Is it likely a new Terrorist attack will decisively effect the Election?

[Tom Rinaldo]

Poll question: Is it likely a new Terrorist attack will decisively effect the Election?

It is too complicated in one poll to vote on both IF and HOW a Terrorist attack would effect the Elections, but all discussion on both questions is welcome.

[Speck Tater]

1. A new terror attack on American soil

would prove Bush's incompetence once and for all. It would demonstrate conclusively that his claims to have made America safer as pure BS. He would be defeated by the largest landslide margin in history.

[klook]

6. I agree.

There was a time when I thought another attack in the U.S. would actually help Bush, since people would rally around the (p)Resident and say it's the wrong time to make a change. I've changed my mind about this, though. The people who'll vote for him even if his head starts spinning around and spitting out pea soup would still support him, of course. But with all the evidence of the administration's incompetence that's come out over the past year, I think it would be the last straw for the rest of the voters who aren't in that cluster-coma.

Other ways for Bush to avoid losing:

• Postpone or suspend the election if there's a terrorist attack.


• Steal votes with black box voting machines.


• Prevent likely Democrats from voting.

[Jai4WKC08]

10. You got it backwards

I dunno if it's wishful thinking, or if you are misestimating a major part of the American psyche.

If there's a major terror attack, the entire middle will rally around the "Commander in Chief" and make sure no damned terrorists tell us how to run our country.

Now, IF it happens early enough for smart Democrats to react, and IF we can show that the Repubs are lying about what happened, or that they screwed up (not general incompetence, but a specific failure), MAYBE we can keep from losing. But it'll be an uphill battle.

Remember Pearl Harbor. No one told Roosevelt, well, if you hadn't been choking off Japanese access to resources, or meddling in their sphere of interests, or whatever, it wouldn't have happened. Even tho precisely those arguments had been made before the attack.

Hell no. Everybody signed on to kick Japanese ass.

Americans of 2004 are not Americans of 1941. But we're not all that different. And maybe not that different from anybody else. There is good reason to think the Spanish govt lost their election because of the cover-up, not because of the attack.

[BootinUp]

11. If theres a target

It does depend on how close to the election it happens. Americans will want action sure, but there ain't gonna be much to go after this time. It will become obvious in a month, that we are screwed.

[Jai4WKC08]

13. I don't think I understand you

I agree that how close to the election it occurs will be a factor. Not only because it gives Kerry/????? ;) time to react, as I mentioned above, but because it will distance people from the emotional reaction, which I think I neglected.

But I don't think it will be because Americans will want action. They (we) will, but I don't think that'll be the defining factor. I think most Americans are glad we took action after 9/11. If Bush is in trouble on terrorism, it's because he hasn't taken enough action, or has taken the wrong actions, and the results of his actions are making the difference. But if you asked today, we're we right to topple the Taliban, I think most Americans, even most Democrats would say, Hell yes!

That said, it will help Bush that people know he will take action (even if it's wrong) and some may doubt that Kerry will. I've heard an awful lot of people, even ones leaning to Kerry now, who are afraid Gore would not have done anything. I think they're nuts, but they exist.

The big danger to Kerry and the election, tho, will be pure cussedness. If there is a terrorist attack, esp one close to Nov 2nd, people will believe al Qaeda did it to influence the election (but in the way it happened in Spain--they mostly refuse to realize how smart these people are). They will vote for Bush just to show the terrorists we won't let them elect Kerry. It's crazy. It's perverse. But it's the way it will go down. I'd bet real money on it.

Already, we hear the RNC meme that the terrorists want Kerry to win and a helluva lot of people are concerned about that. It goes back to the whole "Democrats are weak on defense" fears and prejudices.

Not every voter thinks like a Democrat.

[BootinUp]

14. Let me try that again

I didn't do a good job of splainin myself.

We are already after Al Qaeda, we have toppled two regimes. Who is Bush going to go after next time?

What is left of the anti-terrorist plan to execute?

What other country will Bush have the cajones to invade on false pretenses?

Sure there will be that country unite reponse, but you still need a rational or even irrational plan to follow. I feel pretty sure that a significant number of politicians would seriously question our strategy the next time. Other than shoring up defenses and taking away more civil rights, there's not much Bush will be able to do in the event of another Al Qaeda attack. Sure we will send the FBI and CIA out to hunt for the bad guys, that takes time. There will be no new war to bang the drum about. Just the old one that we would be losing.

[Jai4WKC08]

15. OK, I see

None of that will matter. Sorry.

People will vote with their hearts, not their heads. Esp if the horror is fresh. They won't need a plan. They'll just need to FEEL that someone's gonna do something. Make the Arab bastards pay.

I'd almost settle if we don't have Arab Americans lynched in the streets. We were awful close to that last time, even had some of it (a poor schmuch Seikh, for gods sake).

'Course it didn't help that so much of the Muslim community in this country whined and whined about how abused they were. They were, but no one wanted to hear it. It'll be MUCH worse next time.

And that will fuel the Islamic fundamentalists even more.

And all that's exactly what OBL and those like him want. That's why they'll attack.

[BootinUp]

16. well I still disagree

This country is not that stupid on the whole. I ask you, which Arab bastards are you gonna make pay? Al Qaeda is not a country.

The only way to win this "war" is with brains not braun. Its going to be more evident by November, strike or no strike. It will be obvious to a majority that Bushes tough talk, and stiff chin is not the answer.

However, I do believe Kerry could lose if he doesn't keep pounding on the failed policy, which I must note, is not happening with enough frequency right now.

[Jai4WKC08]

17. Of course it's the only way to win the war

But I'm not talking about winning the war. I'm talking about winning the election.

