Obama won roughly 70% of most-educated counties, Clinton won 90% of the least-educated counties

[DS1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/opinion/29brooks.html?ex=1210132800&en=a2fde9c86c71fef0&ei=5070&emc=eta1

(snip)

In state after state (Wisconsin being the outlier), Barack Obama has won densely populated, well-educated areas. Hillary Clinton has won less-populated, less-educated areas. For example, Obama has won roughly 70 percent of the most-educated counties in the primary states. Clinton has won 90 percent of the least-educated counties. In state after state, Obama has won a few urban and inner-ring suburban counties. Clinton has won nearly everywhere else.

This social divide has overshadowed regional differences. Sixty-year-old, working-class Catholics vote the same, whether they live in Fresno, Scranton, Nashua or Orlando.

The divide has even overshadowed campaigning. Surely the most interesting feature of the Democratic race is how unimportant political events are. The candidates can spend tens of millions of dollars on advertising, but they are not able to sway their opponent’s voters to their side. They can win a stunning victory, but the momentum doesn’t carry over from state to state. They can make horrific gaffes, deliver brilliant speeches, turn in good or bad debate performances, but these things do not alter the race.

In Pennsylvania, Obama did everything conceivable to win over Clinton’s working-class voters. The effort was a failure. The great uniter failed to unite. In this election, persuasion isn’t important. Social identity is everything. Demography is king.

:popcorn:

[Radical Activist]

1. Better educated people pay more attention to the news.

That means they got to know Obama better, while less educated voters are still voting based on name recognition and memories of Bill like most of the country was a year ago. When the rest of the country learns more about Obama outside of talk radio land they will move over to his side too.

[knixphan]

21. Yep

[WinkyDink]

36. Gee, maybe the woman cashier in my Dollar General Store, who told me she works 2 jobs, doesn't have

the TIME to watch the news??

[Radical Activist]

44. That's exactly it.

People who don't have a lot of time to look at the candidates beyond the quick clips on TV talk shows and maybe the evening news went for Hillary. Younger and better educated people who go online and do more research voted for Obama.

Obama does better with less educated voters when he has more time to introduce himself and get his message out. Hillary doesn't do better with any group no matter how much she campaigns.

[woolldog]

47. except in PA,

where he had plenty of time but it didn't happen.

I think this is all overblown, anyway. White catholic voters clearly prefer Clinton. But simply because they like Clinton doesn't mean they dislike Obama, and a vote for Clinton isn't necessarily a vote against Obama.

In the end I think the vast majority will stay in the democratic party. And to those who decide not to, based on race, good riddance.

[Radical Activist]

62. But how much did he gain in PA?

I think the big shift in state after state proves my point.
I suspect the Democrats who won't vote for Obama in the general are the ones who never would have voted for any black candidate regardless, and I think that's a very small number.

[rodeodance]

73. you make ASSumptions based on NO evidence and look FOOLISH.

[Darth_Kitten]

114. Younger people like to think they are better educated.......

:eyes:

[Radical Activist]

136. Old people like to be condescending.

[Zhade]

142. An unwarranted condescension, at that.

Age =/= knowledge, of course.

[Texas Hill Country]

65. no kidding... no wonder liberals get painted as being elitist with comments like these around...

[Radical Activist]

78. There's nothing elitist about recognizing the world as it is.

People with lower educations often have multiple low wage jobs that keep them from having the free time to follow politics. There's nothing insulting about that.
Its also an issue of candidates addressing the issues of middle and upper class voters rather than the concerns of wage workers. Why should people pay attention when their concerns are ignored by most of the media and candidates?

[rodeodance]

80. "The great uniter failed to unite." this is the world as it is. BHO is losing in NC also

[Radical Activist]

102. your one liners are so pointless.

And ignoring them is getting old. Have you ever backed up anything you wrote? I haven't seen it.

[rodeodance]

130. the truth can be said in a few words.

[Radical Activist]

135. So can a lot of bullshit.

[GoesTo11]

89. Or the law associate who has to bill 3500 hours/year to have a shot at partner

How is she going to get caught up on the real issues?

[Bake]

91. If you're billing 3500 hours, you need some sleep!

That's almost 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Most associates consider 2500+ billable hours to be a "sweatshop."

It ain't worth it.

Bake

[Darth_Kitten]

113. Right..........

:(

[Zhade]

141. Pointing out that the ignorant support clinton isn't an attack on the ignorant.

I share your frustration (and besides, we all know the news on tv doesn't exactly inform so much as entertain people these days).

[McCamy Taylor]

119. Poor folks know the MSM dishes out bs. They are less gullible. That is the flip side.

And everyone knows that education is a marker for income in this country.

[Renaissance Man]

2. Obama's Wins

The fact that Senator Obama is winning 7 out of 10 people who are educated speaks volumes. It only means that we have a lot of work to do to actaully educate the uneducated demographic.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. This correlates with my anecdotal DU experience.

