3 ms·

You're downvoted but I don't think you're wrong. In general it seems to be the case that if you're waging a war and you're not getting completely crushed the el

by smcl 4y ago

You're downvoted but I don't think you're wrong. In general it seems to be the case that if you're waging a war and you're not getting completely crushed the electorate (or at least the "undecided" voters") tends to rally around whoever happens to be in charge. And indeed I think it's fairly safe to say that most agree that Thatcher benefitted electorally from a strong response to the invasion. I should add that as a Scot I'm definitely not a fan of hers (you just grow up there knowing "Thatcher Bad") but I'm not quite at "put a stake through her heart and garlic round her neck"[0] :) [0] - https://twitter.com/halaljew/status/1294414600566382598 https://twitter.com/halaljew/status/1294414600566382598

raspberry1337 4y ago
Gulf war didn't save Senior Bush from the bad-economy, neither did the Iraq War help Tony Blair's popularity. It's a lot more complex than war-helps-current-leader, at least outside the US. It depends on the war and the context.
- smcl 4y ago
  Fair point, these are actually great counterexamples
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    They are. That war was also unusual in that it was an attack on a country far away that wasn’t a threat to the US or UK, and there was little to be gained. It was a strange time.