You obviously think the average voter is a whole lot smarter than I do. But you're young. Plenty of time to be disillusioned. ;)

Btw, pay very close attention to the book "Imperial Hubris" that's coming out soon.

[Guaranteed]

20. What that means is that we have to address the issue NOW.

Talk about how Bush has made the country WEAKER by invading Iraq. That way, if the terrorists do it we'll get a big "I told you so" in.

Not only that, but if the terrorists want Bush to win, pre-emptively attacking Bush like this would help to neutralize the threat, and actually protect our country.

Just more reasons for Kerry to take a strong leadership role.

[StayOutTheBushes]

2. If they blow up New York City we would lose all the votes

and upstate is conservative. We could lose all those electorial college votes.

[Vogon_Glory]

4. I'd Take Midland, Not Manhattan

If I were a terrorist wishing to humilate Dubya, I'd give Manhattan a pass. There are other targets that would humilate George Deucey-U Bush far worse.

[ArkDem]

8. Midland wouldn't turn the election around in Texas.

[cprise]

3. its 2004, not 2001

A terrorist attack would result in Bush losing votes.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Bucking the trend here...

I voted for the first option, and I am not convinced that it would definitely play out against Bush, though I can certainly see how it might.

Regarding whether the issue is already pretty much in play, I don't think anyone can honestly foresee just how "in play" something like this can become if a few Senators were assassinated, or if a dirty bomb goes off somewhere, to name just two horrible scenarios. There would be blanket coverage, nothing else would exist for at least a week so far as the media, and yes the public, are concerned. Look at how smothering the death of an 80 some odd year old President who everyone knew was ill became? Yes the issue is already "in play", but it exists in a somewhat abstract manner now, it will become completely visceral if something really horrific occurs.

If I had to bet, I think a major Terror act is more likely to happen than not before the Election, probably here, but were it to happen in London, for example, the effect could still be powerful over here. Were one to happen, it will set off strong emotional cross currents. There IS a tendency to rally around the President in a time of crisis for example. Much might depend on how commanding Bush would manage to APPEAR in such a crisis, and the ball game would probably come down to whether the public accepted that some additional acts of terrorism were always inevitable.

If that were the case, Bush would attempt to use a new terrorist attack as validation for why he fashions himself as a War President. He would push his backing of the Patriot Act for example, and probably "leak" a number of attacks he would claim were previously "foiled" by our security forces by using its provisions.

I think it could go either way. A lot would depend on how many body blows our ticket manages to land against Bush regarding his ineffectiveness on National Security PRIOR to a new act of terrorism actually happening. IF Bush manages the contrary, that is painting Kerry as weak on defense and national security (which is EXACTLY what he is attempting to do with much of his negative ads against Kerry), than doubts about Kerry, contrasted with a flinty steel chinned performance by Bush on Camera, might tip the aftermath of an attack against us. Particularly if it happens in the last few weeks of the campaign, in my opinion. The real dirt about botched security usually doesn't come out for weeks after an incident occurs. The initial response is usually "Let's go get those bastards!".

[BootinUp]

9. Why I think its in play already

Americans are getting numb to the violence in Iraq, SA, and elsewhere. Terror is talked about every damn day on the news. Bush and Cheney bang the war drums after all of these events. There comes a point when people start to realize that they don't have the right target or the right plan. I think that is already happening. In fact the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is all about this issue and it is going to be watched by a lot of people. Plus what will the target be? There isn't another Afghanistan or Iraq this time. And if there isn't a demon to go after or troops to send anywhere then we just look weak and defeated. Kinda like we already do in Iraq. Time for plan B. See ya Bushevics.

Although I still do worry about your scenario too, I just like mine a little better. :)

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. People would be freaked out big time, that's for sure

I still remember how afraid of flying everyone became right after 9/11. I doubt reason would be the primary basis for decision making. In NYC Mayor Rudy went from being fairly unpopular to a hero in a day. Fahrenheit 9/11 would become a factor, yes. After seeing that people will be unwilling to cut Bush any slack, if Bush came out of the box looking shaky it would seal the deal against him. But Bush has had two years to rehearse his new persona, and can clench his jaw now on cue. An oval office addressee is almost always a somber and powerful moment. Bush would detail what "our government" is doing to protect us.

I really do see it going either way; people not wanting to change horses in mid flood, or our way. Remember, people know that Kerry can't take office until January, so there will be an automatic emotional need to close ranks around the only President we can possibly have for two or more critical months.

Whoever Kerry picks for VP, our team has to project a rock solid ability to confront America's enemies throughout the entire campaign, while continually undermining public confidence in Bush. That way if terrorists do strike, the correct pre-conceived notions about the Democrats being ready to take over the ship of state will already be in place.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Interesting that only two voters picked

We are unlikely to have a major terror attack before November (7% when I posted this). Of course some of those who voted that the Election won't be much effected because the issue is already in play might think the same way (though I tried to word the answers to avoid that happening).

[Awsi Dooger]

18. Make it three

DUers are not terrific at estimating probability, IMO, almost always straying to the more dramatic but less likely option.

If a major attack is defined as something akin to Pearl Harbor, Trade Center '93, USS Cole, 9/11 or Madrid, I guarantee it is dramatically less than 50/50 anything like that will take place in the next 4 1/2 months.

[filterfish]

19. Doubt it will happen, but agree the effect would be great

pretty sure the gop would take it in that case. if it happened during the vp debate, the gop response would be devestating

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Even if the chances were only one in four...

...that the terrorists will make a major strike before the elections, it is by far the biggest wild card at play in these elections. Nothing else remotely as probable would have one half the potential impact in my opinion. It would make a wonderful or a terrible jobs report seem like a hic cup in comparison. Kerry has to be planning now for that possibility, positioning himself to deal with that contingency.