Yeah, but you know that the Dems would screw up the chance to blast them.
Effect of a terrorist attack on the '08 election
- Thread starter nc-1701
- Start date
Yeah, but you know that the Dems would screw up the chance to blast them.
It only proves the danger only they've been saying all along! But if all is well, they're the best!
The Republicans would win by instilling fear in the public, just like the terrorists want, then they would have us invade some irrelevant nation again, perhaps even Iraq for a second time.
OTOH, it might work in the Dems favor as the election campaign progresses, and it becomes apparent that the GOP has become distracted from their War on Gays.
OTOH, it might work in the Dems favor as the election campaign progresses, and it becomes apparent that the GOP has become distracted from their War on Gays.
I think given the current political climate, you'd see more polarization in our culture if there was a terrorist attack. It would not be like 9/11 where everyone banded together (many would feel we already gave Bush the benefit of the doubt once and he blew it).
The net effect would probably benefit the Republicans though, since their base is currently going to be less motivated to vote than the Democratic base. (imho).
The net effect would probably benefit the Republicans though, since their base is currently going to be less motivated to vote than the Democratic base. (imho).
marry and procreate
Jolly, I didn't even say I agree with that. But that -is- the overall perception and has been for a long time.
The ultimate catch-22 for the poor dems.It only proves the danger only they've been saying all along! But if all is well, they're the best!
If Hillary gets the nomination, you'll see the most motivated right-wing base you've ever seen.
Git outta my head!
Part of that is the power of incumbency, I think. The rest of it has been the fault of the Democrats for badly fumbling that political football.
Heh, don't worry. It's only for today. And as I am off to try to find Montalban's hideout, I'm probably done with CFC OT for the rest of the night, so no more messages.Git outta my head!
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
True, but that sort of thing might be a +5 for Giuliani, neutral for those not currently in office, and perhaps -5 for the candidates who were in Congress at the time.
And those five points might not make the difference between parties, but it'll make those who already thought they knew who they were voting for a bit more secure in that.
Trying to do the Pope's job?
That hasn't stopped candidates from pontificating about who was right and wrong. Obama talked about being right from the halls of Springfield, for example.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
True, but someone who wasn't in the Senate couldn't have voted to authorize force in Iraq, while someone who was and did has a lot more 'splainin' to do when she decides she wants to present herself as having been a champion for ending engagements since before running...
Similarly, Giuliani, Romney, Richardson, Edwards, and Thompson (and Gravel) have no power right now beyond that of private citizens who want to do the right thing; if Congress screws up, their (forced) righteous indignation might have just a touch more sincerity as they can say "what they would have done differently" if in Congress at the time...
Maybe so, but then again, it's easy to forget that it wasn't 70% against back in 2002 and it's useless to recreate a 5-year old argument anyway.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
True, but the field didn't unanimously support military exercises even when it was popular...
What did you expect from a thread like this in a place like OT?
In all seriousness, though, past performance shouldn't be completely disregarded for insight into potential future action.
Similar threads
