Why do the public seem to prefer Republicans when they're afraid? (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

According to the latest AP poll from earlier this week, more women are going to vote for Republicans this time around than they have in recent elections (which should help the GOP get a majority in the Senate, and expand their lead in the House.) When asked why, the women polled gave their top reasons. I would have thought it would be Obamacare, or a general distrust of President Obama, or local issues involving their candidates. But no. The top two reasons given were:

1. Fear of ISIS

2. Fear of Ebola

Putting aside the question of whether or not these are rational fears (IMO, the first is, the second is not), my question is why is it that when people get scared they turn to Republicans?

 

[MaxThreshold]

The same reason fear works for Democrats. Have you heard of the 'War on Women'?

 

[fantasycurse42]

In before someone blames Obama

 

[timschochet]

The same reason fear works for Democrats. Have you heard of the 'War on Women'?

This is true and it's a good point. But it's a very different kind of fear isn't it? Being afraid of legislation and who might be appointed to important courts is quite removed from being afraid of Ebola, or ISIS, or race riots, or war.

 

[encaitar]

ISIS didn't exist when the last Republican administration was in power. It does now. When Bush left office, the perception was that we were "winning" the war on terror. That perception is starting to change again. Women believing that a Republican administration will be better in this area is based on past results, not fear mongering.

 

[Scoresman]

because liberals like change, hence the term progressive. people fear change so people are going to go back to those that have more traditional (conservative) values.

 

[timschochet]

Besides, the people that the "War on Women" works on are already socially liberal; those issues, which have been around forever, help to energize them.

ISIS and Ebola, on the other hand, are new external threats. People are afraid of them, without any previous convictions on the matter. And when they are afraid, they turn to Republicans. Republicans are seen as the "tough guys" who can make tough decisions, while Dems are seen as weak when dealing with these kinds of threats. Why is that?

 

[D_House]

Overactive limbic systems.

 

[timschochet]

ISIS didn't exist when the last Republican administration was in power. It does now. When Bush left office, the perception was that we were "winning" the war on terror. That perception is starting to change again. Women believing that a Republican administration will be better in this area is based on past results, not fear mongering.

Just to clarify, I didn't say that the Republicans were fear mongering these issues. Some certainly are, but I have no idea whether or not it's some kind of organized plan. I doubt it. These two issues just suddenly fell into their laps. Without any effort on their part, the public just seems to prefer Republicans to handle them.

 

[Fennis]

at 11:06 you posted this about ISIS

he's one of a radical group which presents the gravest threat to our civilization and our way of life since the National Socialists. I don't think I am overstating this.

if ISIS is worse than the Nazis and going to cause our civilization to crumble why wouldn't the republicans state that?

 

[Jayrok]

ISIS didn't exist when the last Republican administration was in power. It does now. When Bush left office, the perception was that we were "winning" the war on terror. That perception is starting to change again. Women believing that a Republican administration will be better in this area is based on past results, not fear mongering.

The removal of Saddam Hussein had a lot to do with the formation of ISIS and the current situation in Syria/Iraq. A republican launched operations to remove that deterent and the rest developed accordingly. Granted, it was in check when we had troops in Iraq and it was a democrat who moved to withdraw them. But did we really want to keep boots in Iraq?

We should have never invaded Iraq under the last republican admin.

 

[humpback]

Link?

 

[NCCommish]

ISIS didn't exist when the last Republican administration was in power. It does now. When Bush left office, the perception was that we were "winning" the war on terror. That perception is starting to change again. Women believing that a Republican administration will be better in this area is based on past results, not fear mongering.

ISIS did exist it was part of AQ. And we weren't winning ####. We were in Iraq which led to destabilizing the entire mideast. We lost Afghanistan by ignoring it for 8 years. Winning? On what planet?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The 3 presidents who fought the world wars were democrats. The president who stood up to the Soviet Union while missiles were being armed was a democrat. The 2 Presidents that worked towards a military build up that ended the Soviet Union were Republicans. The two Presidents who have fought the War on Terror were from each party.

Democrats aren't exactly pansies when they are in the White House. Mostly.

