We all saw what happend in Spain this past March. The terror attacks in Madrid left hundreds dead and even more wounded. It was also the nail in the coffin for Prime Minister Jose' Maria Aznar and his party's time in Spain's government.

Now in the last week, government officials have declared that there might be possible attempts to attack the U.S. again, possibly in order to get the same results here in the fall election.

That being said, if the U.S. were to suffer another terrorist attack, how would it effect the election, if at all?

Would it get GWB re-elected?

Would it get Kerry elected?

Would you change your vote in light of an attack?

I don't know if this'll be much of a debate since I have little to base my answers on besides a gut feeling, and I doubt anybody else has much more either, but I'll answer anyway.

Would it get GWB re-elected?

I'd think so, since polls indicate Bush is more trusted to deal with terrorism.

Would it get Kerry elected?

No. The Spanish can labor under the delusion that if they distance themselves from us, they won't be attacked, but being the main target, we don't have that option.

Would you change your vote in light of an attack?

No. I'll still vote Libertarian unless my state is in play, in which case I'll vote for Bush.

Tough question!

Of course, it won't sway a single person in the ABB crowd, and, depending on the timing, folks such as myself will wonder if the regime didn't have something to do with it!

The Pro-regime crowd will of course clamor that this is the guy we need

The fence sitters will of course be the real issue- I think those that dislike his handling of Iraq will blame him for incompetence, and those that think he is okay on Iraq but don't like him because of domestic issues might vote for GW

This is a tricky question because no one but the terrorists can determine the severity of the attack.

The timing of any such attack is crucial. Suppose it occurs in New York or Boston during the national conventions of the respective political parties? Does it matter if its "only" a few dozen or hundred killed and not thousands as on 9/11?

I think almost any attack on American soil hurts Bush. He has made the fight against terrorism the centerpiece of his reelection. The air goes out of that balloon if after all Bush's bluster about how the terrorists are on the run and America is on the hunt they successfully set off a "dirty bomb" or chemical attack on the New York subway, bomb a national monument or blow up a oil refinery.

I don't see how Kerry gets a boost out of a terrorist attack. In fact, a terrorist attack could be the worst thing that could happen to his campaign. Unless Bush completely loses it and it is obvious that his carelessness and reckless actions made the attack possible, most people will almost instinctively close ranks with the President. How could Kerry criticize Bush without looking like a craven opportunist or disloyal in a time of national crisis? It would be awful for Kerry.

Would an attack change the way I would vote? No, because THAT would be exactly what the terrorists would want. To disrupt and influence the election is precisely their objective.

That said, I do believe something is going to happen between now and November.

A majority of the American people might throw their weight towards Bush, seeing as he has done more taking on terrorism (making Libya disarm it's WMD, getting rid of Mr. Hamas Supporter Saddam Hussien, killing a big chunk of Al-Queda's leadership and foiling plots to attack American interests again) but maybe they will swing to Kerry but he really doesn't have any plan whatsoever as of yet.



Right now, i might vote for Kerry even if he doesn't have a real big plan yet, but if we were attacked again, i might swing to Bush

God forbid that it should happen. That being said, an attack on the United States would necessitate a hard look at our Homeland Security Program and what went wrong, whether it was understaffing of police and other first responders, or failure to inspect the cargo at our seaports.

The President has sworn to protect the U.S. While it is not possible for his administration to take care of everything, the responsibility would be laid at his feet should another attack occur on our soil.

Senator Kerry, while he may not be in the seat of power and therefore doesn't know how it feels to be in charge when a President sends troops to war, has had a box seat to watch what is going on and to receive as pertinent information as has been made available to Congress. I think that he has an excellent opportunity by virtue of his military experience and his years of service in the Senate to be a knowledgeable, capable leader in times of national crisis.

That being said, if the U.S. were to suffer another terrorist attack, how would it effect the election, if at all?

I think its not (if we suffer another terror attack) but ,when and where. Both bush and kerry would use the attack to strengthen there supporters. The victims families may change there minds to another direction. ( Halliburton was the decision maker for my vote.) terrorism I think has been and always will be part of our history wether foreign or domestic and will always be used as a political tool.

The problem is that the centre-left argues (and has in many thread on this board) that Bush has in fact increased the threat of terrorism in the last 2 years, with the attack on Iraq. I do not want to turn this thread into another debate on which viewpoint is right, but whichever you believe you must admit both sides have some compelling arguments.

Bush supporters will continue to vote for Bush because they see him as the anti-Terror president. Kerry supporters will vote for Kerry because they see Bush as having made the situation worse and failed to protect the US.

It is the small percentage of swing voters, the ones that determine every election, that will make the call.

If I had to guess (and really, it IS only a guess) I would say that given the reaction of Americans to the 'war on terror' in the last few months: More and more people against the war on Iraq, more and more people thinking Iraq made the US a less safe place, etc, I suspect another attack woud work against Bush.

