Reply #7: Sounds about right to me.

[July]

But I think the most significant point is the government's manipulation of information about the attack. The Aznar govt. pushed the idea that it was the Basques from the beginning, contacting journalists, trying to get a UN statement against the Basques. It suppressed information to the contrary, which came out the night before the election. This probably influenced the turnout, which was significantly higher than in the previous election. I was told by one Spanish friend that many young people who would have voted for smaller parties or stayed home decided to vote against Aznar when the govt. manipulation of info came out. Another friend reported that a journalist we know in common told her specifically that he had been called by govt. reps trying to sell the "It was the Basques" story.

In addition, no polls may be taken in the week before the election. The gap was closing, and perhaps became even closer during that last week (which included the attack). It may have already been a toss-up.

Also, Zapatero had promised since last year that he would withdraw the troops in Iraq if elected -- his promise was well-known, and not a sudden reaction to the attack. Perhaps the attack swung some votes to him because of that promise, but he already had a good deal of support, as you point out. Aznar's arrogance in trying to sell the attack as a Basque effort was, IMO, the most important influence on the election, though. People were angry at him, and they took the opportunity to vote him out (Spaniards don't have to register ahead of time to vote, they can just show up at the polls with their national identity card).

I got my information from Spanish TV, newspapers, and friends.