Ok a twist on the "attacks" before the election... in Spain...

[southernleftylady]

werent they attacked before their elections and the present leader was voted out? maybe that would happen here too. Or do you think that the righties wouldnt want to change "leaders" in the middle of it?

[jpgray]

1. The Spain situation was complicated

First of all, there was a scant 4% difference in the polls between the current (at the time) leadership (Popular Party) and the Socialist Party. Next, the terror attack, and the government attempted to blame it on the basques. Then Muslim literature, etc. is found at the scene. Next, the elections, where the Socialists win by a scant 3%. So forgetting the MoE, which could put it far closer, there was a 7% shift in the polls, and whether it was from regular old undecideds, the terror attack itself, or the government's reaction cannot be accurately determined.

(If I messed up anywhere, someone come and fix it. :))

[jilln]

2. I would just add that the Spaniards

were OVERWHELMINGLY against the war, unlike the US.

[July]

7. Sounds about right to me.

But I think the most significant point is the government's manipulation of information about the attack. The Aznar govt. pushed the idea that it was the Basques from the beginning, contacting journalists, trying to get a UN statement against the Basques. It suppressed information to the contrary, which came out the night before the election. This probably influenced the turnout, which was significantly higher than in the previous election. I was told by one Spanish friend that many young people who would have voted for smaller parties or stayed home decided to vote against Aznar when the govt. manipulation of info came out. Another friend reported that a journalist we know in common told her specifically that he had been called by govt. reps trying to sell the "It was the Basques" story.

In addition, no polls may be taken in the week before the election. The gap was closing, and perhaps became even closer during that last week (which included the attack). It may have already been a toss-up.

Also, Zapatero had promised since last year that he would withdraw the troops in Iraq if elected -- his promise was well-known, and not a sudden reaction to the attack. Perhaps the attack swung some votes to him because of that promise, but he already had a good deal of support, as you point out. Aznar's arrogance in trying to sell the attack as a Basque effort was, IMO, the most important influence on the election, though. People were angry at him, and they took the opportunity to vote him out (Spaniards don't have to register ahead of time to vote, they can just show up at the polls with their national identity card).

I got my information from Spanish TV, newspapers, and friends.

[southernleftylady]

3. Oh ok thanks for all the info! :) n/t

[gmoney]

4. The opposition campaigned on pulling troops

The socialist party campaigned (in part) on pulling Spain's troops out of Iraq ASAP, so you can't really say the bombings prompted them to do that, but it may have prompted some people to vote in a manner that would result in the troops being pulled out.

In some ways, the election was a referendum on the war, and the sitting administration's attempts to "spin" such a terrible event put the socialist party over the top.

[bowens43]

5. IMO Spain's leader wasn't voted out because of the attacks.

He was voted out because of his support of bushes war in Iraq. The people of Spain OVERWHELMINGLY opposed the war. Attack or no attack, he was toast.

[soothsayer]

6. yep, I said it from the beginning that that "sparkle" backfired for the

CIA or Moussad or whomever did it (I really don't believe it was, you know, the terrorists we are SUPPOSED to fear). That's why I think it will not happen here before our election. In my opinion, it ABSOLUTELY drove their current leader out and the anti-Iraq leader in.g