Impact of Terror Attack on Election

[toasty]

There was a discussion on this on Fox's talk radio station this morning, thought I'd bring it here and see what people's thoughts were on the issue:

If (and when) there is another terror attack in the US before the election, does this make it more or less likely that Bush will be reelected?

I suppose there are three obvious possibilities -- (1) the country rallies around Bush, and it helps him, (2) the country blames Bush, and it helps Kerry, and (3) the country is already so polarized that it doesn't matter from a political standpoint -- but I suppose anything could happen.

Granted, it seems rather crass to consider the political ramifications of the loss of numerous human lives, but it was interesting and probably is a valid topic of discussion, so thought I'd throw it out there...

Thoughts?

[asdf_admin]

I look it at this way ...

a. do you bend over and take it in the butt by the bully ...

or

b. do you fight against the powers of evil and defend yourself and your nation.

[Jenks]

Re:: Impact of Terror Attack on Election

tough call.

it could go either way.

In the event of a terror attack in the US before elections, the public might think: Bush is obviously not stopping terrorism, it's time for a change. On the other hand, a terror attack might remind people why we got involved in the middle east in the first place, praise Bush for at least taking a stand, and realize we've got a long road ahead of us to thwart terrorism, and give Bush 4 more years to stay the course.

Now, with that 50/50 line of thinking, (providing average voting americans CAN think for themselves,) it may be too much to ponder, and it wouldn't matter anyway and wouldn't change people's vote.

A terror attack not going to change my vote...unless of course, the attack in in St. Louis, and i get killed, then obviously my vote won't count.

What really annoys me is the thought of a terror attack before elections, and because of the magnitude of such an event, the Bush Administration goes through the process of delaying elections or altering them because they feel the American public is too distressed to make a logical decision about the office of the president for the next 4 years. Sounds crazy, i know, but it's being talked about in congress. :? If the election doesn't go down in November as it's supposed to, regardless of a terror attack, as a responsible republican, when given the chance to finally vote, i would vote that son of a bush right out of office.

[Civic_Zen]

Re: Impact of Terror Attack on Election

Granted, it seems rather crass to consider the political ramifications of the loss of numerous human lives, but it was interesting and probably is a valid topic of discussion, so thought I'd throw it out there...

It is pretty cheap and indecent to bring this up, but I see your point. If you weren't a US citizen though, I'd probably be offended.

As for the topic at hand, I don't believe that the next terrorist attack will target people, or in the way that most people think. Very few lives will probably be lost if the terrorists do next, what I honestly believe will happen. Which is doing a better job of targeting our economy and resources. They thought toppling the WTC would have a bigger impact on our economy, and the world. The fact is that the impact was very short, and nothing like some thought it would be, including the terrorist's themselves.

I see the Panama Canal as the next and best logical target, many experts believe the same. The fact is that 100's of ships go through it on a daily basis, and 1000's upon 1000's of freight shipments are headed toward varous countries which makes everything hard to secure. Very few, if any, ships are checked for anything at all. Drugs, weapons and the like would have no trouble at all, and no doubt are dispatched through it on a daily basis. How easy would it be to get a nuclear weapon through, it wouldn't have to be anything of significant size, just enough to basically make the canal useless. Even rudimentary bomb making skills could yeild something with enough explosive power, and not even have to be atomic. It would just have to be bigger, and we are talking freighters here.

The impact of such an attack would be devestating, not just to the US, but to the entire western world. After all, America is their prime target, but the Western way of life, as a whole, is what these terrorists want destroyed in the larger scheme of things. America is the Western world's leader, if you will, and is the prime directive. But with such an easy attack so readily accessable, whose impact would further their cause in a much greater fashion, its almost inevitable in my mind.

Panama Canal or not, I see something of this sort happening. They are not after lives, American's are too many. If they think they can win a war, or even dampen the American spirit in such a way, they would be gravely mistaken. It will take something on a massive scale, and something that targets our finance and economy to bring us down. The Panama Canal would definetely cause chaos in its greatest form.

As for how any of this could and would effect the election, I could care less. Bush is still a bit lesser of an evil IMO, but they are both ignorant arrogant useless bastards. It amazes me, which the more I learn about each one, that these could be our two choices.

I don't plan on voting any way, and most certainly would not if something this catastrophic happened. However, if it is some useless display by the terrorists to garner fear, then Bush is the only answer. And I would hope others would see that.

[mixu]

Re:: Impact of Terror Attack on Election

I think the immediate reaction would be to keep Bush in office. But, as we saw in Spain, if the administration tried to make political gain out of it you might see Kerry replacing the incumbent. It may well depend on how the aftermath is dealt with.

