It's okay though, because the gallup polls still have Bush leading, and gaining in Minnesota and Pennsylvania, and borderline in some other crucial states (including my state of NY).

Though it is interesting to see the pessimism here related to the terror warnings.

He's winning PA by 1 point and MN by 2 with a margin of error at 3. -Pat

Readers of my past comments will rightly surmise that I'm not a Bush supporter. However, based on the graph above, I believe Bush will win because the simple strategy of issuing "terror alerts" or pulling some other security-related event just before the election (if necessary) will push him over the top. The government can manipulate at least 5-10 points of presidential approval. This doesn't say much for my fellow Americans.

When the Terror Alert level increases, presumably it's because we've received "credible" and "specific" information that we perceive as a threat. I understand the somewhat loose cause-and-effect relationship between those events.

Why does the alert level go down? What's the causal relationship that precipitates that action? The realization that the information was NOT "credible?"

I like to think the alert level goes down because somewhere in the world, people with a certain moral flexibility were dispatached to validate the information, identify the threat, got "wet" and "painted some houses" thereby eliminating the threat.

In my addled little brain, I want to believe it happens just like in the movies...

tony b.

When has the alert gone down? It has remained the same or increased. I don't believe it has ever gone down.

So if we attack another country just before the election, Bush is re-elected. If the Democrats can muster up a terror alert, Kerry gets elected. Curiouser and curiouser.

I think another terror alert also bodes well for the president. There are numerous things that would increase his re-electability, among them capturing a high ranking terrorist, an actual attack, and another alert like the one that listed Prudential, Citigroup, etc...

Don't know if I am understanding correctly most of your posts. (too early I guess :p ). A terror alert (not an attack), I think will bode well for the President, as it would give the impression that he is "on his toes" and trying to protect us. However, if another terror attack occurs, I see the total opposite...that he is NOT protecting us. Also, if we attack yet another country, I can't see how that will help him either.

In any case, I think the terror alert level will be "elevated" for many more years to come, if not indefinitely. This isn't over by a longshot, even "if" we were to pack it in, send troops home and end it now. (not implying necessarily that's what we should do, but if we did)

TIS

I swear that the level was reduced to yellow at one point, though I can't remember the exact date.

Pat - that refers to Kerry's stats with registered voters. Bush is still leading when polled by likely voters.