Almost spooky.

[Radical Activist]

4. And once again they have a short memory about Iowa, Idaho, Virginia,

and other states where Obama won working class white voters, so the "demography is king" line is bogus.

[leftstreet]

20. Us workin class eejits in teh west r doin it rite

Texas
Iowa
Colorado
North Dakota
Kansas
Idaho
Alaska
Minnesota
Nebraska
Wyoming
Hawaii
Utah
Washington

[northzax]

40. Virginia is the only one of those that is relevant

the others are caucuses, and those tend to skew towards those who identify strongly with one party or another. But Maryland had the same trends as Virginia.

interestingly, however, those trends have been limited to the Potomac Primaries, they didn't hold true in any subsequent state.

[Radical Activist]

43. Wouldn't that mean Obama does better with strong Democrats?

But I thought closed primaries benefit Hillary because she has more support among party regulars? But in caucus states Obama does better because people who go are strong Democrats. How can both of those statements be true at the same time?
Sorry, I keep losing track of all the reasons why this or that state doesn't count if Hillary loses.

[northzax]

50. doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

I was pointing out that demographics don't matter in caucus states nearly as much as they do in primary states. Why? pure numbers. the larger your sample size, the closer it is to the actual numbers used in the November election, the more accurate your sampling will be, right?

take a look at Texas. 2.7 million people voted in the primary. 750,000 (roughly, hard to get an exact count) went to a precinct convention the same day. if the demographics differ, which would you take as a better representation of the electorate? (I only use Texas because it's the only hybrid. but let's take a straight caucus state like Maine. 44,000 people participated in the caucuses this year. in 2004 743,000 people voted in November (Kerry won both districts) which demographic would you listen to, if they didn't match?

[NJmaverick]

5. A good arguement for higher education

[Mezzo]

16. A better argument for higher education would be learning to spell before casting judgement.

[DS1]

18. And not two minutes ago you were complaining about elitism

Perfect!

[NJmaverick]

26. What an Undemocratic comment! You think encouraging education is "elitism"

Step away from the Hillary, you are becoming too much like her

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. I'll Try To Make A Non Partisan Point

I rarely correct spelling mistakes on the net because it's too easy to misspell a word... If you get in an argument about spelling eventually the person who accused you of being a bad speller will misspell a word...

It is ironic that somebody who is suggesting others are stoopid misspelled argument... Ooops, I just misspelled a word...

[NJmaverick]

23. If you say so boss, glad to see you got the little picture coverd

[Darth_Kitten]

115. Ask any english professor what they think about their students' spelling....

and every one will have more than one horror story to tell.

[Zhade]

143. How ironic - you spelled "judgment" incorrectly.

NT!

[Catherine Vincent]

6. What's your point?

Those same uneducated voters will vote for the Democrat no matter who it is. Do you want to throw them under the bus?

[Hoof Hearted]

7. Great platform! Out of the way, you bumpkins!

[Phillycat]

33. NO SHIT.

[QC]

58. New ad campaign!

[shayes51]

66. LOL!

:rofl:

[pecwae]

63. Under the bus with 'em!

[ProgressIn2008]

126. LOL, I know: "Dreamy Barack who does not soil his hands with the lower classes!"

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. well thats a relief! as we all know the general election is clearly carried by well educated people.

the same people who liked bush cos he seemed like a nice guy to go drinking with.

[Arkansas Granny]

49. That's a very good point.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

61. well its probably because of my clear lack of education

:rofl:

[Arkansas Granny]

69. Well, you know how it is with us undereducated women.

:dunce:

[Renaissance Man]

9. Understandable

However, you have to look at reasonable metrics to the word "educated" or affluent.

There are a lot of people without college or graduate degrees that are able to access the internet and cross-reference the news they receive via the "festival of ignorance" MSM and BLOGs.

How many politically ignorant people who lost jobs to outsourcing are voting for Sen. Clinton in droves? My guess is that it's a lot.

[Birthmark]

10. Nonsense.

Counties aren't educated. I never saw a single county in any college or university ever. :D

[matcom]

11. then why are YOU supporting him?

:P

:hide:

[DS1]

15. I got lost

[Mezzo]

12. so?

how elitist of you. It's no wonder that burden is with us.

[Shakespeare]

13. troublemaker!!

:rofl:

[DS1]

17. sshh! (actually it's a pretty balanced article if you read the whole thing)

[Muttocracy]

14. True in NY State too - she lost one of the most liberal, well-educated counties. nt

[Renaissance Man]

19. So, have we reached a conclusion?

If you're dumb and couldn't stamp your way out of a wet paper bag, you're more likely to vote for Senator Clinton. No?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. All My Frends In My Trailer Park Like Hilery

Hears my websight:

http://www.mytrailerpark.com/

[cbayer]

125. Ok, i probably shouldn't have

but I laughed until I cried.