 

[timschochet]

at 11:06 you posted this about ISIS

he's one of a radical group which presents the gravest threat to our civilization and our way of life since the National Socialists. I don't think I am overstating this.

if ISIS is worse than the Nazis and going to cause our civilization to crumble why wouldn't the republicans state that?

Interesting interpretative skills you have there. I didn't say they were worse than the Nazis, I wrote that they were the gravest threat SINCE the Nazis. Big difference. And I didn't say that they would cause our civilization to crumble, I wrote that they were a THREAT to our civilization. Even bigger difference. And for the record, both Republicans AND Democrats within the last few months have made comments very similar to this. But the question I raised here is why the public seems to prefer Republicans on this sort of issue.

 

[NCCommish]

ISIS didn't exist when the last Republican administration was in power. It does now. When Bush left office, the perception was that we were "winning" the war on terror. That perception is starting to change again. Women believing that a Republican administration will be better in this area is based on past results, not fear mongering.

The removal of Saddam Hussein had a lot to do with the formation of ISIS and the current situation in Syria/Iraq. A republican launched operations to remove that deterent and the rest developed accordingly. Granted, it was in check when we had troops in Iraq and it was a democrat who moved to withdraw them. But did we really want to keep boots in Iraq?

We should have never invaded Iraq under the last republican admin.

It was a Republican administration that set the timeline. Obama stuck to it when the Iraqis wouldn't give us immunity.

 

[Jackstraw]

Most Conservatives I know are extremely fear based. Afraid the poors are going to take their stuff. Need guns desperately in these times of record low crime. Got to drop freedom bombs because the mooslims are going to murder them in their beds. Fear of blacks. Fear of immigrants. Flaming ebola fears like nobody's business. Unions. Gays. THEM. There's no limit of things to be afraid of.

Fear is their language and they excel at it.

 

[NCCommish]

at 11:06 you posted this about ISIS

he's one of a radical group which presents the gravest threat to our civilization and our way of life since the National Socialists. I don't think I am overstating this.

if ISIS is worse than the Nazis and going to cause our civilization to crumble why wouldn't the republicans state that?

Interesting interpretative skills you have there. I didn't say they were worse than the Nazis, I wrote that they were the gravest threat SINCE the Nazis. Big difference. And I didn't say that they would cause our civilization to crumble, I wrote that they were a THREAT to our civilization. Even bigger difference. And for the record, both Republicans AND Democrats within the last few months have made comments very similar to this. But the question I raised here is why the public seems to prefer Republicans on this sort of issue.

ISIS is not the gravest threat since the Nazis. It's this kind of hyperbole that drives the fears you mentioned.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

at 11:06 you posted this about ISIS

he's one of a radical group which presents the gravest threat to our civilization and our way of life since the National Socialists. I don't think I am overstating this.

if ISIS is worse than the Nazis and going to cause our civilization to crumble why wouldn't the republicans state that?

Interesting interpretative skills you have there. I didn't say they were worse than the Nazis, I wrote that they were the gravest threat SINCE the Nazis. Big difference. And I didn't say that they would cause our civilization to crumble, I wrote that they were a THREAT to our civilization. Even bigger difference. And for the record, both Republicans AND Democrats within the last few months have made comments very similar to this. But the question I raised here is why the public seems to prefer Republicans on this sort of issue.

ISIS is not the gravest threat since the Nazis. It's this kind of hyperbole that drives the fears you mentioned.

So true.

It's still Barbara Streisand.

 

[timschochet]

The 3 presidents who fought the world wars were democrats. The president who stood up to the Soviet Union while missiles were being armed was a democrat. The 2 Presidents that worked towards a military build up that ended the Soviet Union were Republicans. The two Presidents who have fought the War on Terror were from each party.

Democrats aren't exactly pansies when they are in the White House. Mostly.

All true. And yet, it seems that the public perception of a Democrat in the White House, when it comes to this sort of thing, is not FDR or Truman. It's Jimmy Carter, cringing under his desk as the Ayatollahs took over Iran. And some of that has rubbed off on every Democrat since, including Obama, despite his successful killing of Osama Bin Ladin. Obama, like Carter, is regarded as weak in foreign affairs. Personally, i don't think this is at all justified, but I can't deny that the perception is out there and pretty widespread.

