# Implications of Aznar's party losing the election badly ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2004, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240 "2004-03-14T16:38:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@Fang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fang)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/21 "2004-03-15T00:10:41Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > You no longer believe that democratic governments should be held responsible for their actions Sam? I don’t understand. If the war inspiring more terrorism is a reason to oppose the Iraq war, why is avoiding the encouragement of the effectiveness of terrorism (which will naturally inspire more terrorism) **not** a reason to vote for Aznar? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/22 "2004-03-15T00:25:11Z")
**BrainGlutton** said: > [@](#): > > In this particular instance the victorious opposition happens to be the Socialist Party. As far as I’m concerned, it’s always a good thing when democratic socialists win a free and fair election, regardless of the issues they won on. > > That said, there is of course the obvious danger that Britain’s government, currently dominated by the furthest-left major party they’ve got, Labour, will also be toppled by these events: Okay, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and let you re-state this, because a literal reading of what you said is that this bombing was a good thing because it got socialists elected, and would have been a bad thing if it got conservatives elected. That’s a pretty obnoxious point of view, so I’ll assume you were trying to say something different than what came out. **Rashak Mani:** Bush didn’t just push the invasion of Iraq: He also ordered the invasion of Afghanistan, remember? And the Bush administration has been instrumental in forcing Pakistan to place nicely and attack al-Qaida in that country. The Bush administration has also been aggressive in freezing terrorist funds around the world and getting other governments to do the same. It’s not all about Iraq, y’know? ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/23 "2004-03-15T00:48:58Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > It’s not all about Iraq, y’know? For Spain it was… before Iraq no one was marching in Europe against Bush. The issue is AQ blowing up trains in Madrid when otherwise they wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/24 "2004-03-15T01:49:25Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > For Spain it was… before Iraq no one was marching in Europe against Bush. The issue is AQ blowing up trains in Madrid when otherwise they wouldn’t. How do you know this? How do you know that this had anything at all to do with Iraq? From my understanding of AQ, its fairly disjointed without a main strategy, especially after Afghanistan. Maybe they attacked into Spain because they could? Maybe it wasn’t even AQ but someone else and AQ simply took credit? Maybe it was some AQ splinter cell which just happened to have access into Spain? Were all the other random AQ attacks in the last year some master strategy in effect with some esoteric and obscure meaning? If so its a pretty random list with no coherent picture I can see (with the possible exception of their alleged activity in Iraq). My understanding is that Aznar’s government was already significantly behind in the polls and was most likely going down anyway. So, what was the purpose then of killing those folks?? If Aznar was going to lose anyway, to what purpose was this attack if its some kind of master strategy? Personally I think folks are reading way too much into this thing. To my mind its just as plausable that this was simply a random attack (if it was AQ at all) by a splinter cell for their own purposes…or for no purpose at all save to get their name in the papers and spread the terror where they can. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/25 "2004-03-15T02:36:39Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > For Spain it was… before Iraq no one was marching in Europe against Bush. The issue is AQ blowing up trains in Madrid when otherwise they wouldn’t. There were protests from the first days of the war in Afghanistan. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/26 "2004-03-15T02:47:50Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > My understanding is that Aznar’s government was already significantly behind in the polls and was most likely going down anyway. So, what was the purpose then of killing those folks?? Entirely incorrect. See post #7 above. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/27 "2004-03-15T04:59:12Z")
I’m conflicted by these events. The clear message to Al Q is that they can manipulate elections through terrorism. this is bad, very, very bad. Ain’t no one can deny that this will only mean that pre-election attacks will increase anywhere that AQ could possibly see one canidate as advantageous over another. Now then, can we really blame the Spanish voters for the (inevitable) reading by terrorists of their actions? Are they appeasers? I don’t think so. After all, the socialists have already promised to be strong against terrorism (for what it’s worth, that statement could mean anything). All we can say is that they won’t be on Bush’s program, but whether or not they fight effectively (or at all) with others or by themselves remains to be seen. I think the Spanish got a huge reminder about the consequnces (being put in the sights of terrorists that didn’t particularly care about them before) of a war that they overwhelmingly didn’t support. They also learned that the PP couldn’t defend them. Perhaps they felt the socialists could do better in the prevention arena. There’s also the “coverup” wrinkle to the story. So, in conclusion, terrorists think they made a difference, and will plan future attacks accordingly, but they are probably wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/28 "2004-03-15T05:51:11Z")
