The bombings did NOT affect the Spanish elections

[TrogL]

This needs to be repeated over and over until people get it.

Here's a CNN report.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/14/spain.blasts.election/

Turnout was high at 76 percent with voters seeming to express anger with the government, accusing it of provoking the Madrid attacks by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which most Spaniards opposed.

Conservative Spanish politicans are the ones saying otherwise:

Mariano Rajoy, the Popular Party candidate, conceded defeat saying the election was marred by Thursday's tragic events.

Now I do wish CNN would get their story straight, because they later claim...

The election was thrown wide open by a reported al Qaeda claim that it was responsible for Thursday's Madrid train bombings to punish the government for supporting the Iraq war.

Before Thursday, the Popular Party had been favored to win by a comfortable margin.

Here's a more reasoned (pun intended) analysis:

http://reason.com/links/links031704.shtml

The PP was indeed projected to win a majority in the Spanish Parliament in all the major polls before the March 11 terrorist attacks, which killed over 200 Spaniards and injured more than 1,600. But they were also clearly, already, losing ground relative to their vote totals in 2000, a shift largely attributed to Prime Minister José María Aznar's support for a war in Iraq opposed by as many as 90 percent of Spaniards. The same polls that showed a likely PP victory also showed that over 60 percent of Spanish voters were uneasy with the prospect of the party, regarded even by some supporters as arrogant and unwilling to compromise with others in Parliament, securing an absolute majority. The PP's relatively strong—though still depressed—showing in May's municipal elections relied on the predominance in the public mind of the local, domestic economic issues that are the PP's unquestionable strength. With some 30 percent of Spanish voters polling undecided or refusing to give a preference as of early March, the PP advantage was already somewhat shaky.

...

The election has brought to power a candidate who now says that "beating terror" will be his top priority—hardly a clear victory for Al Qaeda, except for those unable to distinguish between the war on terror and the occupation of Iraq. The electoral motives that led to this result are ambiguous and complex. So why have so many been quick to cry "appeasement"?

...

It is hard to suppress the suspicion that much of the criticism of Spaniards we're now seeing is ultimately, if indirectly, about the U.S. election. Fail to support Bush, whispers the subtext of these critiques, and you might as well be some sort of Spaniard.

I'll take that as a compliment.

A New York Times editorial agrees:

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/03/baba5f94-5776-4364-b261-4d589099795c.html

But it is "patently unfair to accuse Spanish voters of appeasing terrorists. They were voting against Jose Maria Aznar because he dragged Spain into a war opposed by 90 percent of the population, and because he tried to withhold the truth about the terror attack to bolster his political chances."

Here's Sophia Perez from Counterpunch

http://www.counterpunch.org/perez03312004.html

The reversal in Spain's stance is the entirely predictable consequence of the way in which the conservative government of the Popular Party (PP) took the country into the war. And that government's demise was boosted not by the horrific attacks themselves but by the way the PP responded to the crisis in the short interval leading up to the election, which turned on an all to evident manipulation of the very issue of "terrorism" and served to return the issue of the war to center stage.

When the government of Jose Maria Aznar chose to join the US's preemptive war in Iraq, polls showed that near 90 percent of the Spanish public strongly opposed that war. Millions demonstrated against the government's decision in the streets of Madrid and virtually every other Spanish city. Aznar's choice to ignore this unprecedented expression of public opposition was praised by George Bush as a sign of courage. Yet in Spain it was seen by most as an act of utmost arrogance by an elected government. When the time came to send troops to Iraq, the government's complete lack of backing forced it to limit its deployment to a force of just over a thousand troops in order to limit public outrage. From the military standpoint, Spain's participation thus ended up being little more than symbolic. Yet politically it played an important part in undermining Europe's ability to present a coherent position that, however it might have been arrived at, would have reflected the overwhelming feeling of its citizens.

The PP's popularity dropped significantly in most of Spain after the invasion of Iraq, and it was expected to loose the absolute majority it gained in the 2000 elections.

Hence we can see that any discussion of Spain's elections that miss these very real points:

• 90 percent of the Spanish public strongly opposed the Iraq war
  
• ignoring the protest by millions was seen as arrogant
  
• predictions were for, at best, a minority government
  

...is disingenuous at best and outright lying at worst.

[LynzM]

1. I halfway agree.

If anything, they affected them 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:

[CJCRANE]

2. The Conservatives LYING...

and accusing ETA of the Madrid bombings was what turned more of the electorate against them.

[cspiguy]

3. that's pretty delusional - Aznan got spanked because of the bombing

which happened because of support of the U.S.

(FBI) Coming to a train station near you, this summer folks!

[CHIMO]

4. No Exactly

My understanding of the situation.

As I understood it one of the promises that the present government made in their campaign was that they would bring the troops home. Up to the bombing the government looked like it would win.
When the bombing happened the government tried to pin the blame on the separatists which would make the opposition look bad because they wanted to open more lines of communication with the separatists. When it leaked out that the government was spinning the story and hiding mid-east involvement in the bombing the tide changed and they turfed the gang out.

[leftyandproud]

5. I'm afraid...

it did...polls showed conservatives winning handily...the socialists promised a complete withdrawal from Iraq and they won a huge victory because of it. People finally came to their senses...shame it took such a heavy toll to make them see things clearly.

[bullimiami]

6. Maybe the polls were??????WRONG?

Polling can not be trusted. You should know that by now. The proof is in the counting.
Remember when the Polls had Bushco winning in 2000 by like 5 or mor percent? Wrong.
You have to remember who controlls the press controls the media polling as well.