[jsamuel]

22. and the decline in pirates is directly correlated to global warming

correlation does not equal causation

There is likely other reasons for this like rural vs urban.

[shaniqua6392]

24. They don't know what the hell they are talking about.

They try to put everyone in a category. Not every blue collar worker is uneducated. I am blue collar with a bachelor's degree. Not everyone can be put into a box. Blue collar workers do watch the news.

[Renaissance Man]

27. Think outside the box!

Blue collar workers do watch the news. No one is disputing that fact. Do you cross-reference that news with personal research? Many graduate and professional degree holders usually are keen to research methods, thereby more informed and more apt to critically analyze a candidate's position.

Personally, I'm in a dual program to receive both a JD/MPA. It doesn't overshadow that Bachelor's Degree that you have. I'm assuming that you support Senator Clinton.

However, you have to begin to raise questions concerning these statistics and begin to question what sect of voters is more informed on the issues.

[Phillycat]

38. Oh, bull fucking shit.

You could just as easily argue that a blue collar worker, who will be more affected by policy than you in your cushy white-collar job, is MORE likely to research the candidates and their positions. You are a snob.

Signed,

An Ivy-League Educated Hillary Supporter

[shaniqua6392]

55. I would say that I do a fair amount of research.

I use the internet to investigate/research using a variety of resources. I watch quite a bit of television media. I have stacks of books on politics and history that I have read. I realize certain people are easily led by the media because they do not question things. But I also think that we can not say that Clinton supporters are "low income" or "blue collar", etc. I have been around many professionals that do not even pay attention at all to politics. They vote with the "sheeple" and do not do their homework. Speaking of putting people in a box....I think you may have proved my point in your comments. I am most definitely not a Clinton supporter. I am merely a Democrat who is willing to vote for either candidate. I am not thrilled with either of them, per se. Your assumption was wrong. What made you assume that?? Was it because I said I was a blue collar worker? Always remember in your future life after you receive that JD/MPA: Do not make assumptions or judge people. Sometimes millionaires wear flannel shirts. Sometimes poor people wear suits.

[Yael]

25. Wow -- so DU really IS representative of the greater population

Who knew?

[Upton]

28. Obama voters are better versed on the issues

[rodeodance]

77. "The great uniter failed to unite"

[NoodleyAppendage]

29. Dumbasses for Hillary! I love it...just might make a bumpersticker and give it out. n/t

J

[Bake]

93. There's a difference between "uneducated" and "dumbass"

As you just proved.

Bake

[NoodleyAppendage]

127. In an information age and economy, those who choose to be uneducated are dumbasses. n/t

J

[underpants]

30. The press is trying to use minutia to convince everyone as to why their candidate should win

and they are absolutely pouring it on Obama. They seem to sense that he is vulnerable and will go down.

[redqueen]

31. "They can win a stunning victory,

but the momentum doesn’t carry over from state to state."

Um... what "stunning victory" is this person referring to here? :wtf:

Not sure it's worth reading, based on that.

[Cant trust em]

32. Pretty funny

supporters from both camps don't like these statistics.

[WinkyDink]

34. Is this supposed to be lauded? That the under-educated don't connect with Obama?

Are Democrats here so snobbish they forget how much of an impact poverty has on affording higher education and gaining employment?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

111. apparantly its only stupidity that prevents higher education.

you didnt get that memo?

[Phillycat]

35. "In state after state, Obama has won a few urban and inner-ring suburban counties. Clinton has won

nearly everywhere else".

And right there is the crux. The Dem candidate will win in those urban and inner ring suburbs no matter who the candidate is, but the "everywhere else" part is where the Dem usually struggles. Hillary is strong in the areas we need our candidate to be strong.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

112. ...

:thumbsup: aren't you an ivy league grad?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. Im So Stoopid I Cant Rede Your Poste

~

[spoony]

76. Dagnabbit th'en hoo tiped that fer you?

I rekon I shuld also hier them to tipe mi poasts! Ma one fingur iz geting tyred! :D

[Khaotic]

41. Here ya go

A great sticker for all those unedumacated Hillary voters to put on the back of der pick'em up trucks.



That should tell the world dat yuz got da right to not think and dat non-thinkers have to stick together.

[zulchzulu]

45. Dumbasses also usually vote Repig too...

[Dr Fate]

54. They dont call 'em "swing voters" for nothing. n/t

n/t

[Auntie Bush]

46. That's because the less educated are poor and probably working two jobs and don't have time to l

lounge around the internet getting brain washed like a lot of cultists or followers of a movement. I can't believe Obama supporters are going after the Democratic base. Not a wise move. He needs the base to support him in the GE if he wants to win.

[Dr Fate]

51. "Democratic base?"- LOL -since when are conservative swing-voters the DEM base?

Maybe these folks could use a few good hours of internet as opposed to listening to the Pro-war, pro-conservative media all the time.

