Explosion in madrid

[Bernadotte 0]

Your saying that the election results is not a reaction to the bombing is equally pointless as saying that the bombing was not the reaction to the Iraq war but that it was the reaction of the universe being created.

I didn't say that "the election result is not a reaction to the bombing."  I only said that I disagree with the way you present the terrorism as an action and the election results as a reaction.  By that, I meant that I disagreed with removing this AQ bombing from its Iraqi context.  The AQ bombing was a result of Spain's participation in Iraq and the election result was a reaction to Iraq AND the resultant AQ bombing.

I never said that it was the single decisive parameter.

No??  Then what was this?

I don't look at other parameters of the equation, just one and I can say that the terrorist attack parameter was decisive (all other parameters kept unchanged).

It's not a simplification it's an encapsulation. It's a very common technique used in electrical engineering to analyze signals and systems.

If the 2nd <s>simplification</s> encapsulation equals the 1st then why is there no connection between Iraq War and Terrorist Attack in the 2nd as you've shown in the 1st?

[denoir 0]

I never said that it was the single decisive parameter.

No??  Then what was this?

I don't look at other parameters of the equation, just one and I can say that the terrorist attack parameter was decisive (all other parameters kept unchanged).

It's exactly what it says. Read it a couple of times more and perhaps you'll get it.

Quote[/b] ]

It's not a simplification it's an encapsulation. It's a very common technique used in electrical engineering to analyze signals and systems.

http://denoir.ma.cx/ofp/blackbox.jpg

If the 2nd <s>simplification</s> encapsulation equals the 1st then why is there no connection between Iraq War and Terrorist Attack in the 2nd as you've shown in the 1st?

There are connections - encapsulated in the box called "black box 1". It's quite simple and very general. I don't look at the transfer function, I look at the input/output signals. I don't care what's in the black box and what internal relations exist there. In this case a terrorist attack took place for reasons that I don't care about and I'm looking at how it affects the election results which are the output of another black box.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Those who say "Al Qaida terrorists won after the election results in Spain." are completly mis-reading the situation in spanish politics.

This is my reading of the situation

Spanish voters voted against the following factors:

1) Socialist voters voted against a conservative government (normal they do it all the time) they are about 80% of those who voted for the incoming socialist government.

2) Anti War voters voted against a warmongering conservative governments (exactly as expected) they composed about 10% of those who voted against the conservatives these were radicalised persons, mostly young, angry enough to change from their none voting normal activity inorder to remove a threat by voting against the conservatives who took their geographical region in to needless war.

3) People, many conservative voters, who were angry at being lied to by the old Spanish government about the Iraq war and the threat of WMD they comprised about 5% of the vote against the conservatives (but you also need to include the people who abstained from voting conservative as a reduction of the conservative vote.)

4) People, many conservative voters, who were angry at being lied to by the old Spanish government about the bombing being ETA they comprised about 4.5% of the vote against the conservatives

6) People made a mistake and ticked the wrong box comprise about 0.4999 percent of the vote

7) People who are afraid of Al Qaida before the bombing enough to change their voting patern and voted against the conservatives comprised about 0.00009% of the electorate

8) People who are afraid of Al Qaida after the bombing enough to change their voting patern and voted against the conservatives comprised about 0.00001% of the electorate.

More voters came out to vote because they were radicalised by an uneeded war. Plain fact look at the number of voters.

More voters came out to support democracy at the election after the bombing than would have before it. Plain fact look at the number of voters. Those voters voted against conservatives and against socialists but most importantly they voted.

Those who decry the Spanish voters, for voting to remove their troops, if TBA and TBA2 do not allow the UN to run all aspects of Iraq, do not understand what a representative democracy is; and such decriers would be far happier living under a communist totalitarian state or Sadam than living in a democracy as they do now.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Walker, those numbers, are they actually from a source or did you just make them up?

[walker 0]

Walker, those numbers, are they actually from a source or did you just make them up?  

Hi Denoir

READ THE POST!

top of the page I quote myself

Quote[/b] ] This is my reading of the situation

My Figures my estimates.

My analysis of types which I hold with.

The figures may be incorrect all though when the real survey comes out I am guessing they will be real close to what happened.

Three things are known facts though.

The needless war in Iraq radicalised many people who would not normaly vote. They made a significant effect on the vote this has been sampled and proved.

The bombing increased the democratic turnout and thus increased democracy it did not decrease it.

Exit polls showed many changed their vote as a result of the old government lieing about ETA

Kind Regards Walker

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

A sentiment socialists are reported (BBC radio 4) to have expressed before the bombings is that they were not expecting to win but were hoping realistically only to significantly lessen the PP majority. This combined with the polls and general mood before the bombings leads me to believe that without the bombings the PP would have acheived an electoral victory. One effect the bombings had was that of polarising opinion and shocking Spaniards out of apathy and into voting in higher numbers than previously (showing their faith in the democratic system). This has had the effect of favouring the young who are a particular base of socialist support over older, traditionally conservative, regular voters.

