I think 'breaking news' was referring to the notion that people won't vote for change in a time of crisis, and that incumbent leaders get a poll boost when shown to be dealing with a terrorist threat.
Government's tend to shift to the right though when stuff like this happens (except in Spain after the Madrid bombings), so it may favour the Republicans anyway.
You mentioned Spain after the Madrid bombings - but that's a good example of people in fact voting for change in a time of crisis, which you suggested doesn't happen.
As far as the United States goes, public opinion does tend to veer towards the right during times of heightened security concerns, as the Republicans have historically presented themselves as being greater champions of homeland security and national defence than the Democrats. In times of crisis, however foolishly, that perception becomes more exaggerated and the Republicans tend to enjoy increased favour among the American people.
Even if the Obama administration can claim maximum credit for the successful interception of an attempted terrorist attack against the US homeland, that won't necessarily translate to a corresponding boost to Democratic candidates in the mid-terms, especially against the historical context of a national perception of the Democrats being weaker on defence matters than the Republicans.
I can't believe that a comment like "election next week - handy for Obama" has been made rationally with any of this context in mind - it seems more like a stupid, ignorant comment made to imply some sort of conspiracy behind the whole situation. I'm sure that 'breaking news' will correct me if I'm wrong though.
There's no implication of a conspiracy..where did you arrive at that unusual conclusion?
I apologise for suggesting that the US president may benefit from this episode in the mid term elections next week...shame on me. (PS lighten up).
BBC World went to News 24 for some time, with Clive Myrie (Washington) and Sophie Long and Chris Rogers (London), before cutting away and coming back to Zeinab Badawi, who continued with the coverage.
I've never seen such an excessively overblown story in my life.
The highlight of the BBC's coverage was an 'expert' describing East Midlands Airport as a "provincial airfield".
I agree. I switched on BBC News last night at about 20:45hrs to see pictures of an Emirates jet taxiing to its stand, with a presenter (no idea who he was) desperately trying to dramatise the situation, and attempting to put words into David Learmount's mouth. If I'd been Learmount, I'd have just put the bloody phone down.
I think 'breaking news' was referring to the notion that people won't vote for change in a time of crisis, and that incumbent leaders get a poll boost when shown to be dealing with a terrorist threat.
Government's tend to shift to the right though when stuff like this happens (except in Spain after the Madrid bombings), so it may favour the Republicans anyway.
You mentioned Spain after the Madrid bombings - but that's a good example of people in fact voting for change in a time of crisis, which you suggested doesn't happen.
As far as the United States goes, public opinion does tend to veer towards the right during times of heightened security concerns, as the Republicans have historically presented themselves as being greater champions of homeland security and national defence than the Democrats. In times of crisis, however foolishly, that perception becomes more exaggerated and the Republicans tend to enjoy increased favour among the American people.
Even if the Obama administration can claim maximum credit for the successful interception of an attempted terrorist attack against the US homeland, that won't necessarily translate to a corresponding boost to Democratic candidates in the mid-terms, especially against the historical context of a national perception of the Democrats being weaker on defence matters than the Republicans.
I can't believe that a comment like "election next week - handy for Obama" has been made rationally with any of this context in mind - it seems more like a stupid, ignorant comment made to imply some sort of conspiracy behind the whole situation. I'm sure that 'breaking news' will correct me if I'm wrong though.
There's no implication of a conspiracy..where did you arrive at that unusual conclusion?
I apologise for suggesting that the US president may benefit from this episode in the mid term elections next week...shame on me. (PS lighten up).
I arrived at that unusual conclusion because the comment you made was so mind-blowingly devoid of intelligence and reason that it bore all the hallmarks of a conspiracy nutter's observations. I apologise unreservedly for lumping you in with the conspiracy camp, when I should have recognised that you were making a throwaway comment on a situation you didn't really understand.
I got what you were
trying
to say, but what you were trying to say made no sense at all - but hey, maybe if I take your advice and lighten up, then things like intelligence and reason won't matter any more. Gosh, it must be fun to be you!
I think 'breaking news' was referring to the notion that people won't vote for change in a time of crisis, and that incumbent leaders get a poll boost when shown to be dealing with a terrorist threat.
Government's tend to shift to the right though when stuff like this happens (except in Spain after the Madrid bombings), so it may favour the Republicans anyway.
You mentioned Spain after the Madrid bombings - but that's a good example of people in fact voting for change in a time of crisis, which you suggested doesn't happen.