LOL-You will be BEGGING them to read the DEM side on the internet once the GOP/media easily swings them back.

Let me make this clear- if they voted for Bush or can be convinced to vote Republican, they are not part of any DEM "base"- they are swing-voters.

[Auntie Bush]

90. I suggest you read this thread and the posts.

The poor and the uneducated are ALL Democrats...not republicans. What you been smoking? If anyone is appealing to the wrong people is Obama. He appeals to the rich yuppies, Indies and Republicans. That's Obama'a base!

I think you need to re-write your post Dr.

[jonestonesusa]

97. You left African Americans out in your summary of BO's base

and not all African Americans are rich yuppies.

[Dr Fate]

101. You might even call most black voters "working class" or "blue collar"

n/t

[Dr Fate]

99. If they dont vote straight DEM, they aint "the DEM base"- they are swing-voters.

I dont see what is so hard to understand about that.

The poor and un-educated are not "all Democrats"- they often vote GOP based on guns, gays, religion, patriotism, etc. I know, I know- it's "elitist" for me to note that fact.

Soon enough a sizable portion of this demographic will be McCain's base (they dont call 'em swing-voters for nothing)- and then you can tell me how noble and salt of the earth they are.

The Democratic base are people who vote straight DEM, who actively support the DEM party, and folks who work to keep conservatives out of power.

Stop confusing the DEM base with socially conservative swing-voters who happen to vote DEM every blue moon.

[Dr Fate]

48. No one calls Hillary's new base what they really are: SWING-VOTERS!

If these swing angry white SWING VOTERS can be convinced that ANY Democrats is a "racist, elitist, unpatriotic terrorist supporter" then McCain will have no problem swinging them back.

Apparently all it takes to convince them of the most outrageous beliefs is a few well placed lies, some smears, exaggeration and a willing media.

Something tells me that these "working class" swing-voters wont be viewed as noble, salt of the earth types once they go back to McCain.

LOL! They dont call 'em "swing voters" for nothing- and if Hillary is handed the nomination she will learn that the hard way.

[QC]

52. Only about a quarter of Americans have a bachelor's. n/t

[knixphan]

53. ky

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/26/133958/391/499/503927

"I left the county courthouse and crossed the main street to talk to a small group of demonstrators holding signs next to McCain’s campaign bus. J. K. Patrick, a retired state employee from a neighboring county, wore a button on his shirt that said "Hillary: Smart Choice."

"East of Lexington she’ll carry seventy per cent of the primary vote," he said. Kentucky votes on May 20. "She could win the general election in Kentucky." I asked about Obama. "Obama couldn’t win."

Why not?

"Race," Patrick said matter-of-factly. "I’ve talked to people—a woman who was chair of county elections last year, she said she wouldn’t vote for a black man." Patrick said he wouldn’t vote for Obama either.

Why not?

"Race. I really don’t want an African-American as President. Race."
What about race?

"I thought about it. I think he would put too many minorities in positions over the white race. That’s my opinion. After 1964, you saw what the South did." He meant that it went Republican. "Now what caused that? Race. There’s a lot of white people that just wouldn’t vote for a colored person. Especially older people. They know what happened in the sixties. Under thirty—they don’t remember. I do. I was here."

[eridani]

133. And of COURSE none of those racists could possibly be misogynists as well

Obviously chest-thumping social conservatives will vote for a woman over an ex-POW white male. How could we not see that!

[crimsonblue]

56. It's because she has painted herself as repug-lite...

And the uneducated areas tend to go to the Repugs, but only because of the issues and things that matter (like hit ads or destroying the opponent).

[Jamastiene]

57. Yeah, we know. The whole damn lot of them are a bunch of snobs

who hate poor people.

Next question?





























:popcorn:

[Independent-Voter]

59. Nothing surprising - dumbasses tend to vote for Hillary. Informed voters know better.

[rodeodance]

79. that was an ugly vile classist comment. Name-calling from an IMMATURE BHO supporter!!

dumbasses tend to vote for Hillary. Informed voters know better.

[Independent-Voter]

83. To be fair, I'm more in the "Anyone but Veruca" camp.

[Two Americas]

60. this is the key

The key to understanding the failures of the party over the last 30 years, and the ascendancy of the extreme right wing, lies here.

We alienate ten old school working class (potential) Democrats for every one "progressive" we pander to. This not because those people are racist, nor that they favor the Republicans nor right wing politics. They are voting against what they perceive to be a pampered and upscale minority, an arrogant and elitist faction that is fighting a culture war against them, not a political war on their behalf. Were we fighting a political war, most of them would side with us. Saying that this should not be true is irrelevant. Blaming the people and saying that they are all stupid and get what they deserve is in direct opposition to the history and traditions of the party, to the principles and ideals of the party, and to the approach that has always brought the party its greatest electoral success and given the working people in the country the most progressive programs.