Another factor in the socialist victory is of course the bad handling of the investigation just before the election which certainly did not make the Popular Party any more popular. There was of course widespead dissatisfaction with Spains support of the war in Iraq but the polls (and my gut feeling) suggest that this would not have had the effect of massively swinging voters in favour of the socialists without the mobilising effect of the bombing.

I too would be interested in where you got those figures Walker, but at this point i must disagree with your assessment that the bombers did not swing the vote. Whether or not it was Al Quaida (which it now looks to be) they had the effect of changing the nature, context and level of passion in the election in a most drastic way.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Walker- "The bombing increased the democratic turnout and thus increased democracy it did not decrease it."

If you admit that the bombing increased turnout in the election, possibly (and in my opinion) in a vital way for the socialist victory how can you still claim

"Al Qaida terrorists won after the election results in Spain." is a misreading of Spanish politics?

Surely a bombing just before an election is not a legitimate way of increasing voter turnout or in any way influencing democracy.

An effect on an election result brought about by massive slaughter of the voters does not strike me as an increase in democracy.

[Postduifje 0]

1) Socialist voters voted against a conservative government (normal they do it all the time) they are about 80% of those who voted for the incoming socialist government.

But the PP (conservative party of Aznar&co) was leading the polls before the attacks. You're saying the fact the attacks occured were of no significance to 80% of the socialist voters, but still the mood managed to swing around in a week time

[walker 0]

Hi IsthatyouJohnWayne

Because the factor was not the bombing but the lieing about the bombing.

I agree with you the election would have been close because of the radicalised people who voted. I think maybe the socialists would have won anyway.

If the increase in voters had not been lied to they would probably voted for the old government. That is what the polls before and after show.

As I said there were two major factors at play.

Radicalised people increasing the electorate, something George Bush Jnr. must also take into account.

An electorate that feels lied to will vote against an incumbant also something George Bush Jnr.will have to take account of.

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

1) Socialist voters voted against a conservative government (normal they do it all the time) they are about 80% of those who voted for the incoming socialist government.

But the PP (conservative party of Aznar&co) was leading the polls before the attacks. You're saying the fact the attacks occured were of no significance to 80% of the socialist voters, but still the mood managed to swing around in a week time  

Hi Postduifje

It is called your core voters

Kind Regards Walker

[Postduifje 0]

Hi Postduifje

It is called your core voters

Kind Regards Walker

I know what you ment, but you can't deny the numbers:

Election result:

PSOE:43%

PP: 37%

As your view of the situation says:

The people who voted PSOE but would voted it regardless of the attacks:

80% of PSOE voters who were core voters

10 + 5% who changed there votes because the Iraq war

That calculated over the 43% makes: 34,4 + 6,5 = 40,9% PSOE voters.

The people who would vote PP without attacks:

4,5% of the current PSOE voters who would than not been lied to.

100% of the current PP voter who voted it even with the attacks (37% of total voters)

ticking the wrong box goes bothways

that would make a total of 0,045*0,43 + 0,37 = 38,9% PP voters.

---

But than why were PP leading the polls if without the attacks PSOE were winning anyhow?

(hopes this makes a bit sense )

[brgnorway 0]

Surely a bombing just before an election is not a legitimate way of increasing voter turnout or in any way influencing democracy.

An effect on an election result brought about by massive slaughter of the voters does not strike me as an increase in democracy.  

I beg to differ due to the fact that voters always react to what affects their society. Would you rather see the voters stay apathic to such an incident? However, it could just as well have turned out differently had the prime minister not lied about where to put the blame. People are not stupid, because of the train bombing they are assured that the former governments policy in the war against terror have failed. Is it a bad thing then that voters turned to the ballots?

[walker 0]

Surely a bombing just before an election is not a legitimate way of increasing voter turnout or in any way influencing democracy.

An effect on an election result brought about by massive slaughter of the voters does not strike me as an increase in democracy.  

Hi IsthatyouJohnWayne

More people voted. Fact.

They voted in defiance of the bombers. Fact

They voted against liers. Fact

People are alowed to vote on an administrations record you know.

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi Postduifje

A very clear post.

Your missing out abstainers probably a couple of percent of the old administration's voters, those who were angry at being lied to by the old administration but could not bring themselves to vote against them.

Polls are usualy out on the electorate by 2 to 3 percent.

That I believe covers it.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Walker, those numbers, are they actually from a source or did you just make them up?  

Hi Denoir

READ THE POST!

top of the page I quote myself

Quote[/b] ] This is my reading of the situation

My Figures my estimates.