 

[timschochet]

at 11:06 you posted this about ISIS

he's one of a radical group which presents the gravest threat to our civilization and our way of life since the National Socialists. I don't think I am overstating this.

if ISIS is worse than the Nazis and going to cause our civilization to crumble why wouldn't the republicans state that?

Interesting interpretative skills you have there. I didn't say they were worse than the Nazis, I wrote that they were the gravest threat SINCE the Nazis. Big difference. And I didn't say that they would cause our civilization to crumble, I wrote that they were a THREAT to our civilization. Even bigger difference. And for the record, both Republicans AND Democrats within the last few months have made comments very similar to this. But the question I raised here is why the public seems to prefer Republicans on this sort of issue.

ISIS is not the gravest threat since the Nazis. It's this kind of hyperbole that drives the fears you mentioned.

Actually, what I wrote is that Islamist Terrorism, which has been going on for some time now and which ISIS is only one small part of, is the gravest threat since the Nazis. I believe that, but you're welcome to disagree with it.

But again, my question was not whether or not these fears, or any fears, are justified. That's a separate topic, and certainly worthy of discussion. But my question here is, assuming these fears exist, why would an independent American choose Republicans to deal with them over Democrats?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The 3 presidents who fought the world wars were democrats. The president who stood up to the Soviet Union while missiles were being armed was a democrat. The 2 Presidents that worked towards a military build up that ended the Soviet Union were Republicans. The two Presidents who have fought the War on Terror were from each party.

Democrats aren't exactly pansies when they are in the White House. Mostly.

All true. And yet, it seems that the public perception of a Democrat in the White House, when it comes to this sort of thing, is not FDR or Truman. It's Jimmy Carter, cringing under his desk as the Ayatollahs took over Iran. And some of that has rubbed off on every Democrat since, including Obama, despite his successful killing of Osama Bin Ladin. Obama, like Carter, is regarded as weak in foreign affairs. Personally, i don't think this is at all justified, but I can't deny that the perception is out there and pretty widespread.

Well then maybe its this:

Democrat

http://archive.rushimg.com/home/daily/site_042908/content/01125107.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg

Republican

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/imgLib/20140612_teardownthiswall_reaganL.jpg

Or, you know, if you want a really serious answer.

the 19th Amendment.

You're welcome.

 

[bigbottom]

According to the latest AP poll from earlier this week, more women are going to vote for Republicans this time around than they have in recent elections (which should help the GOP get a majority in the Senate, and expand their lead in the House.) When asked why, the women polled gave their top reasons. I would have thought it would be Obamacare, or a general distrust of President Obama, or local issues involving their candidates. But no. The top two reasons given were:

1. Fear of ISIS

2. Fear of Ebola

Putting aside the question of whether or not these are rational fears (IMO, the first is, the second is not), my question is why is it that when people get scared they turn to Republicans?

Because Republicans talk tough.

 

[HellToupee]

Both sides thrive on FEAR

 

[Yankee23Fan]

According to the latest AP poll from earlier this week, more women are going to vote for Republicans this time around than they have in recent elections (which should help the GOP get a majority in the Senate, and expand their lead in the House.) When asked why, the women polled gave their top reasons. I would have thought it would be Obamacare, or a general distrust of President Obama, or local issues involving their candidates. But no. The top two reasons given were:

1. Fear of ISIS

2. Fear of Ebola

Putting aside the question of whether or not these are rational fears (IMO, the first is, the second is not), my question is why is it that when people get scared they turn to Republicans?

Because Republicans talk tough.

Yup - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBl8Ddsaf4U

 

[RCon]

Serious answer? ISIS and Ebola have dominated the news lately, and every story is "OMG - the world is ending!!1!1!!". Democrats are currently in power, and therefore get the blame. I really don't think it's any more complicated than that.

 

[timschochet]

Let's discuss Ebola, since it's the second biggest reason according to the poll. What difference is there in the Republican policy about Ebola vs. the Democrat policy? Some outspoken conservatives would like to have a travel ban from west Africa, but the majority of Republican politicians have expressed no view on this subject. A few extremist voices in the GOP, notably Steve King, are trying to tie Ebola to closing our southern border. But this is the position of a small minority. And a few crackpots who the media regards as conservative, but who truly aren't, are suggesting that Obama deliberately wants Ebola to spread in this country. Michael Savage is the most well-known proponent of this viewpoint, though Rush Limbaugh has hinted at the same thing.

