Gerald Seib’s “Capital Journal” column states: “Here’s what appears to be happening, according to people with access to the intelligence on which terror warnings are based. There doesn’t seem to be evidence of any specific al Qaeda plan to disrupt the election itself. Instead, what exists is evidence of a debate under way among al Qaeda operatives about whether to stage terrorist attacks to coincide with the election season, the goal of which wouldn’t be to disrupt the actual voting process but rather to affect its outcome.” (Thanks to Steven Sholk for that link.)
DeForest Soaries, head of the Election Assistance Commission is quoted in today’s BNA Money and Politics Report here (paid subscription required): “‘I cannot conceive of any circumstance … in which a presidential election would be postponed or cancelled,’ Soaries told reporters after an EAC public meeting. Instead, he said, discussions are focusing on how to handle a disruption that might affect a particular city or state. Soaries and his fellow EAC commissioners suggested they have discussed the question of whether a state affected by a catastrophe could postpone voting but still participate in the national elections.” Reuters offers a similar report here.
Roll Call‘s story is here (paid subscription required).
I recorded a commentary on this topic for NPR’s Day-to-Day that should air today (subject to breaking news). UPDATE: They’ve killed this piece due to Soaries’ statements yesterday.