As far as the United States goes, public opinion does tend to veer towards the right during times of heightened security concerns, as the Republicans have historically presented themselves as being greater champions of homeland security and national defence than the Democrats. In times of crisis, however foolishly, that perception becomes more exaggerated and the Republicans tend to enjoy increased favour among the American people.
Even if the Obama administration can claim maximum credit for the successful interception of an attempted terrorist attack against the US homeland, that won't necessarily translate to a corresponding boost to Democratic candidates in the mid-terms, especially against the historical context of a national perception of the Democrats being weaker on defence matters than the Republicans.
I can't believe that a comment like "election next week - handy for Obama" has been made rationally with any of this context in mind - it seems more like a stupid, ignorant comment made to imply some sort of conspiracy behind the whole situation. I'm sure that 'breaking news' will correct me if I'm wrong though.
There's no implication of a conspiracy..where did you arrive at that unusual conclusion?
I apologise for suggesting that the US president may benefit from this episode in the mid term elections next week...shame on me. (PS lighten up).
I arrived at that unusual conclusion because the comment you made was so mind-blowingly devoid of intelligence and reason that it bore all the hallmarks of a conspiracy nutter's observations. I apologise unreservedly for lumping you in with the conspiracy camp, when I should have recognised that you were making a throwaway comment on a situation you didn't really understand.
I got what you were
trying
to say, but what you were trying to say made no sense at all - but hey, maybe if I take your advice and lighten up, then things like intelligence and reason won't matter any more. Gosh, it must be fun to be you!
I agree with BBC LDN, it is the sort of comment that should be made on a bastion of stupidity like the BBC Have Your Say Boards or Fox News comments rather than on a sensible place like here... ahem.
I think 'breaking news' was referring to the notion that people won't vote for change in a time of crisis, and that incumbent leaders get a poll boost when shown to be dealing with a terrorist threat.
Government's tend to shift to the right though when stuff like this happens (except in Spain after the Madrid bombings), so it may favour the Republicans anyway.
You mentioned Spain after the Madrid bombings - but that's a good example of people in fact voting for change in a time of crisis, which you suggested doesn't happen.
As far as the United States goes, public opinion does tend to veer towards the right during times of heightened security concerns, as the Republicans have historically presented themselves as being greater champions of homeland security and national defence than the Democrats. In times of crisis, however foolishly, that perception becomes more exaggerated and the Republicans tend to enjoy increased favour among the American people.
Even if the Obama administration can claim maximum credit for the successful interception of an attempted terrorist attack against the US homeland, that won't necessarily translate to a corresponding boost to Democratic candidates in the mid-terms, especially against the historical context of a national perception of the Democrats being weaker on defence matters than the Republicans.
I can't believe that a comment like "election next week - handy for Obama" has been made rationally with any of this context in mind - it seems more like a stupid, ignorant comment made to imply some sort of conspiracy behind the whole situation. I'm sure that 'breaking news' will correct me if I'm wrong though.
There's no implication of a conspiracy..where did you arrive at that unusual conclusion?
I apologise for suggesting that the US president may benefit from this episode in the mid term elections next week...shame on me. (PS lighten up).
I arrived at that unusual conclusion because the comment you made was so mind-blowingly devoid of intelligence and reason that it bore all the hallmarks of a conspiracy nutter's observations. I apologise unreservedly for lumping you in with the conspiracy camp, when I should have recognised that you were making a throwaway comment on a situation you didn't really understand.
I got what you were
trying
to say, but what you were trying to say made no sense at all - but hey, maybe if I take your advice and lighten up, then things like intelligence and reason won't matter any more. Gosh, it must be fun to be you!
Nutter's observation is right!
Give it a rest will you and get over yourself.
I know we're not pedants here, but the first line of my response, BBC LDN, I put:
Government's tend to shift to the right though when stuff like this happens (
except
in Spain after the Madrid bombings), so it may favour the Republicans anyway.
To which you then said:
You mentioned Spain after the Madrid bombings - but that's a good example of people in fact voting for change in a time of crisis, which you suggested doesn't happen.
Anyway, thanks for reiterating my point: this terrorist incident wouldn't help the Democrats anyway.
I've never seen such an excessively overblown story in my life.
Yes, cargo planes filled with bombs cleverly disguised as everyday objects. Not worth worrying about is it.
If you read beyond the headlines you get things like this... UK Home Secretary Theresa May said, "The target
may
have been an aircraft and,
had it
detonated, the aircraft
could have
been brought down". It sounds like she doesn't know.