need your help

[jesson cui]

"Mr Zapatero’s second victory owes nothing to voters' horror at those attacks. “This victory was not an accident or a parenthesis nor a result of the bombings, as the more radical political right has so insidiously claimed for the past four years,” said El País, a left-leaning daily newspaper. The PP’s result also has nothing to do with its failed management of the bombings—it was thrown out after wrongly blaming ETA."---from Welcome to ecomist.com
"Mr Zapatero’s second victory owes nothing to voters' horror at those attacks."what does this sentence mean? thank you!;-)

 

[fromatto]

"Mr Zapatero’s second victory owes nothing to voters' horror at those attacks. “This victory was not an accident or a parenthesis nor a result of the bombings, as the more radical political right has so insidiously claimed for the past four years,” said El País, a left-leaning daily newspaper. The PP’s result also has nothing to do with its failed management of the bombings—it was thrown out after wrongly blaming ETA."---from Welcome to ecomist.com
"Mr Zapatero’s second victory owes nothing to voters' horror at those attacks."what does this sentence mean? thank you!;-)

Z won and his victory was NOT DUE TO the electorate's horror at the terrorist attacks. He won for a range of other reasons.....he presented the best policies, he ran a more efficient campaign, etc.....

I recall that after the terrorist attacks in 2004, the PP tried to gain 'political capital' by blaming ETA. The public saw through this ruse and voted, in the first election, for Zapatero. They voted for him again in March, but this time his victory had nothing to do with the 'backlash' from the terrorist attacks.