NationStates Jolt Archive

Both Republican George W. Bush and Democratic John Kerry are unabashedly seeking political advantage from Friday's Osama bin Laden tape.

Does the recent bin Laden tape help one candidate over the other? Explain your reasoning.

It helps Kerry as it reminds people that Bush has failed to take Osama out

Both Republican George W. Bush and Democratic John Kerry are unabashedly seeking political advantage from Friday's Osama bin Laden tape.

Does the recent bin Laden tape help one candidate over the other? Explain your reasoning.


George Walker Bush, a longtime family friend and business associate of the Saudi Binladens and the Saudi Royal Family.

Also the person in the world who has benefitted most from the 2001 attacks.

Bush benefits and everyone knows why.
'Nuff said.

I'd like to think (though that might be niave) that it wouldn't help anyone. Capitol off that jackass is inevitably bad. I'm sure there is a game theory that explains why they both have to try and tap it for benifit, but without that I imagine they would both back away from it as a political tool and instead focus on what it is, a reminder that he is still around to be dealt with.

The latter statement in my mind helps Kerry-Bush took his eyes of the prize, "I'm not too concerned with him," I believe. But-and this is a huge but-this is tainted goods to try to make gain on. To pull from my own signature-
"Like an old drug pusher once told me; watch who's money you take..." William S. Burroughs.
It applies here pretty well.

Bush benefits and everyone knows why.
'Nuff said.
Ever notice that everytime someone says "'Nuff said," not nearly enough has been said?

According to Mark Halperin's The Note, a leading purveyor of insider's insider dope,

"Most Democrat strategists believe one of two things:

a. OBL tape + Mommy Party status + BC04 aggressiveness + tightness of the race + (3) *see below = Bush advantage = bad feeling …

or

b. OBL tape + Mommy Party status + BC04 aggressiveness + closeness of race + (3) * see below + the public mind about OBL among voters who matter + Kerry pushback = a wash = no one knows = possible Kerry win"

"OBL" is Osama bin Laden

"BC04" is Bush Cheney 2004.

* (3) is: "The media not only crave October Surprises, but demand that each and every October Surprise have a clear winner and a clear loser."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238

In my opinion, if the American people decide the tape has no affect that also helps Kerry. If the election had been held Friday, I believe Kerry would have won most of the undecided voters in the swing states and therefore a strong electoral victory. How this tape impacts the election Tuesday could prove to be the October surprise we have been fearing.

I fail to see how this helps Bush. It's a tape of Osama taking full responsibility for the attacks, explaining why he did it, threatening that he'd something smililar again, and basically showing off the fact that he's alive and at liberty. Bush has failed in his mission to bring the terrorists behind 9/11 to justice. It's really pretty simple, and the fact that people think this helps Bush frightens me.

The tape was meant for the Arab world.

It's Ramadan and he wants to show that He and Al-Q are decent chaps by the fact they are willing to offer a truce if we abandon or ways and stop oppressing the poor muslim world.

I figure its an attempt to counter-balance the bad publicity over the beheadings....

Some people may start thinking about terrorism and get scared and vote Bush.

Some people may also get irritated we haven't caught him yet and vote Kerry.

All in all, I don't see that much of an effect.

It helps Kerry as it reminds people that Bush has failed to take Osama out
Osama who?

Even with the Osama tape I think Kerry is a lock.

Even with the Osama tape I think Kerry is a lock.

Not according to the "futures" markets. They have bush.

George Walker Bush, a longtime family friend and business associate of the Saudi Binladens and the Saudi Royal Family.

Also the person in the world who has benefitted most from the 2001 attacks. :rolleyes: Wow. :rolleyes:

I figure its an attempt to counter-balance the bad publicity over the beheadings....

Are...you...kidding?
I'd have to say that it's not too successful. At least not to Westerners.
And it actually was intended at least in part for Americans, not just Arabs.

Not according to the "futures" markets. They have bush.

Yes, and the Washington Redskins game Sunday will determine the election (whenever they lose the Sunday before the election the incumbent also loses).

More scientifically, though, in almost every election the incumbent has received no more than 1% over what he was polling the week before. And in almost every key swing state Bush is still polling less than 50%, in many states significantly so. If history remains true Kerry will pick up the larger share of the undecided voters.

Also, polls show the preference of "likely" voters. Usually that works fine. However, this election is going to see a huge block of unlikely first time or infrequent voters, most of whom are Democrats or anti-Bush Independents. Polls did not predict the Newt Gingrich Republican House takeover in 1994 for this very reason.

The popular vote will remain fairly close, but it will be an electoral landslide for Kerry (300+ electorals).

Also the person in the world who has benefitted most from the 2001 attacks.
That's fairly true. I wonder what Bush would be running on if 9/11 never happened? His magnificent economic and job record? :p

Yes, and the Washington Redskins game Sunday will determine the election (whenever they lose the Sunday before the election the incumbent also loses).

More scientifically, though, in almost every election the incumbent has received no more than 1% over what he was polling the week before. And in almost every key swing state Bush is still polling less than 50%, in many states significantly so. If history remains true Kerry will pick up the larger share of the undecided voters.

Also, polls show the preference of "likely" voters. Usually that works fine. However, this election is going to see a huge block of unlikely first time or infrequent voters, most of whom are Democrats or anti-Bush Independents. Polls did not predict the Newt Gingrich Republican House takeover in 1994 for this very reason.

The popular vote will remain fairly close, but it will be an electoral landslide for Kerry (300+ electorals).


Are you saying looking at bookmakers odds is not scientific. What about the efficient capital market hypothesis? It's very scientific, and more accurate than these "polls" that people quote.

It's a well known fact that people lie to pollsters in certain area's of the country. It's also a well known fact that people lie to pollsters if they perceive their choice as unpopular.

On the otherhand, no one places a bet on the basis of what they think is popular. Historically the odds makers have been more accurate than the pollsters.

The Washington Redskins have proved to be a time-tested election predictor. In the previous 15 elections (since 1936), if the Washington Redskins have lost their last home game prior to the election, the incumbent party has lost the White House. When they have won, the incumbent has stayed in power.

Today's score? Green Bay Packers 28, Washinton Redskins 14

The Washington Redskins have proved to be a time-tested election predictor. In the previous 15 elections (since 1936), if the Washington Redskins have lost their last home game prior to the election, the incumbent party has lost the White House. When they have won, the incumbent has stayed in power.

Today's score? Green Bay Packers 28, Washinton Redskins 14

Hello President Kerry!