And that's it. Most Republicans are silent on this issue or state their support of what the CDC is doing. Yet it seems that voters view Ebola as an issue that would be better served by having Republicans rather than Democrats. This to me is truly mystifying.

 

[timschochet]

Serious answer? ISIS and Ebola have dominated the news lately, and every story is "OMG - the world is ending!!1!1!!". Democrats are currently in power, and therefore get the blame. I really don't think it's any more complicated than that.

I don't think it's that simple. Suppose we had reports of global warming crises every night on the news, yet had Democrats in power. Would the Dems get the blame? Would the public vote for Republicans in that situation? I doubt it.

 

[NCCommish]

Let's discuss Ebola, since it's the second biggest reason according to the poll. What difference is there in the Republican policy about Ebola vs. the Democrat policy? Some outspoken conservatives would like to have a travel ban from west Africa, but the majority of Republican politicians have expressed no view on this subject. A few extremist voices in the GOP, notably Steve King, are trying to tie Ebola to closing our southern border. But this is the position of a small minority. And a few crackpots who the media regards as conservative, but who truly aren't, are suggesting that Obama deliberately wants Ebola to spread in this country. Michael Savage is the most well-known proponent of this viewpoint, though Rush Limbaugh has hinted at the same thing.

And that's it. Most Republicans are silent on this issue or state their support of what the CDC is doing. Yet it seems that voters view Ebola as an issue that would be better served by having Republicans rather than Democrats. This to me is truly mystifying.

More Americans have been married to Kim Kardashian than have died of Ebola. It's not a big deal and never will be. Any more than Legionaries disease was.

 

[bigbottom]

According to the latest AP poll from earlier this week, more women are going to vote for Republicans this time around than they have in recent elections (which should help the GOP get a majority in the Senate, and expand their lead in the House.) When asked why, the women polled gave their top reasons. I would have thought it would be Obamacare, or a general distrust of President Obama, or local issues involving their candidates. But no. The top two reasons given were:

1. Fear of ISIS

2. Fear of Ebola

Putting aside the question of whether or not these are rational fears (IMO, the first is, the second is not), my question is why is it that when people get scared they turn to Republicans?

Because Republicans talk tough.

Yup - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBl8Ddsaf4U

Best. Speech. Ever.

 

[NCCommish]

According to the latest AP poll from earlier this week, more women are going to vote for Republicans this time around than they have in recent elections (which should help the GOP get a majority in the Senate, and expand their lead in the House.) When asked why, the women polled gave their top reasons. I would have thought it would be Obamacare, or a general distrust of President Obama, or local issues involving their candidates. But no. The top two reasons given were:

1. Fear of ISIS

2. Fear of Ebola

Putting aside the question of whether or not these are rational fears (IMO, the first is, the second is not), my question is why is it that when people get scared they turn to Republicans?

Because Republicans talk tough.

Yup - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBl8Ddsaf4U

Best. Speech. Ever.

And he has a Masters in Communication? From what matchbook school I wonder?

 

[dhockster]

I think it could be just that people are tired of Obama's actions not matching his rhetoric. "Okay, Syria fall in line or I'm going to..... I'm going to......I'm going to be really mad!!"

Other countries know that the U.S. under Obama is afraid to take any military action. People feel safer when their government is willing to challenge those who threaten their safety. Since democrats usually take

more of an anti-war stance, I guess people feel the Republicans are more likely to act militarily. Not that that is always good, but it is reality

 

[NCCommish]

I think it could be just that people are tired of Obama's actions not matching his rhetoric. "Okay, Syria fall in line or I'm going to..... I'm going to......I'm going to be really mad!!"

Other countries know that the U.S. under Obama is afraid to take any military action. People feel safer when their government is willing to challenge those who threaten their safety. Since democrats usually take

more of an anti-war stance, I guess people feel the Republicans are more likely to act militarily. Not that that is always good, but it is reality

You mean like when we got Syria to give up their chemical weapons without losing a single American life to accomplish it? Yeah that sucked.

