Let's put the 'Madrid bombing elected Zapatero!' thing to bed

Since it is already being touted as a "successful" attempt by terrorists to swing an election through terrorism. Given Ashcroft's warnings about the same thing happening here, let's discount the theory that Madrid caused some kind of political sea change before the election. The New York Times printed a series of contradictory articles on the subject. First there is this, from March 17:

"The contest in Spain had always been close between the governing Popular Party, which backed Mr. Bush’s policies, and the Socialists, who opposed them…

"In March 2003, at the height of opposition to the Iraq war, the Socialists were ahead in polls. With the economy roaring and the Socialist Party in disarray, the Popular Party pulled ahead. On March 7, the last date in which polls were published, an Opina poll showed that the gap had narrowed, giving the Popular Party 42 percent, compared with 38 percent for the Socialists."

So here is a March 7 poll show a four point gap, easily within the MOE. Also, the article notes that the race has "always been close." Now look at this, from the New York Times on March 11:

"Spanish Prime Min Jose Maria Aznar, leaving office after eight years, expresses pride in turning Spain into world's eighth-largest economy and defends support for Pres Bush's war in Iraq; interview; photo; Mariano Rajoy, who promises to continue Aznar policies, holds comfortable lead in polls."

How is 42-38 a "comfortable lead"? There is further corroboration in the Times for this very odd paraphrase of a four point difference, in this March 15 report:

"Because the Socialists were well behind in the polls before the attack, and Mr. Rodriguez was harshly critical of Mr. Aznar for his support of the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq, it will probably appear, at least at first, that the terrorist attack and public reaction to it swung the election results."

Again, is being behind within the MOE, a mere four points, really "well behind"? Well, what was the final vote? According to official election numbers, Socialists garnered 43% and the Popular Party received 38%. The shift between 42-38 and 38-43 is not as significant as the cries of 'the terrorists elected Zapatero!' would have you believe--despite the NYT's strange interpretation, 42-38 does not indicate a "comfortable" lead for the Popular Party, nor does it indicate the the Socialists were "well behind". This weirdness is documented also in the Daily Howler, where I first learned about these articles, and indeed the first place I saw an actual polling figure from an American source regarding the days leading up to the Spanish election. :(

He's kicking some ass over there in Spain!! If terrorists elected him, they did Spain one hell of a favor!

If certain Democrats had half the balls that Zapatero has, then things would really get done and I think more people would support the Democratic Party.


John

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Try re-reading.

've posted about it a couple of times today...

If anything, the bombings affected the elections because they showed how the Spanish government was making up information that they later had to rescind. That, coupled with the fact that 90% of the citizens were against Spain's participation in the war, led to them voting against the continuation of that party being in power. So if anything, it confirmed for people that the government was lying and making up information. But they people were not frightned into voting how they did. If anything, they were further angered. I have been explaining this to people since it happened. It makes me crazy, the "they were just appeasing the terrorists" line.... :eyes: