election day delay

[Matt]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/index.html

It's really very tempting to say that this is Bush making a grab for power. But then the counterargument would surely be, "Bush is worried that if an attack occured people might vote for him when they otherwise wouldn't, and wants time to let people clear their heads and not vote on an emotional basis." I find that one hard to swallow, but neither am I ready to say that he's power-mad, because we SHOULD be thinking about that eventuality.

Regardless, everyone should read this. I'm leaving this one open, as it contains nothing particularly partisan.

[dandan]

I think Bush is keen to play the 'fight vs. terrorism' card but it is hard to argue with it. If there were a terrorist strike just before the election, it would be sensible to move the election to allow people to vote sensibly. Just announcing it slightly reduces the chances of such an attack as it lowers the potential gain for the terrorists.
It's not like you lot actually vote for a president anyway, you merely elect people who then elect the president, ask Gore who got more votes (leaving aside the question of people too stupid to vote for the right guy).

I am very surprised that Bush still has a chance given the whole 'intelligence' (oxymoron) issue over WMD, Blair has taken a beating in the UK opinion poles although I doubt that it will affect the election in the UK enough to remove Labour.

[Matt]

I think the fact that this is coming out several months in advance is evidence that there's no real foul play involved. If they just announced this on, say, Halloween...well I couldn't imagine anything more suspicious.

[Azhrei]

And democracy takes a HUGE knee to the groin.....

Just based on NON-war/terror related policies, I don't trust these guys any farther than I can throw them on Jupiter.

[Jebus]

I think the fact that this is coming out several months in advance is evidence that there's no real foul play involved. If they just announced this on, say, Halloween...well I couldn't imagine anything more suspicious.

Another thing is that it was actually Congress who asked that a contingency plan be ready in case of such an event.

Many are reading too much into this.

[kirdape3]

I don't know, the Spanish turned out just fine after having a massive train bombing in Madrid, then having an election just after.  Maybe we're just too stupid, as usual.

[dandan]

The Spanish turned up and kicked out their pro-aliiance government. Although the government had looked like losing I believe that there was a significant swing after the bombing. The new government immediately announced it would pull troops out of Iraq (note that this is different from actually pulling troops out). It is hard to prove that the bombing had an effect on the election result although it is fair to say that the terrorist groups may well believe that such bombings can cause such an effect and indeed many governments may well believe it.

However the likely result of any bombing in the US (or the UK for that matter) would be a strong swing to support the current government so I would doubt that it would be a tactically wise move.

[Jebus]

I'm thinking the worry is that the delay would be used in the event of another massive attack, similar to the one on September 11th.

Not to say the Spanish attack wasn't massive, but I'm talking total chaos across the nation.

[Milton]

This isn't unprecedented.  There actually was an election of some sort in New York on September 11, 2001.  I suppose it was for local offices.  That election was cancled just after the attacks.  New Yorkers can validate this.

If there is a terror attack two days before the election, and Bush doesn't postpone the election, people will bitch because he didn't postpone the election and he is using the attack to gain advantage.  The story would be something along the lines of "Bush holds elections, despite terror attacks".  The implication would be that Bush got an unfair bump and the election should be postponed.  

If there is a terror attack two days before the election, and Bush postpones the election, people will bitch because he did postpone the election and is using the attack to gain advantage.  "Bush postpones presidential elections for the first time in US History due to terror attacks".  The implication would be that Bush could go on TV, get more face time, have more time to campaign and spend money and get a bump in the polls.

Bush is clearly in a no-win situation here in regards to this issue and the way it will be spun by his enemies to gain their own political advantage by making the president look bad.  Thus is the nature of partisian politics.

Either way, lets hope it doesn't happen.

[Matt]

The implication would be that Bush got an unfair bump and the election should be postponed.

The implication would be that Bush could go on TV, get more face time, have more time to campaign and spend money and get a bump in the polls.

Clearly, the only solution is to hold the elections pre-emptively, before the terrorists can strike! We must not wait for a smoking gun!

[dandan]

Another solution would be for Bush and Blair to step down admitting that the reason they went to war with Iraq (at least the reasons they gave the public) turned out to be false and they took personal responsibility for the fiasco. The fact that SH gased his own people, wanted WMD and invaded 2 of his neighbours is neither here nor there, in world politics you can't just invade because someone is a dictator, often they are your 'allies'.

It is hard to remember a cock-up on this scale where heads didn't roll. (unintentional pun, don't go there please)

As for this talk hurting Bush, I beg to differ. If you are trying to move away from WMD and Al-Kaida/Iraq links and concentrate on the 'Was against Terror' you are more than happy to open such discussions and reinforce the idea that they are for taking action, for confronting the threat whilst the Democrats shirk from the responsibility of taking the actions necessary to combat a threat.