[quakerboy]

129. The problem is

that when we pander to the 10 "old school working class (potential) democrats, we may or may not achieve anything. The reality of our situation is that the right has a substantial venue to access their brains, via Radio and TV. That combined with a substantial number of "our own" who are bought and paid for by the true opponent means that we always start from a substantial disadvantage with that group.

We have to keep speaking truth. That is not pandering. But every time we veer off message to piddle around or play apologist, we split up our message and end up looking like we are equivocating. If more people would have courage and less would give in to fear, we would have this in the bag. Instead, we pander to fear because it has been effective for the right. And so we become what we fight.

[Two Americas]

137. I know

We have it set up in our minds so that it is impossible.

Without a strong left wing economic program - a true political program - the only way we can imagine getting the Reagan Dems back is to be Republican lite and pander and compromise.

We are trapped in a false dichotomy - alienate working class whites or pander to racism - just as we are on every issue and every step we try to take. We can only see two choices, both of them unacceptable choices.

[eridani]

134. Of couse McCain with his eight $10 million dollar ranches,

--and President Shitstain who never did an honest day's work in his life aren't "elitists." Nor are Clinton and the DLC traitors who shat all over the working class with NAFTA. Only computer programmers making 80K a year who live in San Francisco and drink lattes are "elitist."

What causes Dems to continually lose is FUCKING CONSTANTLY AGREEING with the Rethug framing of "elitism."

[Two Americas]

139. sigh

OK.

We are perfect. Any criticism of the party or its methods is tantamount to disloyalty or is helping the Republicans.

If only we didn't acknowledge that we appear elitist to many voters, then we won't appear to be elitist to them anymore. Besides, our God given right to appear elitist and rub it in people's noses shall not be infringed - hey if the voters are so stupid that they can't see that we aren't elitist, well then we don't want them in our elite club anyway. Who needs 'em? Because we are right and they are wrong. Can we help it if we are smarter and just all around superior? Too bad if they don't like it, it is time they faced the truth - we are better people.

[eridani]

145. You are advocating for the Rethugs by agreeing with their frames

Refusal to challenge the frames is WHY the public perceives us as "elitists" and all you want is more of the same. WTF?

You just want us to say "Republicans are right. We are so sorry for being elitist and bringing up economics. In the future we'll try harder and buy a fake ranch so all our candidates can clear brush on it instead of talking about silly elite things like economic inequality"

[Two Americas]

146. I am challenging the frame

The way to effectively challenge the frame is not merely to parrot the opposite, and then attack each other over ridiculous litmus tests such as this. The party is disintegrating. There won't be anyone left by the time we are finished that we can still call an ally.

WTF is wrong with being an elite, by your definition? Nothing. FDR and RFK were elites. So what? That has nothing to do with anything.

We nominate professor Gore, professor Kerry and now professor Obama. Why? Because we feel comfortable with them - the way they speak, their background, their demeanor, their style. Nothing to do with politics, and we have no strong traditional left wing economic program to offer voters, no clear and comprehensible alternative narrative to the right wing. It is subtle, it is nuanced, it is bland - except when we are attacking our perceived enemies - the stupid people. We make our decisions based on personal preferences and style, and then are angry that the voters make their decisions on the same damned criteria. They reject our professors, they reject our condescending and arrogant attitude, they reject us because we call them stupid morons, knuckle draggers, fundies, and on and on. Our rhetoric reeks of elitism and superiority. All of that is reinforcing the right wing frame, not what I am saying.

Sure the Republicans use this against us. They couldn't if we were not so dead set upon using it against them, or rather against those they are able to convince to support them. Why do we play into their hands and then get angry at one of our own who points out the idiocy of our own tactics and rhetoric? The reason that the right wing framing is effective on this is because of our weakness, and pointing that weakness out is not helping the Republicans.

FDR and RFK were elites - wealthy and educated. They won not because they said "fuck 'em! We don't need them!" and "who cares if they think we are elites? They are wrong!!!" but because they fought for the working people in a political battle, rather than against them in a cultural war battle.

FDR and RFK were successful because they went after the wealthy and powerful few on issues of economics and power, and defended the interests and needs of ALL of the working people, not by attacking the working people who happened to have voted for Hoover or Goldwater. Until the Democratic party does that once again and rebuilds the New Deal coalition, we will be vulnerable to these right wing frames. Opposing the right wing frames - however we would go about that, anyway - "I am against right wing framing because they are wrong and that is my political position" - is no substitute for a serious political program and an effective outreach to the people.

[eridani]

148. "we have no strong traditional left wing economic program to offer voters"

I couldn't agree more. But we are stuck with two centrist candidates. One wants more people to get permanently involved in politics and the other doesn't. One wants more doorbellers and phonebankers and permanent writers of letters to congresscritters and editors, and the other has expressly dissed "activists."

