Could bin Laden save McCain?

AFP/Getty Images

With less than three weeks left in the presidential campaign, the conventional wisdom seems to be that barring some unforseen event, voters’ economic worries will propel Barack Obama into the White House. But, unpleasant as it may be to think about, speculation has begun about what effect an “October surprise” from al Qaeda, along the lines of bin Laden’s 2004 video, might have on the race. 

In a new piece for ForeignPolicy.com, I look at a recent study of the effect of terrorist attacks on election outcomes in Israel, a data-rich environment for this kind of research: 

The report attributes the Israeli right’s advantage on terrorism to its hawkish stance and opposition to concessions to Palestinian demands. “When terrorism reaches a certain level, voters conclude that there’s no alternative but to toughen up,” Berrebi says.

Surprisingly, who was in charge when terrorist attacked occurred had little effect on the outcomes. The study found that left-wing incumbents tended to lose support after attacks while hawkish right-wing incumbents saw their margins of victory increase. “Voters see attacks during a right-wing government as something inevitable,” Berrebi explains, “whereas under a left-wing incumbent, it’s seen as something that could have been prevented if they had only used tougher antiterrorism policies.”

The study sheds a lot of light on the behavior of voters as well as the terrorists who target them. It also suggests some steps politicians can take to minimize the risk. (Hint: Accusing your opponent of hanging out with terrorists doesn’t help.)