 

[humpback]

Link?

 

[timschochet]

Link?

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-most-expect-gop-victory-november-202133360.html

 

[humpback]

Link?

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-most-expect-gop-victory-november-202133360.html

Thanks, but I meant one that says what you claimed in the OP.

 

[meatwad1]

because liberals like change, hence the term progressive. people fear change so people are going to go back to those that have more traditional (conservative) values.

Liberals only like change if they are the ones calling the shots. Here in Wisconsin, anytime Walker changed anything, they challenged with endless lawsuits and whined like little babies.

This topic is stupid. To even pretend that democrats are not scaremongers of a way higher order than GOPers is beyond ridiculous. A prime example of this is global warming or 'climate change' as they like to call it now.

It took me less than a minute to come up with these examples:

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/10/21/democratic-turnout-flyer-if-you-want-to-prevent-another-ferguson/

http://eaglerising.com/9957/joe-biden-calls-tea-party-crazy-says-republicans-judgment/

 

[tom22406]

I think it could be just that people are tired of Obama's actions not matching his rhetoric. "Okay, Syria fall in line or I'm going to..... I'm going to......I'm going to be really mad!!"

Other countries know that the U.S. under Obama is afraid to take any military action. People feel safer when their government is willing to challenge those who threaten their safety. Since democrats usually take

more of an anti-war stance, I guess people feel the Republicans are more likely to act militarily. Not that that is always good, but it is reality

You mean like when we got Syria to give up their chemical weapons without losing a single American life to accomplish it? Yeah that sucked.

It certainly was a good start but it sounds like they didn't declare all of the weapons like originally hoped.

This may be the result

On August 18, almost one year after an attack that killed nearly 1,000 civilians in the rebel stronghold of eastern Ghouta, U.S. officials said the Syrian government's chemical weapons cache had been successfully destroyed.

Two months later, in October, Syria declared it had four chemical weapons facilities that it had kept secret. The apparent reason it disclosed them: growing fears that the remaining chemical weapons could fall in the hands of fighters from the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. The jihadi group now reportedly controls a small chemical stockpile, with allegations that it used them against Kurdish opponents in the Syrian border town of Kobani.

http://www.syriadeeply.org/articles/2014/10/6291/syrian-chemical-weapons-isis-hands-renewed-civilian-attacks/

 

[Yankee23Fan]

And we're off.

 

[NCCommish]

because liberals like change, hence the term progressive. people fear change so people are going to go back to those that have more traditional (conservative) values.

Liberals only like change if they are the ones calling the shots. Here are Wisconsin, anytime Walker changed anything, they challenged with endless lawsuits and whined like little babies.

This topic is stupid. To even pretend that democrats are not scaremongers of a way higher order than GOPers is beyond ridiculous. A prime example of this is global warming or 'climate change' as they like to call it now.

It took me less than a minute to come up with these examples:

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/10/21/democratic-turnout-flyer-if-you-want-to-prevent-another-ferguson/

http://eaglerising.com/9957/joe-biden-calls-tea-party-crazy-says-republicans-judgment/

Except Climate Change is real and Scott Walker has done nothing for Wisconsin with all the crap he tried to pull. Their economy is lagging the average.

 

[timschochet]

Link?

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-most-expect-gop-victory-november-202133360.html

Thanks, but I meant one that says what you claimed in the OP.

In the OP I stated that more women would vote for Republicans this time around, and that two of the top reasons were fear of ISIS and fear of Ebola. All of that is in the article I just linked. What is your issue?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Boom.

Ping.

Crack!

 

[timschochet]

because liberals like change, hence the term progressive. people fear change so people are going to go back to those that have more traditional (conservative) values.

Liberals only like change if they are the ones calling the shots. Here in Wisconsin, anytime Walker changed anything, they challenged with endless lawsuits and whined like little babies.

This topic is stupid. To even pretend that democrats are not scaremongers of a way higher order than GOPers is beyond ridiculous. A prime example of this is global warming or 'climate change' as they like to call it now.

