The Volokh Conspiracy - The Big November Surprise: Saddam?--

As I write this on Saturday, Nov. 4, I can't help but think that we might be in for a big November surprise that may bode ill for the Republicans in the 2006. The focus of the news on Sunday and Monday might look very different than it does today.

According to news reports, the verdict in the first of many Saddam Hussein trials is due tomorrow, the Sunday just before the US elections:

U.S. and Iraqi forces drastically tightened security across Baghdad on Saturday in advance of the expected guilty verdict against Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi prime minister said he hoped the ousted dictator will "get what he deserves." . . .

The highly anticipated verdict, planned for Sunday, is expected to set off further bloodshed, underscoring the trial's failure to bring reconciliation to a country fractured ever deeper along sectarian lines.

Lawyers for Saddam have asked for a delay in the verdict, which if granted might push the verdict to a date after the November US election.

NOT GUILTY:

If a verdict of "Not Guilty" is rendered on Sunday, that would be an obvious public relations disaster for the Bush administration, even though Saddam would be tried on other grounds. The Republicans would be likely to lose a lot of support in the voting booth.

GUILTY:

If the verdict is "Guilty," as expected for Sunday, there are a number of possibly bad consequences for the Republicans in any event.

First, it will look to many voters as if the Republicans orchestrated the verdict to come down immediately before the U.S. November election, especially if the Democrats and the Monday talk show hosts publicly accuse the Republicans of just such a move. While I don't think the Administration is necessarily above playing politics in such a way, I don't think that Karl Rove and company would be foolish enough to schedule a verdict so close to the US election, even if such an outcome were within their control.

Second, a reminder of just how slow progress has been in Iraq would not help the Republicans, just as Jimmy Carter's attempt to influence the 1980 election with a last-minute claim that an Iranian hostage deal was imminent backfired on him, though such a strategy had worked beautifully before each major primary in the spring of 1980 to help him defeat Ted Kennedy.

Third — and most important — a verdict of guilty is expected by many to lead to considerable unrest in Iraq, and perhaps an orgy of violence. If that happens, the press will — and should — cover the violence extensively. I wouldn't expect the press to downplay any significant increase in violence in the way that they did the Bin Laden message sent on the eve of the 2004 election (most major news organizations never disclosed that Bin Laden appeared to be threatening states that voted for Bush). If riots or mass murders in Iraq dominate the news on Sunday and Monday, it could spell real trouble for the Republicans.

	[Jim Lindgren, November 4, 2006 at 12:20pm] Trackbacks The Big November Surprise: Saddam?-- As I write this on Saturday, Nov. 4, I can't help but think that we might be in for a big November surprise that may bode ill for the Republicans in the 2006. The focus of the news on Sunday and Monday might look very different than it does today. According to news reports, the verdict in the first of many Saddam Hussein trials is due tomorrow, the Sunday just before the US elections: U.S. and Iraqi forces drastically tightened security across Baghdad on Saturday in advance of the expected guilty verdict against Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi prime minister said he hoped the ousted dictator will "get what he deserves." . . . The highly anticipated verdict, planned for Sunday, is expected to set off further bloodshed, underscoring the trial's failure to bring reconciliation to a country fractured ever deeper along sectarian lines. Lawyers for Saddam have asked for a delay in the verdict, which if granted might push the verdict to a date after the November US election. NOT GUILTY: If a verdict of "Not Guilty" is rendered on Sunday, that would be an obvious public relations disaster for the Bush administration, even though Saddam would be tried on other grounds. The Republicans would be likely to lose a lot of support in the voting booth. GUILTY: If the verdict is "Guilty," as expected for Sunday, there are a number of possibly bad consequences for the Republicans in any event. First, it will look to many voters as if the Republicans orchestrated the verdict to come down immediately before the U.S. November election, especially if the Democrats and the Monday talk show hosts publicly accuse the Republicans of just such a move. While I don't think the Administration is necessarily above playing politics in such a way, I don't think that Karl Rove and company would be foolish enough to schedule a verdict so close to the US election, even if such an outcome were within their control. Second, a reminder of just how slow progress has been in Iraq would not help the Republicans, just as Jimmy Carter's attempt to influence the 1980 election with a last-minute claim that an Iranian hostage deal was imminent backfired on him, though such a strategy had worked beautifully before each major primary in the spring of 1980 to help him defeat Ted Kennedy. Third — and most important — a verdict of guilty is expected by many to lead to considerable unrest in Iraq, and perhaps an orgy of violence. If that happens, the press will — and should — cover the violence extensively. I wouldn't expect the press to downplay any significant increase in violence in the way that they did the Bin Laden message sent on the eve of the 2004 election (most major news organizations never disclosed that Bin Laden appeared to be threatening states that voted for Bush). If riots or mass murders in Iraq dominate the news on Sunday and Monday, it could spell real trouble for the Republicans.