Check out the election in 2004:

Obviously, Bush won that election.  Now during that election, the main issue that got people interested was the War.  The War on Terror and the War in Iraq had an interest of the public and 43% of the people said that their main concern was that issue.  But I wonder if the candidates seriously knew of the impact it had.  They both referred to 9/11 but I think that the people who knew mostly about it were the people themselves: those in New York and Wash. D.C.  After all, they were the ones that were mostly affected, and so it seems to make sense to ask them how they were affected because they were the ones that seriously got hurt.

I was shocked that no one mentioned this during the debates, but more surprised that no one mentioned this until after the election.  Yes, I realize that this election is over and we have another one coming up, but this may be important to this election and future elections.  Doesn’t the area where it was mostly affected have any significance to the policies?  Notice that in NY, DC, and PA all voted Democrat that year, and they were the places that got attacked.  If we want to know how to prevent attacks and make sure that we’re safe, what better place to go to then to those three places.  The argument stands like this:

1. Those who were attacked would not want to be attacked again.
2. Those who were attacked would know some precaution or at least a method of preventing such attacks again.
3. Those who witnessed such attacks cannot know (at least in the epistemic sense of know-how) what it is like to actually be attacked.
4. The experts on these attacks would have to be those who were actually attacked, not the witnesses. (From 2 and 3)
5. We should consult experts because they know better than the “average” person. (This was also mentioned in a previous post.)
6. Thus, we, as witnesses to the attack, should pay attention to those who were attacked on what they want so that they won’t be attacked again. (From 4 and 5)

So based on this, it seems that these experts wanted Kerry in office and not Bush.  After all, Bush and Kerry only witnessed these attacks.

Now we can apply this to this election.  I think most people are still concerned about the War and economics.  With the war, NY, DC, and PA all want Obama.  With economics, it’s hard to tell which part of the nation got really hurt the most.  After all, many people everywhere are losing their jobs.  But the main concentration is probably in the DC area along with NY, so again this goes to Obama.  Another big issue is energy and health care.  I won’t pretend to know where in the nation this is fully concentrated on.

I guess my question is should we give more consideration to places where they got hit the hardest?  Suppose the minimum wage was $6.00 but all of the states except for Utah had a minimum wage of $7.  Does it make sense to go to CA and ask them if the wage should be raised to $7 if their minimum wage is already  $7?  I think these issues shouldn’t be a blanketed feature across the nation, but rather more specific to each locale.

If there going to be comments, please no political rhetoric, bashing, or fallacies; otherwise I will delete or edit the comments.