Grim thought though - let's hope nothing does happen.

[Jenks]

you didn't really answer the question sheepfucker. :P

[Civic_Zen]

you didn't really answer the question sheepfucker. :P

I edited with a bit of how it would effect the election, thats just irrelevant in my mind.

[davetlv]

Re:: Impact of Terror Attack on Election

This is an interesting question, but the first question you should ask is 'Who do the 'terrorist' want in the White House, Bush or Kerry? Only when you have the answer to this can you fully answer your question.

So what does Al-Quida have to gain by having either Bish or Kerry in the White House? If Bush gets re-elected its better the devil you know. Some might say, an ineffectual leader who has not managed to seriously crush Al-Quida, but who, in the process, is causing a lot of bad press for the good old US of A. Kerry on the other hand might be better in the PR dept. but would more then likely maintain the stance of the US with regards to AQ.

So from a AQ's perspective surely its better to maintain the status quo.

That then raises the question of should america be attacked before the polls who would get elected? Bush would probably win the poll in that case because history has shown that in times of crisis the Americans rally around their flag and their president. (Or at least my understanding of US history anyway!)

A country under attack can only go one of two ways, either to fully engage the enemy or to disengage entirely.

Let me use Israel and Spain as examples:

Prior to the Israeli election in 2003 there was rise in homicide bombing in Israel. Historically Israelis have rallied round those leaders they percieve as being strong and uncompromising in times of 'war'. Therefore Sharon got elected, exactly what Hamas and Jihad wanted, a man who would not easily sit at the peace table which allows them to continue their campaign of terror.

A few days before Spain went to the polls in March this year Madrid was devestated by bombs. The sitting government was actively involved with UK and the US in the was in Iraq. This bomb, carefully timed, diverted the natural course of democracy and made the election a one issue race. Either engagement of the enemy or disengagement. The enemy won, change of governement, Spain capitulated to terrorists by leaving Iraq.

Therefore, in my humble opinion, Bush would get re-elected should there be a terrorist attack on the US before the elections, but if this happens it will be at the will of the terrorists and not the American people.

Just some personal thoughts!

[Jenks]

RE: Sheepfucker -

irrelevant? the topic of the thread is, 'Impact of Terror in Election.'

(i agree with your points above, i'm just arguing with you for the sake of arguing.)

1. You have to agree that Terrorism IS a relevant topic in the 2004 Election. Terrorism is in the top 3 in my book. 1. Economy 2. Who has hotter daughters 3. Terrorism.

2. Since we agree now that Terrorism IS a relevant topic (see #1) You must also agree that a terrorist attack would have political ramaficitaions if something happened between now and especially closer to the election.

3. You WILL have a Hamburger for lunch, no cheese, no pickle. You will eat it without condiments. Eat your dry burger, sheepfucker.:P

[asdf_admin]

anyway you look it at ... we lose.

nuke'em?

[toasty]

Re:: Impact of Terror Attack on Election

That then raises the question of should america be attacked before the polls who would get elected? Bush would probably win the poll in that case because history has shown that in times of crisis the Americans rally around their flag and their president. (Or at least my understanding of US history anyway!)

I think you're correct that historically, Americans rally around their president in times of crisis. This is a really unique time, though: if there was an election where there were so few undecided voters at this stage in the election, I'm not aware of it (anyone know?), and the unprecedented threat of terrorism is a variable in this election that has not really been present in the past. It is tough to say what would happen if something were to actually happen that brought that threat into sharper focus around election time.

Although there hasn't been much movement in the Bush v. Kerry polls of late, one polling topic that does still move is on the "who is better equipped to handle terrorism" question. Don't quote me, because I don't have the numbers in front of me, but my recollection is that Kerry's numbers have been rising on this, but that most people still think Bush is better in this regard. Amongst those people that are "swayable" on this point that are creating the movement, what would they do in the event of an attack?

I honestly don't have a firm opinion on this myself. I know it won't change my vote -- I unfortunately believe that terrorism is something that will happen as a product the American way of life regardless of who is in office, and wouldn't fault the pres, whomever it may be, unless there was clear evidence that he dropped the ball when he had a chance to actually do something to stop it. I guess, for the sake of taking a position, I'm inclined to say that the electorate is so polarized that it wouldn't have that significant of an impact...

[Civic_Zen]

(i agree with your points above, i'm just arguing with you for the sake of arguing.)

Indeed. :P

I'm just outlining a hypothetical plot from a personal perspective. The thing is, I don't really believe in democracy, and thus, I don't vote. Perhaps someday, there will be a president worthy enough of my time, that I'll actually go out and spend the 5+ minutes or whatever if takes to pull the lever or whatever they do nowadays. As of now, I'd rather spend that 5 minutes wherever I may be, doing whatever I may be doing.

