No US bashing… just want to know how Dopers perceive that voters would react to a sucessful Al Qaeda attack on mainland USA (aka Homeland).
One notion is that US voters would perceive a greater need for a leader vs. Terrorism and re-elect Bush… and the other would be that Bush failed to stop terrorists or increased terrorism. I feel the first is more likely.
I know there are many factors of who and how. I suppose different scale of attacks would boost or bust Bush too. A single car bomb with a few dead would only "unite" resolve... while another airplane mowing down a building would be seen as a major failure.
Overall would a terrorist attack be beneficial or not to Bush’s re-election ? Why ? How ?
Also answer the following. How good or bad are these for Bush ?
a Small Terrorist Attack -
Spetacular and Daring attack but little casualties -
An Iraqi National as the suicide bomber -
An American converted to Islam as a suicide bomber -
Multiple Small but coordinated attacks -
An attack in the Mid West as opposed to a Big City -
One variable you are missing is the timing of the event. If it happens very near election day, I think it is likely to unite the country and influence people to vote for Bush. Stability in the time of crisis. If it happens 6 months or so before the election, it might hurt Bush’s chances. That would give people more time to react intellectually instead of emotionally.
And a lot would depend on how Bush reacts. If he seems to have been asleep at the wheel and acts very defensive about it, refusing to accept responsibility, then voters might turn against him.
I’d say the OP has answered his own questions, with this statement:
Although I’d say that there are certain subtleties to consider.
Any terrorist attacks that may occur would be the subject of lengthy investigations by various agencies. IMO, if one or more additional attacks occurred prior to the election, and if an investigation completed prior to the election showed that the supposedly reformed intelligence and internal security agencies involved had prior information to hand concerning the perpetrators, but for whatever reason had failed to act, that would have a negative impact on the administration, regardless of the scale of the attack.
Of course, that’s a whole lot of ifs.
The issue is moot, though, as far as I’m concerned. There is no terrorism-related issue I can conceive of that would swing my vote to Bush in the next election.
I’m no fan of GWB, and I’m a bit of a conspiracy nut, but even I think this is highly unlikely. No matter what, Bush will hold the election (barring, say, major thermonuclear attacks, USSR-style, on multiple US cities).
The only terrorist attack that would prevent W from being re-elected would be one that kills the POTUS. There is no way the Democrats stand a chance in this election. They have no leader, no program, no chance. I am not a great fan of W, but I prefer him over ANY Democrat running for president, and his policies over ANY offered up by the Dems. There are a lot of people out there like me, so terrorism would not be seen as a failure of W, or at least not a fatal one. Unless of course it was…fatal.
One question. Who put Bush in office to start with? He lost Florida. He lost the popular election. He lost everything but the Supreme Court. . .and you don’t think he could “close courts”.
…and you really think that if the vote had been 5-4 the other way he would have–I dunno, summoned an army of Bush generation 3’s to fight the, uh, whatever? Sheesh. And the new President Gore and then-president Clinton would NOT have had anybody like that arrested because…damn, I’m overthinking something stupid again, common hazard 'round here.
As for the OP–IF it was something that had pieces of foreshadowing that could have been put together and weren’t, it would hurt him. If it was a dazzingly new weapon and method that nobody had concieved of before, rally round the flag.
So if US intelligence services were sloppy it would hurt him, but if they were just lacking in imagination to see new methods it would help Bushie ? :) Nice idea.
Another terrorist attack would be good for Bush’s prospects of re-election. If there was a hawkish democratic front-runner with half a chance of getting nominated then maybe that wouldn’t be the case. I don’t think another airplane missile attack would necessarily be perceived as a failure of Bush per se, but rather an indication how fruitless a defensive strategy is. That means more offense; that means Bush.
Hhmmm… that would create a view of impossible to stop terrorist acts ? Could be. Fatalism in a sense.
Still wouldn’t the knee jerk reaction be close borders more and spend more money ? Going into higher offense is hard as is now… and Bush is actually a bit weak in the defensive strategy.
Another terrorist attack will bring national security up as the most pressing topic on voters minds, and Bush, at least now, is seen as superior to his Democratic challengers in that respect.
What I meant before was that, if the attacks slipped through a hole in the security net that DHS had tried to make, it would be worse for Bush than if they used kindergartners as unwitting suicide bombers or something that even the worst imaginings couldn’t have stopped.
Yes, I believe it does. With the economy showing some signs of life, national security is taking center stage. Bush is perceived as the candidate most willing to take unilateral offensive action if need be.