ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

LiveforReason said 02/28, 10:56 AM
John McCain's unarguable strength in this campaign is foreign policy and the war on terror. As a war hero and the candidate with the most political experience, McCain has consistenty immersed himself in foreign policy issues. Ask nearly any voter, John McCain is the candidate that gives them the most comforting feeling in the face of terrorism.

However, American public attention has drifted away from the war on terror, focusing more on the economy. Under these circumstances and the general public opinion on Iraq, the Democrats have a significant chance of winning in November. A terrorist attack on the US would completely alter the political climate in the favor of John McCain.

McCain would easily be able to unite the country in the face of extremism. He would use the attack to "remind" the American people that the struggle against terrorism is not over and we need to continue. Neither Barack Obama, nor Hillary Cliton would be able to offer a solution, based on their previous policies, that would sit well with the American people. Because of his strong stance on terror and military experience, the American people would prefer John McCain, following an attack on the US.

LiveforReason said 02/28, 04:42 PM
During a presedential race, one thing has been proven time and again. Being able to communicate one's policy and connect with the voters, can be more important than the policy itself.

After the terrorist attack, voters would look for immeadiate, noncomplex responses. They will know John McCain has taken the hardest stance in the war on terror and the war in Iraq. It would be a simpler task for McCain to deliver his message of seeking out the terrorists responsible and protecting America, than it would be for either Democrat.

It would be diffuicult Obama or Clinton to convince the GENERAL voter that they are more capable of handling terrorism than John McCain. Regardless of the strategy involved, they will be unable to convey their "strength" on level of McCain.

McCain has separated himself sufficiently from Bush to prove that he is the more compentent decision maker. McCain was against the Rumsfeld strategey which was a complete failiure, but was for the Surge which many incdicators show has had significant success.

All of these factors would allow McCain to portay himself as the courageous, compentent, war hero who would be the best leader in the face of terrorism

LiveforReason said 03/05, 10:35 AM
As of now Obama, has had a true connection with the voters. However, in the event of a terrorist attack the playing field will completely alter, giving John McCain the advantage.

He would have the the opportunity to truly sell his foreign policy and military experience with the voters. McCain would have no difficulty at all connecting with the voters, who would be looking for a leader who makes them feel comfortable and secure. This connection would be much easier more McCain to achieve than Obama or Clinton.

In addition, a terrorist attack would allow John McCain to unite his Republican and conservative base, without pandering too far to the right. This would prevent him from alienating any independent voters, with whom he already has strong appeal. As a consequence, he would have a coalition of independent and conservative voters for November. No Democrat would be able to beat this group, even if the Democratic base were completely unified.

A terrorist attack would unarguably play into John McCain's strength. His foreign policy, experience, and personality would convince voters that he would be most able to counter the growing front of terrorism in to world.