> [@Menocchio](#): > > I’m conflicted by these events. > The clear message to Al Q is that they can manipulate elections through terrorism. this is bad, very, very bad. The ONLY way that message could not have been sent is if the number of Spaniards who voted had been in line with previous elections. Either a higher or a lower turnout than expected sends the message. It does not matter who won, nor is it surprising that mass terror would affect people’s propensity to vote, or not. People get upset when you kill a bunch of their friends and neighbors, but just how useful and inobvious a thing is it that for Al Qaeda to learn? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/29 "2004-03-15T06:08:34Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Entirely incorrect. See post #7 above. I guess I was wrong then. My appologies. That was the drift of the article I read earlier, but I might have misread it. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/30 "2004-03-15T06:34:27Z")
> [@furt](#): > > How utterly facile. > > If right-wing terrorists start blowing up buildings in states that legalize same-sex marriage, would you find it to be a reasonable response to vote out the elected officials responsible for antagonizing the fundamentalists, thus holding them responsible for their actions? Excellent, excellent, excellent! This needs to be posted, in bold letters, after every post in every Spanish-vote thread claiming that Spain’s voters are rightly punishing their government and were justified in voting to appease terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![jovan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/0ea827/32.png) [@jovan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jovan)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/31 "2004-03-15T06:50:10Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Entirely incorrect. See post #7 above. Not that incorrect. Polls conducted a week before the tragedy showed the PP earning 42-43% of the vote, against about 36% for the Socialists. At the time, it looked highly likely that the PP was going to lose its absolute majority. At this point, things were not looking so good for the PP, although it’s true they weren’t behind. [Cite.](http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L04358553.htm) However, it would be fair to mention that there were a lot of undecided voters, almost 25% at the time these polls were taken. The PP losing the election, even without the attack, was a possibility, especially considering that the PP’s support had been steadily decreasing prior to the bombings. **xtisme** probably got confused by reading that the PP was going to lose its majority, rather than the election. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/32 "2004-03-15T07:37:17Z")
> [@laigle](#): > > The criticism I heard (well, read) being levelled at Aznar in European news media mostly focused on a supposed attempt to manipulate the incident politically by calling it a Basque attack at first. Now, that’s in complete opposition to the fact that the Basque angle was a reasonable one to take, and that they corrected when evidence to the contrary was seen. The thing is they _didn’t_ correct it when evidence to the contrary was seen. They continued to insist that ETA were the prime suspects despite _mounting_ evidence to the contrary. There was also a widely-repeated allegation that Government spokespersons were instructed to keep the focus on ETA. It’s impossible to measure the role that the appearance of a cover-up played in the Government defeat - quite possibly, that was more important to some voters than the attack itself. **BrainGlutton** , normally I’d agree that a centre-left party is better than a centre-right party. However, the PSOE are the party that sent death squads into the French Basque region to kill ETA suspects (and wound up killing a lot of completely innocent people while they were at it), so in this case I’d say it’s six of one, half-dozen of the other. And **Rashak Mani** , the UK isn’t the only island nation in Europe. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/33 "2004-03-15T08:14:19Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > And **Rashak Mani** , the UK isn’t the only island nation in Europe. Iceland, Republican Ireland, Cyprus any others? ---
**Author:** ![notquitekarpov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@notquitekarpov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notquitekarpov)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/34 "2004-03-15T08:49:56Z")
From the link cited in post #7: > [@](#): > > Professor Juan Pablo Fusi, historian at Madrid University, added his own thoughts to the discussion. “These bombs are likely to increase turnout - to show that they agree with the government that the only way to defeat terrorism is through democracy, by voting.” So contrary to **Sam Stones** contention, could not the Spanish electorate’s response to Al-Qaeda (if indeed it is them) be a victory for democracy? I heard on this morning’s news that the new government have declared their administration will be one “dedicated to the defeat on international terrorism” - perhaps the electorate that a good look at which party they felt would be most likely to help achieve that and changed their mind? Alternatively, of course, it could be that a big turn is an in-built help to the socialist. I think usually a low turn out helps the right - historically the case in the UK when even rain on election day reduces the left wing turn out (how wants to walk to the voting station in the rain if you have not got a car?). The whole issue of which tactic is most likely to beat the terrorist threat (military confrontation versus political engagement) is best probably reserved for another thread. One’s views on that will tend to colour one’s views on whether AQ would rather keep Bush and the other “alliance of the willing” leaders in power (on the basis that they are fucking up and walking straight into a strategic trap) or get them out (to replace them with yellow-bellied “appeasers”). Let’s not go there on this thread lest it dominate the discussion on predictable grounds. From an UK angle - I still hold to the view that the Labour Party will dump Blair before the next election and fight it with Brown as leader - but any election will be in 2005 unless something dramatically changes. ---
