Admittedly, there are a ton of variables involved, but I suspect that if there is another attack here, and there are any significant casualties (men, women, and children killed in a shopping mall or at a sporting event, or some such) the inclination will be to support the candidate that has been active in fighting against terrorists, not the one that has stated that the threat of terrorism is exaggerated.
And again, my opinion is that the country is not quite as closely divided as the MSM would like you to believe. Perhaps all of this is simply 'projection' on my part. I find it hard to believe that the electorate could be inclined to support Kerry over Bush ... I just don't think there are that many stupid people in the country. But, I've been wrong before (see "The 90's).
The difference between the U.S. and Spain is quite stark when it comes to this kind of thing. If a Madrid-style attack against the U.S. were to occur in the weeks before the November election, the public reaction would be the exact opposite -- and not necessarily in a good way. Under such a scenario, the sitting President could virtually assure his re-election (by a 538-0 margin in the electoral college, no less) by selecting a random Islamic capital (regardless of that nation's connection to the attack here in the U.S.) and turning it into a smoking ruins.
Don't get me wrong friend. I am inclined to agree with you, but I don;t have anywhere near the certainty that I wouild like.
You are correct in all your observations and it makes logical sense. Then again, almost 1/2 the population, it seems, is lost in hand wringing, doubt, fear, self-blame, etc. With that many wildcards out there, I take nothing for granted.
Keep the faith!