Doing our terror level best...

I wasn’t sure whether to start this blog off on a political note, but Newsweek has put that question to rest for me.  Thank you, Newsweek.  Even though I seldom read you, you will always get at least a few minutes of my time every two weeks from that George F. Will column you run.  And a special biweekly place in my heart for you there will ever be, my mass-circulation, doctor’s office-dwelling sweetheart.  Anyway, Newsweek is reporting that Tom Ridge and other Homeland Security officials are reviewing a proposal that would allow for the November general election to be postponed in the event of a terrorist attack.

Not too surprisingly, some liberals have jumped to the 'conspiracy theory' conclusion.  They don’t think the idea is Ridge-tastic, or even Ridge-arrific.  Salon has a roundup of such reactions here, and offers this little bit of justification for the skepticism:

Add to this mix problems with Florida felon rolls, electronic voting procedures in Florida and elsewhere and reports on Diebold's CEO blatantly discussing "helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president," and you see where paranoia about 2004 being another 2000 -- and then some -- finds fertile ground to flourish.

So it’s disenfranchised voters they’re worried about.  Fair enough.  I worry about them too, the way they run about with scissors and stick their oppressed lever-pulling fingers into electrical sockets.  But let's think about where a major terrorist attack might take place.  The first one that comes to mind, of course, is the 9/11-ravaged New York City.  Here's how they voted in the 2000 general election:

BUSH/CHENEY: 400,922
GORE/LIEBERMAN: 1,662,911

 Source: 2000 General Election City of New York's Statement and the Return of the Votes For The Office of President and Vice President of the United States (2/21/01)

(Statewide, Gore took New York 4,107,697 to 2,403,374.)

As you can see, Democrats took the city by a 4 to 1 margin.  Now let's check out the second worst-hit city in the 9/11 attacks: Washington, D.C.

GORE 171,923
BUSH  18,073

A 9:1 margin in favor of Democrats.  Now let's go through the results of the states surrounding Washington, D.C.

MARYLAND
GORE  1,145,782
BUSH  813797

VIRGINIA
BUSH  1,437,490
GORE   1,217,290
 
Source for State and D.C Results:  http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Perhaps the terrorists might think of hitting other big cities, like Los Angeles...

GORE  692,273  (71.52 percent)
BUSH     231,348  (23.90)

Source: County of Los Angeles Dept. of Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk

...or Philadelphia...

GORE  441,834
BUSH  99,234

Source:  http://seventy.org/stats

(Gore carried PA in 2000, but it is still considered a "battleground state".  And it’s true.  We do kick each others asses a lot.  Especially in Philadelphia, where everyone's pissed off all the time because their hometown teams can't win sports championships.)

Anyway, I could go on and on, but the point is this: major terrorist attacks are probably going to happen in large cities, and large cities tend to overwhelmingly vote Democratic.  And in the four major cities listed above, the surrounding areas combined are solidly Democratic.  So a terrorist attack is likely going to directly disenfranchise far more Democrats than it does Republicans.

So then, if you're a liberal, what do you do?  Do you come out in favor of delaying the elections and risk the Republicans regaining momentum?  Or is it business as usual, knowing that some Democratic voters will be disenfranchised, but the end result will put Kerry in the White House?  (And I think it would: if a terrorist attack can't tip the scales in favor of Kerry, nothing can.)  Given the rather hysterical state of liberalism these days, something tells me that most liberals would go with the latter option, even though they've spent the last four years complaining about Florida's disenfranchised voters.   But I would love for them to prove me wrong. 

-Dave O'Connell