I think I'm wrong

I've often said to many persons how ironic it seems that those most imperilled by international terrorism are least likely to support Bush's efforts to rectify it. My thinking, based upon observation of (non-existent) security procedures at various vulnerable urban spots was that Bush both a) isn't very good at protecting people from terrorism; and b) the people most at risk know it.

Now, I don't have a heck of a lot of evidence to back me up on this. But I decided to take a look at the numbers underlying the Quinnipiac Polling Institute which specializes in several "Blue States" in the New England area.

I was surprised by what I found.

In Connecticut, 24% of respondents listed terrorism as a primary concern. But among all respondents, 48% thought Bush would handle terrorism better than Kerry while 41% felt the opposite. This in a poll that found Bush leading by 45-38!

In Pennsylvania, Bush is seen as better by 57-35 with 25% citing it as a primary concern. New Jersey is 55-38 with 30% considering it a primary concern. And New Yorkers, who weren't asked whether it was a primary concern, believe Bush would do a better job by a margin of 52-40.

Now, I don't consider this data set deep enough or clear enough to tell me what I want to know. But it does suggest that a non-negligible number of persons who support Kerry for president nevertheless believe that Bush would do a better job handling terrorism than Kerry.

Leaves me wondering: do they know something I don't?