According to a May 24th poll, Bush's approval is now at an all-time low of 41%, and 61% of polled disapprove of the handling of the war in Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/...ain619122.shtml

These numbers show that Bush cannot count on his reputation as a 'war president' or 'anti-terrorist president' to keep his fortunes alive, and it also means that given the apparent loss of faith in his policies, an attack on US soil might serve to highlight percieved failures rather than bolster his numbers...

But thats just my opinion...

I don't think it would help the President because it would show that his policies had obviously not made America safer if an attack were still to happen.

I also don't think that it would help get Kerry elected because I believe that the Ashcroft/Cheney/Rumsfeld-headed hydra might try to use it as an excuse to push Prince George to declare martial law, suspend elections, and garantee freedom from accountability for all their CEO buddies.

If I were still allowed to vote after an attack, I would still vote for Kerry. As a soldier I am sworn to defend the US Constitution, and America, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Therefore I am bound by my oath to help vote the President out of office, as he has shown himself, time and time again, to hold disregard for the Constitution and the future of our nation, or has appointed underlings who do so.

I have said this before, but I think it's a convenient oversimplification for Bush supporters to believe that the Spanish electorate voted out their conservative government because they had joined the Iraq War and then because they were attacked - that their was a kind of national chickening out, of giving in to terrorism.

Firstly, unlike the US, but like most of the rest of the colaition partners, there was always a large majority in Spain against Spanish participation in the Iraq war. So the old government lost some support because of their unpopular policy, like all governments do over unpopular decisions.

The socialist opposition had always opposed the move to war, and so they picked up some disaffected conservative votes over the issue.

This made the polls very close - all commentators knew that whoever won, it would be with only a slim majority. This was all clearly visible before the Madrid bombings.

Then, when the bombings actually took place, the incumbent government's first move was to blame ETA, the Basque separatists terrorists who have been active in Spain for decades now. The Clinton administration did much the same thing in the immediate aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing - it was politically more credible (and convenient) to do what they did, which was blame Muslim estremists, rather than home grown maniacs.

I guess they did so firstly because Basque separatism is an issue that usually plays well for them at the polls in Spain. And also, not being stupid, they knew that an Al-Quaeda attack would play into the hands of the opponents of the war, being another thing that they could claim was justification for why they should never have gone to war in the first place. To my knowledge, no leading socialist politician or commentator inside Spain ever said, "it's the government's fault that we got bombed" or "we must vote in the socialists so that we can withdraw from Iraq and then al-Quaeda will pick on someone else".

But once it became clear that AQ had indeed been behind the Madrid attacks, only a day or two before the election, many Spaniards were disgusted with a government that would lie, or (at the very best) be too hasty in attributing blame, over the worst single terror attack in Spanish history. This disgust was enough to tip the electoral balance.

I don't doubt that some Spanish voters "labor under the delusion that if they distance themselves from us they won't be attacked", but I think that more spohisticated political decisions were at work as well. Neither of us will ever know which factor was most important unless we ask every Spanish voter why they voted the way they did, but I think it's a bit naive, not to mention insulting, to assume cowardice was the root cause.

But enough of Spain, to the topic....

Would it get GWB re-elected?
I think it would depend on the nature and scale of the attack, but crucially, I think it would depend on the Bush administration's immediate reaction to it. Unleashing B52's on a distant third world country thought to harbur the perpetrators would be a predictable outcome, but if it came to light before november that the chosen target was wrong, and that the terrorists had been domestic (like Oklahoma), I think Bush would lose badly, and rightly so.

Would it get Kerry elected?
If Bush fumbled the response, yes. If Bush acted thoughtfully (as he did in response to 9-11), probably not. If Bush acted thoughtfully and Kerry made some crass comments designed to use American casualties to play to his own campaign, then definitely not.

Would you change your vote in light of an attack?
I don't have a vote in the USA, but if I did, it would again depend on how the reaction and response was managed. And, if I'm honest, my desired outcome would depend on if I knew personally anyone who had been killed or injured in such an attack (I think I'd find it a lot harder to want caution in that case).
As in Spain, though. I'm not sure that changes in votes would necessarily make a difference to the result unless the race were very close.
If the attack were to take place in the UK before the next election here, and I thought the Labour government had messed up in permitting it, or in reacting to it, I could see myself voting for someone else, or just not voting. I could never see myself voting Conservative, or at least, not until every MP that served as a minister under Thatcher or Major is dead or retired.

That being said, if the U.S. were to suffer another terrorist attack, how would it effect the election, if at all?

