Under what circumstances would a nuclear strike on American soil tend to help or hurt an incumbent president?
-
Show this thread
-
Theory points to two opposite answers btw
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @profmusgrave
Do we have any actual cases of an attack of any sort harming a President in the near term? If war precipitated by such attack drags on inconclusively, yes, but the attack itself?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dburbach @profmusgrave
Rally effect in such cases -- as opposed to generic "POTUS uses force far away for some reason" -- seems very, very strong.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @dburbach
Bush was at, essentially, 100% approval ratings after 9/11. Which was a massive policy failure!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @profmusgrave @dburbach
Benghazi arguably hurt Obama (and later Clinton). Though that wasn't on US soil, and much smaller-scale than a hypothetical nuclear attack. For your original question, I think I'm going to wimp out and say it'd be too much of an outlier. Also probably varies with the president.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81 @dburbach
did benghazi have that effect *in the short term* or only once it had been the subject of the hearings etc? honest q.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Benghazi attack was 9/11/12. Obama overall approval rating, and rating on foreign affairs, don't appear to show any lasting negative effect. I also checked Gallup's weekly numbers: 9/9/12: 50% 9/16: 50% 9/23: 49% 9/30: 48% 10/7: 52% No short-term effect either.pic.twitter.com/4FNl24WUc7
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.