My analysis of types which I hold with.

Yes I read it, but I had to ask you to make sure. I did not expect you to be a person to post such things.

Making up quanititative estimates like that is not good. Unless you have some measurements to back the claims with, you shouldn't even be thinking in those terms, much less posting it in pubilc. It is beyond my comperhension that you would even consider posting something so pointless and off-beat.

Quote[/b] ]

The figures may be incorrect all though when the real survey comes out I am guessing they will be real close to what happened.

And you are basing that guess on what? Woman's intuition?

Quote[/b] ]Three things are known facts though.

The needless war in Iraq radicalised many people who would not normaly vote. They made a significant effect on the vote this has been sampled and proved.

[*] No. As the pre-election polls showed that not enough people objected of the Iraq war (or better to say considered it a deciding election issue) to overthrow Anzar.

Quote[/b] ]The bombing increased the democratic turnout and thus increased democracy it did not decrease it.

[*] My reply to this would be the same thing as IsthatyouJohnWayne's.

Quote[/b] ]Exit polls showed many changed their vote as a result of the old government lieing about ETA

[*] Yes, I agree that this influenced big time.

The overall issue is however not why they did it, but did the terrorist attack lead to a government change? Does that government change mean fulfilling some important goals of the terrorists? The answer is as far as we can tell today, yes and yes. The difference in the pre-attack and post attack polls shows that the attack and surrounding events had a big impact on the election results. The second one is a bit more tricky.

The thing is that AQ and the majority of the Spanish/Europeans share the same opinion that the Iraq war was bad. Spain withdraws, not because of AQ, but because the majority was against the war. It just happens to be the same goal which AQ has. Combine those two and you see a murderous manipulation of the elections. It was hardly a coincidence that they attacked right before parliamentary elections. This effect could have been predicted and I don't doubt that AQ has fairly advanced strategic planning. Ultimately this is a boot in the ass to USA who now lost one of its most important partners in the Iraq war. Overall, I would not be too surprised that this was the goal of the attack.

[Postduifje 0]

Yeah, I know there are some facts not included. The turnout of 77% was higher than 4 years ago, also higher than expected. That wasn't included, as was the fact that polls are never an accurate prediction. But they are often close anyhow, and the difference was just one week, in which all public appereances of the candidates were cancelled in the last 3 days. A shame I don't know the actual pollresult before the attacks, but I seem to remember they predicted a clear victory for PP.

[walker 0]

Hi Denoir

My post is as a valid an interpretation as any.

Your black box does not take in to account all imputs or outputs, I still think it is a valid model just oversimplified.

I do think my analysis is more correct and if you were to include those imputs and outputs in your model it would be more accurate.

We are after all dealing with a richer picture than a simple black box.

As to the figures they are my interpretation I based them on figures for exit polls, polls before the election and election results by all means use different estimates but give your reasons.

As to my analysis I hold with it please convince me otherwise.

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi Denoir

The One thing I do dispute is that the bombing altered the election resuts.

It did not.

I put to you that it only increased the number of voters.

I put to you that it was the lieing that caused about a 4.5 percent shift of voters to the new administration not the bombing and that this is what caused the shift observed from the pre election polls to what happened after the lieing about the bombing.

It was the lieing that altered the election results and a lieing politician has always been a valid and honoured reason to alter an election result.

Kind Regards Walker

[Tanaska 0]

Hi Walker,

I have studied closely these events and have drawn upon many sources to create a well-rounded reply to your statistical report.

The people of Spain had to make a choice: confront the bully, or run away. It was made very clear that they ran away.

The popular party was going to cruise to victory. The bombing turned the election on its head.

My read of election:

43% voted: "Please daddy make the bad man go away!!"

37% voted: "Let's find out where the bad man lives and confront him"

18% voted: "I always vote for my party"

10% voted: "The socialist is cute, like Mr. Bean."

.00000000001% voted: With bombs on trains

source: myself, volume 36, page 123

Note: if percentages add up to more than 100%, please ignore.

As you can see, those who voted with bombs, rather than ballots decided outcome more than anyone else.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]

43% voted: "Please daddy make the bad man go away!!"

37% voted: "Let's find out where the bad man lives and confront him"

18% voted: "I always vote for my party"

10% voted: "The socialist is cute, like Mr. Bean."

.00000000001% voted: With bombs on trains

I'm sure there are many spanish who would appreciate your view on their opinions which lead to the election result. Your ridiculing tone will be a certain hit!

I'll remember that you talked like that when a bomb blasts your family to pieces  

[bn880 5]

Tanaska, I hope you did mean that as an over simplified joke. I think you need to do a lot more analysis than Walker. For example 47% did not vote to run away, majority of people stuck to the part they thought was best, socialist VS popular, you know there are other issues besides Iraq and explosions. The explosions may have sriously changed the minds of 15% of the population as to voting, tops!

