Litkicks Message Board Archive

I was just about

Posted to Poetry and Politics




to post something on this, wondering what everybody thought.

I'm not sure about this; it seems that Democrats feel that any plan to delay the election would be an attempt at a coup d'etat by the Bush Administration. After 2000, and with the continued problems in Florida and with the paperless elections machines, it doesn't seem like a bad idea to keep an eye on these guys.

But it does seem like a good idea to have some plan in place if there is a major, or several moderate attacks on election day or very near to it. In fact, it seems like delaying the elections temporarily could be to the Democrats benefit, no? I mean, we've had it beat into our heads by the pundit class that if we un-elect Bush in the wake of a terrorist attack, we've given in to the terrorists (which is bullshit, but that's another debate). So it might be good to have a cooling down period for people to collect their heads. Though more than likely we'd go into the same "We have to stand behind our President" lemming lockstep and Kerry would be prevented from campaigning during the delay, while Bush would get to be all Presidential.

The question is in the details of implementation: what kind of attacks would merit a delay, and how near to elections would they have to be to trigger it? You know, would an attack killing 50 people 3 days prior be enough? Would several small attack at polllnig places resulting in 3 dead and 25 wounded be enough? Would a a credible threat of a major attack be enough? Who's going to make that call? And how long do we delay them? A week, a month? Indefinitely? How do you handle the question of campaigning and fundraising if the delay is say, more than two weeks?

Should we try to surprise the terrorists and have the elections two days early, like we did with the Iraqi handover? (We could make a big calling tree: "Elections On Halloween, pass it on")

Lots of questions to be answered on this issue.