Like everything else in the U.S. presidential election, it's hard to know how the most recent terrorist attack in New York and the stabbings in Minnesota will affect the results on Nov. 8. But we can still say that terrorism, violence and a sense of insecurity are increasing Republican nominee Donald Trump's chances. The attacks, which have recently become common on U.S. soil (San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and apparently Minnesota, too) happened on U.S. President Barack Obama's watch, and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton symbolizes a continuation of his administration's policy. Trump, on the other hand, represents change. It looks like the war on terror in America wants something different. Even the world's No. 1 superpower can't prevent terrorist attacks at home. Obama has asked Americans not to get swept up in fear and threat. He does not want to liken what happened in New York to what happened in Minnesota, even if both incidents took place almost simultaneously. But the average American hears that it was an Afghan immigrant who was behind the bombing in New York, and an immigrant from Somalia who was responsible for the stabbings in Minnesota. Reason, not just suspicion, tells us that both perpetrators were Islamists. And this is exactly what Trump is talking about -- the danger that immigrants from Muslim countries include terrorists, and the fact that currently, America is not winning the war on terrorism. So what should Americans think? On one hand, the media is telling them that Trump is crude and saying things that are not correct, at least not politically, and yet other events are proving that this time, he may be right. There is no doubt that the fact that, after eight years and hundreds of terrorist attacks worldwide, Obama still refuses to utter the words "Islamic terrorism" plays into the hands of Trump, who is suddenly giving examples of other countries -- Israel, for example -- that use profiling and as a result reduce harm. Neither of the candidates could ignore the two incidents. Trump sounded like Trump. He realized quickly what Americans were afraid of and remembered how, following the San Bernardino attacks in December of last year, terrorism once again became the issue that most worried Americans. He attacked the administration and promised to take a harsher line and take the war to the terrorists. As one who opposed the war in Iraq, it's hard to believe he's in a hurry to send soldiers far away from home, or to leave them there after the holidays. Clinton, on the other hand, is sounding cautious. She explains that we need to look, investigate and not jump to conclusions, sounding like Obama 2.0. In an article published Monday on the CNN website, British historian Timothy Stanley explained it well. He wrote that "Trump sounds like he understands the public's concerns. Clinton sounds bureaucratic."
