Well it might not be something on the level of a nuclear attack that has them worried. It could be something as (relatively) small as a few bombs on trains in one city just before the election like Spain. An emotionally charged atmosphere might cause the ever-present "undecideds" to throw their vote to someone they would not have otherwise voted for. Furthermore, if whatever-it-is happens on a city-wide scale or affects several large cities, there may be great difficulty in arranging logistics for the election in those particular places. Sure the rest of us could still vote, but then what do we do about everyone else? Let them vote later, after the results have been reported for the rest of the country?
I can see some rational reasons for delaying the election. Doesn't mean I'd be happy about it though. Who's to say that under another administration a localized natural disaster wouldn't be grounds for a delay. Or under a particularly corrupt administration, that a "disaster" couldn't be manufactured to buy time for a candidate for some reason or other.
Something to ponder.
Billdo and Shrillery would both do it in a flash.
One of the incredible things about the Kommie Left . . . they are
not only full of sh*t,
they are full of duplicity, projection.
The project onto Bush the things that are 2nd nature to themselves.
I got upset this am when I heard on FNC the dims are wondering if elections should be delayed!
Indeed it is. After the Rats complaining in Florida in 2000, all it would take is a thunderstorm over a polling place [much less a terrorist act] to get the Rats to challenge the election at the Supreme Court.
IMO it is not the seriousness of the attack, but that there IS an attack of some kind to throw the results into challenge mode by the losing party.....