Recall that it was the PEOPLE who pushed FDR from below. I dislike Obama's centrist triangulation, but he is pushing permanent involvment in politics by many more people, and if progressive populists can't use that, we have only ourselves to blame. And he occasionally will verbally break Rethug frams, while Clinton only reinforces them with campaigning on fear and using the "commander in chief" meme all the time. Not to mention the utterly fake calling out of Obama for "elitism".

[Two Americas]

153. we agree

I am not excited about either candidate nor partial to either.

Obama made a bad move with his remarks in San Francisco. You couldn't script it better to reinforce the image - the appearance - of the "liberal elite" stereotype that the Republicans use to great effect, and that also is resented by many voters. Of course the result of that is going to be that he is "called out" for "being an elitist." My complaint is with all of the supporters denying that this - and many other similar things - are a problem, or say that they shouldn't be a problem, or say who cares if they are? It is not a matter of income or background, it is a matter of attitudes and appearances.

It is not as though I am asking us to compromise on any substantive political issues nor on principles - that is constantly done and is already accomplished. But do we have to revel in our superiority complex and self-righteousness? Why do we compromise year after year on all of the traditional principles and ideals of the party, but then absolutely refuse to compromise on rhetoric, style, tactics and strategy? - all of which need an overhaul, in my opinion.

Has self-righteousness become the actual goal of modern liberalism, rather than results? Has style become more important than substance? I think so, to some extent. We shouldn't then be surprised when voters reject us on matters of style and for our self-righteousness.

It isn't Obama's fault. There is a double standard in this country - Black men are held to a different set of standards and carry a higher burden when seeking positions of power.

[eridani]

155. What did Obama say that was the slightest bit different from what Frank Thomas says?

It's about the SPIN, dammit! We don't have to validate the rightwing framing here. Where in fucking hell do you read into this that Obama thinks he is superior? Is he supposed to fake drinking shots of Crown Royal like Clinton? Or build a whole fake ranch like Bush? Or fake being macho in a tank like Dukakis? Just like people who train their H1B replacement have to fucking smile all the time and fake not being "bitter" if they expect any job references.

How in bloody hell do you expect any serious economic changes without popular political involvement? Which candidate is actively promoting more involment by citizens? And which candidate says the even trying to find the time to participate more is fundamentally "elitist," and the main reason she loses caucus states?

[Yossariant]

64. Yup. Only us dummies support Clinton --- Otherwise known as the MAJORITY.

:toast:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

67. my GRE scores were 1460/1600. i must be soooo stupid.

soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo stupid

[Yossariant]

68. I have a postgraduate degree and "full boat" academic scholarship.

If one smart person had applied, I'da been toast.

:toast:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

72. thats not possible, according to this thread, we are stupid, swing voters

who can just as easily vote for mccain.

:P

[Yossariant]

75. That describes me perfectly. Too stupid to support Obama.

I think this message will resonate with voters.

Barack should explain it to us s - l - o - w - l - y, of course.

:dunce:

[jakem]

70. really? quoting GRE scores as proof?

:rofl:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

71. istn this thread about education and higher degrees?

laugh all you want but most institutions of higher education use GRE's as a decision making tool because of its validity. if it had no validity and reliability, for a general intelligence measure, it would not be used as a selection device.

:eyes:

posts like yours and this thread in general make me really doubt this so called intelligence that you people are prattling about.

[spoony]

74. I think the poster was thinking GED?

Because there's certainly nothing to laugh at about a GRE!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

82. which ofcourse just demonstrates my point perfectly,

:hi: i think a 1460/1600 is nothing to laugh about either. in my masters program my gre scores are almost 200 pts more than anyone else's.

:toast:

[Bake]

94. I've got a B.A., M.Div., M.B.A., and J.D.

I'll omit the "cum laudes" in the interest of bandwidth. And I support Hillary. How could I be soooooooooooooooooooooooo stoopid????

:hi:

Bake

[Yael]

100. No, that makes you part of the 30%

Wasn't math included in any of your classes?

:P

[Bake]

151. Just calculus and statistics.

But finance, econ, and accounting involved a teensy bit of math ...

Bake

[jakem]

104. i laugh because...

you sound like a 19 year old who just got into college and is excited about how smart he / she is...

with all due respect, i don't give a rat's ass about your GEDs and it's implications in regard to your vast intelligence. the claim sounds ridiculous amongst adults.



i don't expect you to be impressed by my credentials, don't try to flaunt yours. it is unbecoming. that is what i was responding to.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

106. boy you are stupid, its GRE not GED. Graduate Record Exam to get into GRADUATE SCHOOL.

the irony of this is priceless

[jakem]

107. oh, excuse me your royal genius....

:sarcasm: < heard of it?


oh wait, here you go (in case it was one of those pesky questions you MISSED!)


* witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of ...
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Sarcasm from Greek σαρκασμός (sarkasmos), 'mockery, sarcasm' is sneering, jesting, or mocking a person, situation or thing. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

* the use of verbal irony in which a person appears to be praising something but is actually insulting it: eg, “She’sa real winner!”
henry.mpls.k12.mn.us/1Sep20053.html

* A form of verbal irony, expressing sneering, personal disapproval in the guise of praise. (Oddly enough, sarcastic remarks are often used between friends, perhaps as a somewhat perverse demonstration of the strength of the bond--only a good friend could say this without hurting the other's ...
home.cfl.rr.com/eghsap/apterms.html

* A cutting, often ironic, form of wit intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule
www.public-speaking-course.org/glossaryp-t.htm

* raw and scornful use of apparent approval to express disapproval. Another of London's favorite devices for social commentary.
london.sonoma.edu/Essays/glossary.html

* The use of words that are the opposite of what you mean in order to be unpleasant to someone or to make fun of them.
www.bsa.govt.nz/mediastudies/

* the use of praise to mock someone or something; the use of mockery or verbal irony
www.wallkillcsd.k12.ny.us/glt.htm

* A verbal tone in which it is obvious from context that the speaker means the opposite of what he or she says. “Mom, I’d love to see Howard the Duck with you” is probably a phrase you would say sarcastically.
www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/newsat/chapter12section2.rhtml

* A verbal form of irony. Saying the exact opposite of what one thinks in order to mock another person. Sarcasm expresses scorn, disapproval, or annoyance. Example: "'Ford! Hello, how are you?' 'Fine,' said Ford, 'look are you busy?' 'Am I busy?' exclaimed Arthur. ...
www.georgiasouthern.edu/~dougt/terms.htm

* A taunting, sneering, cutting or caustic remark, generally ironic; made with the intention of belittling, hurting or ridiculing an individual or an idea. "She had lost the art of conversation, but not, unfortunately, the power of speech." — George Barnard Shaw
www.pbs.org/weta/onstage/twain2002/teachers/glossary.html

* n. heavy use of apparent praise for an actual dispraise: it is the common man’s usual form of irony; sarcasm is personal and intended to hurt.
station05.qc.ca/csrs/bouscol/anglais/book_report/glossary3.html

* Bitter or cutting speech; speech intended by its speaker to give pain to the person addressed.
www.calvertonschool.org/Waldspurger/pages/glossary_of_literary_terms.htm

* Sarcasm is a form of irony that attacks a person or belief through harsh and bitter remarks that often mean the opposite of what they say. See, for example, Dave Bidini's sarcastic description of arena names in "Kris King Looks Terrible": ". . . these days, arena names make little sense. ...
www.pearsoned.ca/text/flachmann4/gloss_iframe.html

* crudely mocking or contemptous language; heavy verbal irony
www.daffodil.ca/english/glossary_of_literary_terms_dir/glossary_of_literary_terms_5.html

* Language that conveys a certain idea by saying just he opposite such as if it’s raining outside and you say, “My what a beautiful day.”
www.wcs.k12.va.us/users/honaker/Literary_TermsTeaching1.ppt

* A form of sneering criticism in which disapproval is often expressed as ironic praise. Jamison was walking away from the counter and suddenly dropped his lunch tray. A stranger at the next table looked up and said, "Well, that was really intelligent."
www.floridatechnet.org/institute/Figurative.doc



----

I will give the benefit of most other Hillary supporters that they do not wear their own ass for a hat.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

108. ...

:rofl:

[Umbram]

81. Yes, you must be...

not because you support Clinton, but because you clearly don't understand statistics.

Nobody offered a mathematical or logical proof that claimed ALL Clinton supporters are stupid.

I suggest that you work on your reading comprehension skills.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

84. i think the correlation between the wealthy and higher degrees is far more telling

than the correlation between intelligence and higher degrees.

i think this entire thread is an elitist piece of shit because of the inferences people make about stupid people voting for hillary.

:eyes:

[Umbram]

86. I agree. (nt)

[GoesTo11]

87. Are you actually still bragging about your GRE scores?

Just because you got those really high scores, doesn't mean your that smart in the real world. Wow. I got second place once in my 4th grade spelling bee, but nobody cares not even me or my mom.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

92. still implies i took them a life time ago, which i didnt.

[GoesTo11]

95. Point taken.

Those are actually some pretty high scores, anyway.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

105. thanks

[Bake]

96. 4th grade spelling bee? Wow. I'm impressed.

What did you do with it? LP used her GRE scores to get in grad school ...

Bake

[GoesTo11]

98. It comes in handy.

Whenever people at work need to know whether it's i before e or e before i, I'm the one they ask!

It ain't much, but it pays the bills.

Also much better than most at lose vs. loose, definitely vs. definately, and independent vs. independant.

Hear that posters!

[Bake]

152. You are hereby appointed the Spelling Police Chief!

Lord knows I've tried, but people just keep typing "loose" etc.!!!! Good luck.

:hi:

Bake

[Zhade]

144. Indeed, except for the majority part.

NT!