I think it would certainly be better for Bush than for Kerry. I get the feeling that most "centrists" that are currently in the Kerry camp are there because of the domestic situation (number 1) and the war in Iraq (number 2). They feel that Bush is not devoting enough time to domestic issues (despite the largest year of GPD growth in the last 20 years). They feel that Iraq has distracted our efforts in the War against Terror (despite the lack of follow-up attacks to 9/11--let's hope this string continues).

Those centrists who are not for Bush at the moment still feel that Bush is an effective protector of the US (at least they do in my view). The problem they have is not terrorism related.

Actually, I feel that Bush has made the American electorate feel a little too comfortable since 9/11. A terrorist attack against the US is not a big concern of the American electorate. That means that they feel safe that Bush is doing what can be done to protect against such an attack. The problem (for Bush) is that since voters aren't worried about a terrorist attack, it is not one of the issues which most influence their choice of who to vote for. A domestic attack would change all that, forcing voters to examine whether or not Bush has done everything possible to prevent another 9/11. In my view, most voters will realize that Bush has done a lot to protect us and has done a good job at protecting our civil liberties at the same time (despite the strenuous objections of some).

For those reasons I feel that Bush's re-election hopes would be boosted by a terrorist attack on US soil.

Would it get GWB re-elected?
I wouldn't say that it, alone, would get Bush elected. Of course, I personally feel that GWB is already poised to win in November. My evidence there is Kerry's astonishing lack of momentum following weeks of some of the worst possible circumstances for Bush : Abu Ghraib, fierce fighting in Iraq, constant and rising rhetoric from the Left, and to a lessor extent: the 9/11 Commission. None of these "negatives" has boosted Kerry's numbers in key battleground states like Ohio and Michigan where Bush has pulled even with Kerry.

Would it get Kerry elected?
I don't think so...see above.

Would you change your vote in light of an attack?
We can examine this one a little closer, even though it will not change my personal vote.

In order to switch from Bush to Kerry, one would need to be convinced that Kerry would do something significantly different from Bush when it comes to Homeland Security. Since I have seen very little from the Kerry camp on this issue, I have to assume that Kerry is avoiding the issue like a hot potato. Kerry must believe that this is one of Bush's strong points, and will not willingly bring it up.

The other way that Bush would lose voters to Kerry is if he is seen as personally responsible in some way for the attacks. If it could be shown that the Bush administration dropped the ball in some horrific way, then I think a sizable number of voters would turn away from Bush. In all likelihood I would not be among them, because I still feel that Kerry enjoys playing politics more than actually getting results. If such negligence was severe enough, however, even I might consider an alternative. It's doubtful though.

Now, in order for a voter to switch from Kerry to Bush (the scenario that I deem more likely), that voter would first off need to be convinced that Bush did all that was possible to prevent the attack. As I have said, I believe most American think this is the case with Bush but Bush has made this into a non-issue since most Americans feel safe.

Further, the Kerry supporter would need to suddenly come to a realization of what we are up against. They would need to view terrorism in a much more urgent light. I believe this scenario is likely with many swing voters.

The last condition would be for the voter to decide that Bush is the better man for the job at this particular time in history. Kerry has shown himself to be much more of an internationalist when it comes to foreign problems. It is still unclear to me how Kerry would respond to such a hypothetical attack if he were sitting in the Oval Office. I don't believe that Kerry has convinced even his swing supporters of what he would do in the aftermath of such an attack where there is no clear evidence of a state sponsor...

Would he consult the UN? Would he use the available intelligence (the same intelligence that has proven fallible in the past)? Would he use economic sanctions (and on who?) Would he do nothing?

To be honest, I have no idea what Kerry would do. The scary thing is: I don't think John Kerry knows, either.

Would it get GWB re-elected?

This is a tough call, but I'm going to say that being "anti-terror" isn't an untouchable, irrefutable Bush issue anymore. I believe that something minor would have little to no effect on the election. However, it is a toss up if something of the magnitude of 9/11 were to happen. I don't think it is clear whether people would rally around the president or blame him for the attack. Given the current polls which express that the majority of the country does not approve of Iraq or the job he is doing right now, the latter could be the scenario.

Would it get Kerry elected?

See above.

Would you change your vote in light of an attack?

No, I wouldn't. I would still vote for Kerry regardless of the magnitude of any attack. I wouldn't go so far as to blame president Bush (probably), but I do feel that he has seriously lead the country off course in the war against terror. This viewpoint has been debated at length in other threads.



You ought to check out this topic Amlord. Kerry has begun to formulate his position on Foreign Policy (WOT, Iraq, etc) and will likely solidify it much more in the coming weeks. This is still very preliminary, but the statement that he would not do anything different or doesn't know what to do is not only false but partisan rhetoric.

I just wanted to point that out, perhaps it could be debated further in the thread I linked. The thread hasn't gotten too much attention thus far and it seems like a good idea to throw it up against the ideas from the other side.