My other problem with voting, comes from my hax0r perspective. I spend most of my life on a computer, I'll just say that I've always been pretty good with them. I knew at a very young age, that anything computer related can and will inevitably be hacked. Computer ran poll machines were in abundance all over the place, and then a few universities decide to check these things for holes. After they find how easy it is to hack these useless boxes, they find not only the ease that it could be done, but that its already been done. Probably on more then one occasion. So after the fact, we decide to test these things for holes. Typical. Not only that, but they do nothing about the problem and continue using these machines. Wonderful.

I know most of this is completely irrelevant, just outlining that hypothetical plot further. Its not really answering your question, but yea. I'm typing for the sake of typing.

So, now a bomb goes off, killing a couple hundred people at some political rally or something. It helps Bush, at least for the most part. There are just so many variables regarding the attack. Where is it? How many people die? These things may not matter, or they may. They may end up helping Kerry. Personally its all mind boggling, and rather unpleasant. If I were the terrorists, I wouldn't waste my time on such things. But I am not a terrorist, nor do I really understand their entire philosophy.

Still I think a big attack on something worth while as described in my initial post is more probable. I also think that an attack under someone like Kerry is more probable, because I see him as starting to become lax toward the end of his term. So I think it would be smarter for the terrorists to wait, and do nothing before the election.

Michael Moore has already helped Kerry tremendously, so perhaps the terrorists would rather have Bush in there. They may see it as good because Bush pisses off the entire world, or bad because it would be harder to target us for another 4 years. It could go either way.

Now to my hypothetical events, and the Panama Canal. It collapses in on itself, and all hell breaks loose. We would need a strong president in office, and we don't have one to elect, so we are screwed. The US would be totally fu<ked from a political perspective and from an economical one. Kerry would have a heart attack and botox would start leaking from every orifice, and Bush would start his coke habit back up. Its a lose lose situation, so it doesn't matter who gets elected.

Not only that, but if you are someone who wastes his time voting, your vote will probably be for the other person. Someone somewhere is hacking the box that you placed your vote on, perhaps even the terrorists themselves. Not that it matters, because again, you are screwed either way.

Personally I would rather have Bush in office no matter how the cookie crumbles, but not bad enough that I would get off my @ss and actually do anything to help him out.

So lastly, it just doesn't matter how it effects this, or that. Or who gets elected or loses in the process.

[Jenks]

quite the fatalist point of view there sheepfucker.

With that line of thinking, this whole presidential election doesn't matter, and neither do computers, neither does your measly life. In the grand scheme of things, humans are no more than a disease eating away at a living organism, whose own life is dated as well. So in the end, we're all eventually doomed, so what's the fucking point of voting and why should i give a shit?

I choose to play the game.

[toasty]

Personally I would rather have Bush in office no matter how the cookie crumbles, but not bad enough that I would get off my @ss and actually do anything to help him out.

So lastly, it just doesn't matter how it effects this, or that. Or who gets elected or loses in the process.

Ironic that this would appear right over your sig, which contains the quote:

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato



Just kidding. I am well aware that "participation in politics" goes well beyond simply showing up to vote on Nov. 2...

[Civic_Zen]

quite the fatalist point of view there sheepfucker.

With that line of thinking, this whole presidential election doesn't matter, and neither do computers, neither does your measly life.

I don't feel this way about humans in general, I never said that. I don't believe in fate or any of that crap. Its all orchestrated. People just assume they have a choice and when they vote its legit. And yet, here there is first hand evidence that it may not be true. During another election, maybe I would care, but for 2004, I could care less.

And I never said that I felt that way about computers. But when a flaw that allows anybody to input any information they want into a voting box goes, first unnoticed, and then secondly unfixed after countless people find the problem, it makes you wonder. Of course those computers have problem areas, ways of being hacked, but they also have ways of being protected.

I personally can't understand why any of you feel that either Kerry or Bush will be a better choice. They both suck, period. They will both suck ass, and will do nothing to better America as a country. As far as the 2004 election goes, and terrorism and everything else in the world right now. Whether its Kerry or Bush will not make a bit of difference. No it does not matter who wins this election, and thus, if doesn't matter what happens from here until then which would cause one to get elected over the other.

If comes down to what exactly? A Botox injected hypocrite pansy who lives off his ugly rich wife, and lies about everything he says. Or a half-wit religious POS, who got rich off texas gold, has a die hard Christian attitude and a trigger finger.

If any of you can justify one POS over the other, then hip hip horray for you.