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]

43% voted: "Please daddy make the bad man go away!!"

37% voted: "Let's find out where the bad man lives and confront him"

18% voted: "I always vote for my party"

10% voted: "The socialist is cute, like Mr. Bean."

.00000000001% voted: With bombs on trains

I'm sure there are many spanish who would appreciate your view on their opinions which lead to the election result. Your ridiculing tone will be a certain hit!

I'll remember that you talked like that when a bomb blasts your family to pieces  

He's talking about the unfounded claims made by walker, and I could not agree more with him. As a matter of fact I was to post a similar thing but never got around to do it. He's not making fun of the Spanish elections, he's making fun of Walker's unfounded numerical values. I do not see how that would be disrespectful to Spain.

Walker

Quote[/b] ]The One thing I do dispute is that the bombing altered the election resuts.

It did not.

I put to you that it only increased the number of voters.

I put to you that it was the lieing that caused about a 4.5 percent shift of voters to the new administration not the bombing and that this is what caused the shift observed from the pre election polls to what happened after the lieing about the bombing.

It was the lieing that altered the election results and a lieing politician has always been a valid and honoured reason to alter an election result.

Walker, first of all don't post numbers that you don't have any way of knowing. Is this what our debates have come to? When we don't have the numbers, we make up some?   You don't have the information to make an educated guess, so please don't give me fictive numbers.

And yes I agree with you that the result was probably due to Anzar and his merry men trying to pin it on ETA. That would have however never happened if there was no terrorist attack. As I've said at least ten times now the only thing we look at is the terrorist attack and the election results. All the connections inbetween and events that followed are irrelevant as their source is the attack. In short AQ killed a lot of people and that triggered a number of events which in the end led to a government change in Spain that AQ can only be pleased with. They wanted Spain out of Iraq and thanks to their mass muder, they got what they wanted.

[shinRaiden 0]

Are there caves near Granada? I don't know if Bin Laden would be quite comfortable living in the old Moorish castles of Andalusia. It would be so much better if they'd just invade instead of purging the populace. Yeah, the spanish only let them take what they could carry and no valuables when they fled in 1492, but they let them go. In order to prevent a future reoccurance of the 'Great Catastrophe' though, the Neo-Caliphate would need to control the entire Iberian peninsula. Maybe, instead of the first suspect, ETA and AZF will turn into Spain's last refuge, their version of the Alamo.

The other big black spot on their history was the defeat at Vienna. Haven't heard much threats on that camp, but Poland got warned by He-who-would-be-king.

BTW, o-sama in Japanese means honorable king.

[bn880 5]

And yes I agree with you that the result was probably due to Anzar and his merry men trying to pin it on ETA. That would have however never happened if there was no terrorist attack. As I've said at least ten times now the only thing we look at is the terrorist attack and the election results. All the connections inbetween and events that followed are irrelevant as their source is the attack. In short AQ killed a lot of people and that triggered a number of events which in the end led to a government change in Spain that AQ can only be pleased with. They wanted Spain out of Iraq and thanks to their mass muder, they got what they wanted.

No. That's what you look at, not most other people. The series of events prior to the train attack is the Iraq war, and how many Spanish people already were opposed to it. Had there been no Iraq war the election event would not have been affected by [train attack by Alqaea], what we have now did affect the results: [iraq war, train attack by Alqaeda] or:[iraq war, train attack by Alqaeda, claim it was ETA]

You can not disconnect Iraq war from train attack. I mean you can, but I can't.

[walker 0]

Hi Tanaska

Your obvious support of Al Qaida must cheer them up. After their bombing failed to alter the the spanish elections. Such statements as yours offer Al Qaida nothing but succour.

The Spanish have more courage than you

Quote[/b] ]The bombing sent voters rushing to the polling stations, producing at one point a 7% increase in turnout on previous elections,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1170084,00.html They do not run from their democracy.

The Socialist believe the war on Iraq to have been a strategic error of monumental proportion as do I. All the evidence bears this out. I invite you to contribute to Iraq thread as to why the war was anything but stupid.

The Socialists have said they will pull out of Iraq and only if the TBA and TBA2 do not allow UN to run the situation. The Socialists will do this because the Iraq war was needless. The war on Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. The Socialists still support the war on terrorism

The spanish voted against the old administration because it lied.

The old spanish administration lied about Iraq.

The old spanish administration lied about who was responcible for the Madrid bombings.

The lieing about the bombing cost The old spanish administration about 4.5% of the vote.

The lieing about the Iraq war cost The old spanish administration about 10% of the vote.

A 10 percent shift in the US elections which now looks likely would be a landslide

Both The Bush Administration and The Blair Administration need to take notice.

Electorates remove liars.

Kind Regards Walker