Values vs. Safety: The Economist gets inside voters' heads

Earlier, I posted up an article by The Economist where it gave its endorsement to John Kerry before the election. Here's another article where it gives its own take on how Bush won. If you like pictures, The Economist also provided a cool looking map & chart. This is an excerpt I thought was particular interesting:

But perhaps the most important explanation for Mr Bush’s success was the unexpected appearance of “moral values” as the top issue of the campaign. In exit polls, more people said this was the most important issue for them than mentioned the economy, Iraq or terrorism. Four-fifths of those who put moral values first voted for Mr Bush...On the face of it, it suggests that issues such as gay marriage and abortion trumped the war on terrorism and the economy...Together with the Republican success at turning out the base, that suggests Mr Rove’s ambition to win the 2004 election by using social issues to mobilise 4m “missing” evangelical Protestants (who, he says, could have voted for Mr Bush in 2000 but did not) worked triumphantly.

Some people say that Bush winning on cultural issues (i.e., "moral values") is too simplistic an explanation. Instead, they assert that people voted for him b/c he had a clear message for the future. To be fair, the article says that's also possible. However, I still think that Bush won b/c he got his base out more effectively by being against gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research, & other such "moral values." I said as much in an earlier posting when I said Karl Rove was a winner from the election for getting those 4 million evangelicals to come out this time. I was particularly surprised that "values" even trumpted terrorism as the top issue for the most voters. I thought terorism & safety were supposed to be the determinative issues of the election. Here's the link.

UPDATE: converted link {11/8 - Kevin}.