About delaying the Election...

[troublemaker]

Some thoughts.

1) Talk about monkeying with elections hurts Bush, so I'm all for Bush making contingency plans.

2) If there was a major terror attack the Monday before the election it would add at least 5% to Bush. An attack early morning on election day itself would probably net Bush 8-10%. Americans opt for continuity in crises. What could redound to Kerry's benefit would be WH errors in handling the crisis, but those errors are a lot likelier to come out in the days after an attack, not as breaking news on election day. Another possible pro-Kerry factor is that the biggest paranoid nuts are probably Bush voters, and they might stay home watching TV and praying. But the greatest actual danger and the actual voters likeliest to be intimidated by attacks or essentially turned away due to high security would be in cities, and that's Kerry territory. Most importantly, election day terror would supress turnout and make pre-cast absentee ballots disproportionately decisive, and they tend to be more Republican ballots.

I don't see that an election held during an attack helps Kerry, so I would be all for a delay under those circumstances.

3) If there's an attack a week before the elections people would see no need for a delay and any talk of delay would seem like politicizing terror, which is what the voters in Spain were voting against. So, again, I'm all for attempts to delay the election under those circumstances.

So what's the problem with a delay? If Bush tried to delay the election for a long time (state of emergency, etc.) it would put the needed stake through Bush's political heart when he was eventually removed from office. Again, a good thing.

Bottom line, I don't see a delay helping Bush politically in any scenario, so it aint gonna happen. Bush will do what's best for Bush.

I can think of nothing in the world I would like better than for Bush to actually CANCEL the election... it wouldn't stay canceled, and Bush might eventually end up leaving the White House in handcuffs.

(As a constitutional matter I don't think there should be any delay, but I'm willing to be purely pragmatic here since as a constitutional matter I'm not sure Bush should even President in the first place.)

[Massacure]

1. Elections are always the first tuesday of November, aren't they?

I don't think the President can delay them.

Btw, I'm pretty sure the Democrats will paint a "Miserable Failure" picture on Bush* if the attacks accure more than a day before the elections.

[unblock]

4. congress determines when the elections take place.

the constitution gives them that power. there's currently no law providing for anything other than the first tuesday of november, but congress could change that at any time.

the only constitutional restriction is that the winner of the election must be sword in on january 20, 2005.

[troublemaker]

8. You are correct

What would happen would be the WH requesting legislation (well in advance) granting the WH the power to delay.

[KansDem]

9. The Tuesday after the first Monday...

If I recall correctly, elections aren't held on Tuesday, November 1.

But correct me if I'm wrong. :hi:

On edit: First Tuesday after the first Monday in November
http://www.holidayorigins.com/html/election_day.html

[unblock]

2. an attack on election day itself wouldn't be good enough

not to change votes, anyway. it might postpone elections, but not change votes.

for that, they would need to have a 'terrorist' attack the day BEFORE the elections, then have the talking heads pound it into all voters that we need continuity and the steady hand of the shrubman.

THAT would change a lot of votes.

alternatively, they could simply declare shrub the winner and merely claim that many people changed their minds at the last minute. hello, diebold.

[troublemaker]

6. It doesn't need to change votes, only suppress turn-out

Most Democrats vote on election day. Absentee ballots are almost always disproportionately Republican.

And security is bound to more disruptive in cities than in rural areas; again, a Republican bonus.

[Dookus]

3. I see nothing wrong

with a contingency plan in case something happened that were to prohibit significant numbers of people from getting to the polls.

Imagine a few well-placed attacks in the more Democratic areas of certain swing states - we'd all be clamoring for the elections to be held off a few days so people could vote.

[Jazzgirl]

5. Interesting I'm seeing so much discussion about delaying the election.

As a matter of fact they are going to have a report on CNN at 6pm EST today about the possible delay of elections if there is a terrist (mis-spelling on purpose) attack around that time. These guys are scary but they're really trying to pump up the fear.

[troublemaker]

7. I hope it will back-fire. (Everything they do these days does)

[Swamp Rat]

10. Yes, everything they do tends to backfire on them.

This will, in the long run backfire on Bush no matter how he handles a terrorist threat and the election. He can do NOTHING right. If I were him, I'd build a rocket ship and leave the Earth as soon as possible.

[radfringe]

14. he blew it with the NAACP today

saw some comments on the news -- paraphrased "...he's going to have to give some answers as to why he didn't come..."

meanwhile -- Boy-George was whining "...did you hear some of the names they called me?..."

[Swamp Rat]

17. Yeah, I just watched CNN for a few minutes to catch the news about NAACP

Bush blew it big time. Every time he opens his potty mouth he puts his foot in it.

[creeksneakers2]

11. Bush is inviting terrorists to attack

Bush is telling the terrorists that they can hurt our democracy. Instead, Bush should immediately declare:

1. The elections will go on no matter what.

2. Every voter should keep the choice they made BEFORE the attack.

This would take away the incentive for the terrorists to attack.

[Hubert Flottz]

15. Tommy Terra told me to duck and cover but he could not say...

Who, What, or Why! These people are going to keep crying WOLF until nobody cares and then the damage will be even more massive if it really does come! Even the main stream media openly hints that these warnings may be political! The thing the alerts really prove is that less and less people trust Bush!

[terrya]

12. How would the Supreme Court rule on this? Just wondering...

This is so blatantly unconstitutional. This idea of delaying the election is clearly a constitutional crisis in waiting.

[Dookus]

20. it's not unconstitutional at all

Congress decides the date of elections. Provided the election is held before january 20th, and all states vote on the same day, there's nothing unconstitutional.

[radfringe]

13. ummm...errrr...just asking.....

the recent warnings Ridge is mumbling about occuring on or near the election -- ummmm -- his information came from the CIA or at least in part by the CIA -- right?

ummmm---is this the SAME CIA that has recently been blamed for bungling WMDs in Iraq? The SAME CIA that was part of the intelligence organization that dropped the ball on 9-11? The SAME CIA that has serious organizational and logistics problems regarding terrorist groups?

so, ummmm, errrr - soooo how reliable is the intel going to Ridge for his assessment of terralerts?

just asking....

[Hubert Flottz]

16. TRUST BUSH!

That is the message!

I know I don't trust any of the GOPers!

[donhakman]

18. It is the CHENEY CIA

that demands all info be "stovepiped the the VP first.

that mean no analysis for veracity but only stories that Cheney then cherry picks for fear propoganda.

[Minstrel Boy]

19. If Cheney's group says there will be an attack, count on it.

I have a hunch they may be onto something. Those guys are good.

[Senior citizen]

21. Okay, I'm going to pick up a copy of "My Pet Goat"

to read while standing on line at the polls during the attack--unless it is here, in which case it won't matter to me.