It took me less than a minute to come up with these examples:

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/10/21/democratic-turnout-flyer-if-you-want-to-prevent-another-ferguson/

http://eaglerising.com/9957/joe-biden-calls-tea-party-crazy-says-republicans-judgment/

For the last time, I never wrote that nor implied it. Both sides fear monger plenty. And I don't even write that necessarily as a criticism!

This topic was meant to be about why the public seem to prefer Republicans when it comes to dealing with external fears. That's all. It was not meant to be a criticism about either party.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EEyQIAemn0

 

[humpback]

Link?

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-most-expect-gop-victory-november-202133360.html

Thanks, but I meant one that says what you claimed in the OP.

In the OP I stated that more women would vote for Republicans this time around, and that two of the top reasons were fear of ISIS and fear of Ebola. All of that is in the article I just linked. What is your issue?

You should spend less time posting and more time reading. It doesn't say that at all, and that isn't exactly what you said in the OP.

According to the latest AP poll from earlier this week, more women are going to vote for Republicans this time around than they have in recent elections (which should help the GOP get a majority in the Senate, and expand their lead in the House.) When asked why, the women polled gave their top reasons. I would have thought it would be Obamacare, or a general distrust of President Obama, or local issues involving their candidates. But no. The top two reasons given were:

1. Fear of ISIS

2. Fear of Ebola

Putting aside the question of whether or not these are rational fears (IMO, the first is, the second is not), my question is why is it that when people get scared they turn to Republicans?

 

[tom22406]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EEyQIAemn0

I was thinking more along the lines of this.Tim starts a thread and then this happenshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InENM6fwIwE

 

[Sinn Fein]

Fear is what drives religion

You can do the math from there

 

[timschochet]

Link?

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-most-expect-gop-victory-november-202133360.html

Thanks, but I meant one that says what you claimed in the OP.

In the OP I stated that more women would vote for Republicans this time around, and that two of the top reasons were fear of ISIS and fear of Ebola. All of that is in the article I just linked. What is your issue?

You should spend less time posting and more time reading. It doesn't say that at all, and that isn't exactly what you said in the OP.

According to the latest AP poll from earlier this week, more women are going to vote for Republicans this time around than they have in recent elections (which should help the GOP get a majority in the Senate, and expand their lead in the House.) When asked why, the women polled gave their top reasons. I would have thought it would be Obamacare, or a general distrust of President Obama, or local issues involving their candidates. But no. The top two reasons given were:

1. Fear of ISIS

2. Fear of Ebola

Putting aside the question of whether or not these are rational fears (IMO, the first is, the second is not), my question is why is it that when people get scared they turn to Republicans?

whatever. Obviously you have some point you want to make about how I got something wrong about the article. I suspect that it's not really pertinent at all to the discussion, but some people around here seem to get a thrill when they can demonstrate how I screwed something up. So go ahead and make your point already.

 

[Boston]

Political correctness...it has been around a while but I really believe your average Joe/Average Jane is catching on to it and they aren't happy with it...they are also seeing it more and more in their every day lives...when the government (i.e. the dems) start telling women how they should feed their kids or how much soda they can have or how their kids can have rubbers or abortions without them knowing you are hitting way too close to home...I think political correctness has started to overplay it's hand and it will begin to backfire on those who practice it...

 

[timschochet]

Political correctness...it has been around a while but I really believe your average Joe/Average Jane is catching on to it and they aren't happy with it...they are also seeing it more and more in their every day lives...when the government (i.e. the dems) start telling women how they should feed their kids or how much soda they can have or how their kids can have rubbers or abortions without them knowing you are hitting way too close to home...I think political correctness has started to overplay it's hand and it will begin to backfire on those who practice it...

I think you're right. I think there IS a backlash that will cause many people to vote for Republicans. I don't agree with you (i think) as to whether or not the backlash is deserved, but I agree with you that it's there, and it will favor Republicans. I also think that if there is continued rioting in Ferguson that will help Republicans as well: it's the main reason Richard Nixon was elected in 1968, because the public was sick of all the riots and Civil Rights protests and hippie protests against the war, etc. etc., and they wanted someone tough who put a stop to it.

However, this doesn't have too much bearing on fear of ISIS or fear of Ebola, unless I'm missing something.