Election timed attack, who would benefit?

[Blue Monk]

I began thinking about this after hearing a small portion of an interview with Bush where they were discussing the possibility of a terrorist attack timed to try and affect the upcoming US election similar to the attack in Spain.

I’m sure most would agree that this is a legitimate concern but what I began wondering was who would it help, the Democrats or the Republicans?

Human nature being so difficult to predict I’m not really sure.

My gut feeling is that it would help Bush. True his numbers have been slipping and he is receiving more criticism but he still seems to be holding his own on the terrorist angle.

Some might argue that another attack would make his efforts look ineffective but I suspect that the actual effect would be to make many more fearful of changing leadership at this time.

Also I’m thinking of how it would play in the ‘conspiracy nut’ circle. I’m sure if an attack were to occur and then Bush won the election there would be many that would invent some sort of connection but I’m not sure how that would be played if Kerry won.

I’m just curious. Any thoughts?

 

[Nasarius]

My gut feeling is that it would help Bush.

I agree. It would likely encourage feelings of "hey, we can't fight amongst ourselves, we have to be united against our enemies", so people would support the President, favoring stability.

I don't think many people outside the hardcore left would blame Bush, even if it was clearly preventable.

 

[cbish]

Forget about an attack. Wait until they reveal Osama that we actually captured months ago and have holed up in a cage in Nevada.

 

[gnome]

I think that another large terrorist attack in the United States would benefit George Bush far more than Kerry. His entire credibility rests on people being so afraid of terrorists that he can do anything as long as he appears to be the one that will take the "toughest" stance against it.

The problem is that "tough" looking actions and rhetoric sit well with the public whether they are wise in the long run or not. As long as the President's line of "tough on terrorism" is believed, then anyone who opposes him is going to seem like they are taking a weaker stance, when in truth they may simply be suggesting a change of means, not of ends.

 

[DavidJames]

The problem is that "tough" looking actions and rhetoric sit well with the public whether they are wise in the long run or not. As long as the President's line of "tough on terrorism" is believed, then anyone who opposes him is going to seem like they are taking a weaker stance, when in truth they may simply be suggesting a change of means, not of ends.

Very astute analysis. Timing is everything though. The closer to the election the better for Bush. If something would happen before, say, September, the rally round the president effect would wear off by election day and the realization of who was at the helm when it happened might set in.

 

[The Don]

I understand from the UK media that Al Queda would prefer that GWB remains president (he provides a much better rallying point for opposition). This would imply that an attack is possible.

 

[richardm]

I'm inclined to agree with Gnome. Given their apparent success in Spain, I suppose we can expect an Al-Qaeda attempt at an attack the day or two before the election.

I wonder if they'll attack Britain before the European elections tomorrow? I suppose even Al-Qaeda don't care about the EU

 

[Blue Monk]

Ok, that's pretty much the way I was thinking and we seem to be in agreement.

All except cbish, of course. Sheesh, everyone knows Osama is in Arizona, hehe.

That is a good point though because if Osama is captured just before the election there will be some that will be convinced it was staged and damn the facts.

I think about the only way an attack could help Kerry is if details of the attack surfaced very quickly and clearly indicated current administration bumbling.

Something such as a specific security measure that should have been beefed up but wasn't or even worse if key resources that could have prevented the attack and been diverted to Iraq. I think something like that would hurt Bush but it would have to be very clear and unambiguious.

Well, let's hope this all remains hypothetical.