trickyy

while democrats could surely benefit from appearing to have some real moral convictions, the terrorism issue has not received as much press lately.
terrorism was definitely important; the concern was virtually non-existant 4 years ago.

but look at the states that are supposedly concerned...the south and the plains. NY, DC and LA, proven terrorist targets (the LAX plot was foiled), all voted heavily kerry. meanwhile boondocks, alabama and podunk, utah vote for bush. i find it kind of backwards.

i did a post a while back about the statistical insignificance of terrorism. if a mall is completely destroyed each week by terrorists, and you go to a mall for 2 hours a week, you have a 1:6,000,000 chance of being affected....twice as unlikely as being struck by lightning.

i'm not saying that we shouldn't keep terrorism in mind, and there are certainly aspects of the topic besides an attack on the individual american. but to have it as your main decision factor in the election, especially from the lily white, sparsely populated center of the country (where arabian jihadists would stick out prominently), is kind of ridiculous.


one more thing regarding the ballot issues and red states...some were a mixed bag of results. although montana went for bush and passed the gay marriage measure, it also elected a democratic governor and shifted the state legislature democratic. medicinal marijuana was approved along with several environmental ballot issues. i checked some history and it voted for clinton in 1992 instead of bush. so perhaps some red states are not as single-minded as it would appear at first.


here's the national exit polling, in case anyone is interested
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297138/