Nice conundrum
Nice premise set-up and absolutely worthy of the typical level of reasoning and fair and balanced discourse displayed routinely on the DU.
Option 1:
The "administration" doesn't plan for an attack and people in major metro areas (most likely high concetration targets and most Democrat controlled, think Washington, Chicago etc.) and the people don't get to vote on election day.
Some bridges blow up or a couple of polling places are taken out by truck bombs etc., then everyone on the left jumps up and starts screaming that they are being denied their franchise by an evil, facist administration that didn't adequately plan for this.
Option 1 NY TIme headline reads:
"Bush forbids plans for protecting polling places, homeless and minorities hardest hit"
Option 2:
They do plan for every possible contingency of the election being disrupted in some way and make arrangements to allow people to cast their vote, even belatedly under any circumstances.
Option 2 NY Time headline reads:
"Bush desparate to stay to power, tried to cancel elections"
I want them to have implementable contingency plans for every possible, although improbable, eventuality. That's what we pay those pinheads for.
If they really wanted to postpone/cancel the election to stay in power do you really think they would open discussions on it now? Trial baloon my foot, they would shut their mouth and just do it.
Or are you of the MIHOP or LIHOP persuasion and everything that has happened since 2000 is all part of the secret Neocon plot?
My own personal point of view, if they do try an attack of any kind, it will provide the largest US voter turnout in history and give them the opposite of the results they were hoping for.
It doesn't pay to tick off the American people or try to control us. You want to see sheep, go to Spain or France, they have plenty in the fields and the halls of government.