**Author:** ![Strutur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@Strutur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strutur)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/35 "2004-03-15T09:21:27Z")
The Spanish where overwhelmingly anti war. Some poles showed 90% opposition to the Iraqi war. What the terrorist incident did was to bring the war to the forefront of the issues addressed. It also drew closer attention to government mishandling such as renting rusty Ukranian transports to move troops to Iraq resulting in the loss of 60 soldiers over Turkey. What the Spanish want is to get out of the war on Terror. ETA is/was disappearing and the Spanish had nothing to gain by the WOT except to satisfy Aznar lust for posturing. If I was the Spanish electorate I would appease “Ireland style” rather than follow the Israeli route. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c37758/32.png) [@Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Owes_Bess)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/36 "2004-03-15T11:14:54Z")
By _notquitekarpov_ > [@](#): > > historically the case in the UK when even rain on election day reduces the left wing turn out Where did you get this gem from? Unless you live in a rural or semi rural area in the UK, or any other industrialised country for that matter, you don’t need to walk far to get to a polling booth, usually located in some church hall or other. It would be more trouble getting a parking spot if you chose to drive. Incidentally, owning a car over there is more common than you seem to think and is not restricted to those who tend to vote conservative. And why is everyone assuming that the opinion polls are accurate anyway? Margaret Thatcher was rated as a certain loser against “Sunny” Jim Callaghan’s Labour Party. The pollsters were only out by about 3% or so, but they had their excuses (incompetence not being one of them). The polls in the last US Presidential election were also out of whack. Bush had a 5% lead going into it and nearly lost to Gore. However, the question of whether this was caused by pollster incompetence or the significant voter fraud that tends to heavily favour the Democrats in a number of states is debatable. ---
**Author:** ![notquitekarpov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@notquitekarpov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notquitekarpov)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/37 "2004-03-15T11:40:40Z")
> [@Alan Owes Bess](#): > > By _notquitekarpov_ > Where did you get this gem from? > > (snip) > Incidentally, owning a car over there is more common than you seem to think and is not restricted to those who tend to vote conservative. How about turning down the smart-arse tone? I’m British and am well aware of the spread of car ownership. Think inner cities - think Labour - think walking in the rain. QED. I am not alone in the view either, c.f the 2001 General Election: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/newsid\_1374000/1374641.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/newsid_1374000/1374641.stm) > [@](#): > > Thursday, 7 June, 2001, 15:24 GMT 16:24 UK > Voting patchy in UK election > > Much of the attention will be on the numbers of people who vote, with some opinion polls having suggested that turnout may be lower than 70%. That would be worse than the 1997 election, when the turnout was the lowest since 1935. > > This time there has also been a much higher proportion of postal ballots, with up to one in five voters choosing to post their vote in some areas. > > The weather, as always, may have a role to play. So far it has been a mixture of sunshine and showers across much of the UK. Or how about here [http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/e01/misc.htm](http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/e01/misc.htm) where in the under contents list they file \*\*Weather Forecast \*\* as a subheading of \*\*Turnout \*\*? ---
**Author:** ![swami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@swami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/swami)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/38 "2004-03-15T11:50:12Z")
> [@](#): > > This was simply a terrible choice by the Spanish electorate. They allowed the terrorists to ‘win’ and manipulate the election in a democracy. That has horrible implications for the future not just in Spain, but elsewhere Yeah, everyone knows that a vote for the Socialists was really a vote for a Spanish al-Qaeda. :rolleyes: **Sam** if the vote had ended with a landslide victory for the centre-right Popular Party, (or some other right wing party) as a **direct response to the bombings** you would have been here praising the Spanish people for continued “vigilance” in the “war against terror”. However, when it ends in a Socialist victory the election has been manipulated. _“The terrorists have already won”_ and it seems they vote Socialist. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/39 "2004-03-15T12:29:28Z")
Did appeasement prevent the second world war? Give a terrorist a single concession, the terrorist will kill more people. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240/40 "2004-03-15T12:32:41Z")
> [@Dogface](#): > > Give a terrorist a single concession, the terrorist will kill more people. You do realise that this allows terrorists to manipulate you: “Ooh, we can’t possibly do X because that’s what terrorist group Y want us to do”. Inertia due to fear of an outcome coinciding with the wishes of a terror group is crippling. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/implications-of-aznars-party-losing-the-election-badly/234240.md?page=3)