Back
11-16-2004, 11:59 PM
After looking over the voting trends of this country, a few odd contradictions have come up... at least the way I see it...
So, we know that the more densly populated an area, the more likely to have voted Kerry, while the less populated rural zones went for Bush.
Of the Bush voters, Terrorism was the top reason. For Kerry voters, it was Economy. Source (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)
So, what has me puzzled is... the people who are most likely to be attacked, people in densly populated areas like major cities, are not as worried about terrorism as people who live in areas not likely to be affected by any attack.
Have the people in the rural areas decided whats best for the people in the metropolitain areas?
So, we know that the more densly populated an area, the more likely to have voted Kerry, while the less populated rural zones went for Bush.
Of the Bush voters, Terrorism was the top reason. For Kerry voters, it was Economy. Source (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)
So, what has me puzzled is... the people who are most likely to be attacked, people in densly populated areas like major cities, are not as worried about terrorism as people who live in areas not likely to be affected by any attack.
Have the people in the rural areas decided whats best for the people in the metropolitain areas?