PDA

View Full Version : So, Today's Question Is...



imported_Conrad
04-19-2004, 05:15 PM
If there is another terrorist attack on American soil prior to the election, which candidate benefits most? (Benefits isn't really the best term, but you know what I mean.)

Bruce Hooke
04-19-2004, 05:33 PM
I've been wondering the same thing and it does not seem at all clear. I could see it swinging either:

A. To Bush as people rally around the commander in chief because we are under attack.

B. To Kerry because Bush failed to protect the country.

Of course the committed Republicans would go for A and the committed Democrats would go for B, but the key question is what would the undecided voters do? To a large degree I think it might depend on the nature and scale of the attack.

imported_Conrad
04-19-2004, 05:39 PM
I wonder how the timing/proximity to the election would affect it- people might first react one way, then swing the other after some more thought. But which way?

LeeG
04-19-2004, 05:48 PM
maybe it depends on how they respond to it,,,not that they are passive billiard balls being struck by event A to cause action B.

In other words if another Timothy McVeigh attacks and GW says "that's why we attacked Iraq",,well,,you saw what happened in Madrid. You can only do the 9/11=Iraq formula once.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-19-2004, 05:53 PM
What happens if nothing happens?

Meerkat
04-19-2004, 06:45 PM
IF, IF, IF something happens, it won't help "strong on terrorism" Shrubbie. If he had no clue about 9/11, he sure as hell must have a clue after 3 years of his rant and programs and money spent. If all that was done in the name of protecting us (uh huuuuh) and he drops the ball, it can't but hurt him.

High C
04-19-2004, 06:48 PM
The answer is, the perps would think Kerry after their recent success in Spain. They'd be wrong. It would serve as a reminder that we have to remain strong and prepared. Bush's advantage.....

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-19-2004, 06:50 PM
:rolleyes:

imported_Conrad
04-19-2004, 06:50 PM
Even USA Today can't explain the "major calamity" outcome. See entire piece. (from Drudge/USA Today)

I can't believe they think we're "polarized"- I'm as open minded as a neo-con can get! :D

Poll: Bush support holds despite Iraq, 9/11 hearings
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON President Bush's lead over Democrat John Kerry has widened a bit in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll despite two weeks that have been dominated by a deteriorating security situation in Iraq and criticism of his administration's handling of the terrorism threat before the Sept. 11 attacks.
The survey, taken Friday through Sunday, showed Bush leading Kerry 51% to 46% among likely voters, slightly wider than the 3-point lead he held in early April. The shifts were within the margin of error of +/ 4 percentage points in the sample of likely voters. (Complete poll results)

The president's job approval rating was steady at 52%.

Analysts in both parties say the lack of movement underscores how polarized the electorate is. Seven months before Election Day, they say, most people's minds are made up.

[ 04-19-2004, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Conrad ]

Wild Dingo
04-20-2004, 11:48 AM
Now I just read this and wondered... as I often do...

wouldnt the actual election itself depend on how close to the election date another 9/11 occured? I mean think about it... say 3 or 4 days hell even a week before the election day another event occurs wouldnt the election be cancelled? or deferred?... to enable the present incumbrent to deal with it in the first instance? rather than simply going ahead and having it and perhaps getting a new incumbrent into office at such a crucial time?... Id think that it would in that instance be in the countries best interest to put an election to one side for the sake of decency and enabling of the CIC to act without distraction of perhaps loosing?...

Like it or not Bush does at least have the "experience" {such an appaling one that it is} of having dealt with one such an event that the next fella doesnt have... surely that being the case the election would be deferred until it was dealt with?... yes yes that would make the whoevers happy {dems? reps?} and the others unhappy {reps? dems never could understand which is which just that one is fanatically pro bush and the other is just as fanatically anti bush} but it makes sense doesnt it?

wondering... wondering... not bothered or worried cause I hope and trust it wont happen again.

Bruce Hooke
04-20-2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
IF, IF, IF something happens, it won't help "strong on terrorism" Shrubbie. If he had no clue about 9/11, he sure as hell must have a clue after 3 years of his rant and programs and money spent. If all that was done in the name of protecting us (uh huuuuh) and he drops the ball, it can't but hurt him.
Originally posted by High C:
The answer is, the perps would think Kerry after their recent success in Spain. They'd be wrong. It would serve as a reminder that we have to remain strong and prepared. Bush's advantage.....QED :D tongue.gif :D