between now and November increases Bush’s lead by at least ten percentage points. Especially if there isn’t enough time between the attack and the election for it to be other than political suicide for Kerry to criticize how Bush handled the attack and its aftermath.
Suppose there is a major attack on US soil in October. Then Kerry runs an ad saying “Bush botched his job, and that’s why the attack was allowed to occur. Vote for me.”
Think of the Democratic reaction to Bush including references to 9/11 in his ads. Multiply it by at least fifty times, and aim it all at Kerry. He would be lucky to win a state.
The only chance Democrats have to make terrorism work in their favor is to find a case where the feds successfully forestalled a major attack, and try to spin it as a conspiracy to “wag the dog”. If they could bring that off, they could win.
But it is a very, very, VERY high risk strategy for them. Because it it turned out they were wrong, they are utterly dead in the water.
If the terrorists want Kerry to win, they had better keep a low profile for the next eight months.
So much would depend on the aftermath – would Bush look Presidential and make a speech, & comfort the victim’s families? Would Kerry be so quick to jump on Bush that people were turned off? Would it be seen to have been preventable i.e. Bush’s TSA airport policies or the FBI had a warning that wasn’t vetted … Does Bush seem powerless like Carter and Iran, maybe Osama makes an appearance or something …
So to the OP : it depends on the attack and how it and it’s aftermath is perceived - an attack can help or hurt either candidate politically
