Sure it would. Politicians would talk about "necessary inconvenience" and "primary responsibility is to keep people safe," and it would sail through, because the opponents' argument would basically come down to "willing to accept a slightly higher risk to speed up the process," and that never works explicitly, only implicitly (i.e. speed limits).

And yes, I do believe the liquids ban does reduce risk by a miniscule amount - I still oppose it, but it does, much as requiring everyone to fly nude and shackled to the seat would reduce the risk of hijacking.