[mudesi]

85. Well I know Clinton supporters can't do math....

So it's not all that surprising to read this.

[stevietheman]

88. Wouldn't it be great if the undereducated picked our President?

Oh wait, we have that now.

[Darth_Kitten]

117. Better than over-confident know-it-alls......

thinking that because they were GIVEN the OPPORTUNITY to pursue higher educations means their shit doesn't stink.

Life has a way of giving some people much needed wake up calls.

[stevietheman]

131. So you want another 4-8 years of a Bush-style Presidency?

Talking about shit that *does* stink!

[aquart]

103. Class bigotry from Obama elites?

What can you expect from them?

[Elidor]

109. There's a punchline in there

But I'm not gonna touch it.

[Blarch]

110. Not surprised that...

Obama supporters have a higher education.

[Darth_Kitten]

116. Why? Mommy and Daddy had more money to burn?

n/t :sarcasm:

[barack the house]

118. Let's not beat on voters, every one is sacred, every background whatever education.

[McCamy Taylor]

120. Once again, this proves the Dems need a unity ticket to get the Dem base out this fall

because McCain can mobilize the working class vote with his "I'm a war hero" story. Lots of veterans and veteran's families in that group.

[DS1]

121. Yes

I picked the words in the title, which is fair game since they're in the linked article, carefully in order to see what would happen.

The editorial itself is actually quite balanced, once you get all the way through it, which I doubt a few here didn't. That's okay. Nobody expects everyone to read everything.

It can't be denied that Obama's lack of success is a major weakness, it's just amusing to see the defensive defend themselves, the offensive to offend everyone else, and the passive on both sides say "See, I told you so".

[knixphan]

122. What the dems need is an END to the primaries.

plain and simple.

The dems need to focus on an opponent, rather than each other. Demographic data can be skewed both ways, so this debating between H&O is kinda useless. 'Red states' are subject to the game, providing the dems choose to actually play, and stop jerking around with the circular firing squad.

[terrell9584]

123. That was happening in the Republican race too

When there was a race, in primaries, it broke down by demography as you said it would. That says where we are as a country, because identity politics only works when people are in a sour mood, when they need to coalesce around something, and that coalescing usually ends up being their neighborhood and people who are like them.


That's where we are in 2008, wrought by the last 8 years.

[Zynx]

124. Sorry to put a dick in their mashed potatoes, but Hillary actually won post-grads in PA.

I don't even support her any more, but this is elitist garbage.

[Auntie Bush]

128. Clinton won more Northern educated big states and Obama won

more smaller less educated Southern states. That ought to tell you something about how educated people think.

[GoesTo11]

132. Silly debate

1) Is it good to have educated voters?

Are there smart people who aren't formally educated. Sure. Are there formally educated people who aren't smart? Sure. But education usually does help you become a better thinker. Otherwise it's completely worthless. Education's a good thing, not a bad thing.

2) Are uneducated voters less informed because they don't have time to read because they are holding two jobs?

Maybe a few, but no, most people who want to have some time to read. Some uneducated voters have 2 jobs, but not most. In fact, some fo them have no job.

3) Why are educated voters voting for Obama and uneducated voters voting for Clinton?

Because this is not an issue of 100% of each group going one way or the other. Maybe educated go for Obama 60-40 and uneducated go for Clinton 60-40. Big deal. It could be a matter of economic status. It could be a matter of style. Could be race, could be fashion. But global statements about educated voters believe this and uneducated voters believe that are by definition wrong.

4) Who really understands the plight of the uneducated voters?

Clinton: Wellesley College, Yale Law School. Spent time as 1st lady in Arkansas where there was rural poverty. Has contacts to tell her all about urban poverty. But how many really uneducated friends do you think she has?

Obama: Columbia University, Harvard Law School. Spent time as community organizer where there was urban poverty. Has contacts to tell him all about rural poverty. But how many really uneducated friends do you think he has?

Just silly.

[GoldieAZ49]

138. Are you calling out all the graduated idiots in this country?

Leave them alone, they are heavily indebted for those worthless pieces of paper.

[Zhade]

140. Witness the geopolitical ignorance and self-denial of clinton's documented lies here.

And then remember that DU is thought to be MORE informed than the general populace.

It's true - she attracts the "low-information voter".

(And that's being kind.)

[bridgit]

147. More MA class-ism?

tsk, tsk...I did, I had higher hopes for you; sing it to NE Pats instead :spray:

[last_texas_dem]

149. Most of the posts on this thread are so typical of what this place has become lately

The supporters of one rich, highly educated elitist candidate are praising the intelligence and success of the supporters of this candidate, while the supporters of the other rich, highly educated elitist candidate are praising the down-to-earth natures of this candidate's "salt of the earth" supporters. Some are even managing to argue out of both sides of their mouth over the course of one thread. But it seems pretty obvious that if the article said the opposite, the Obama supporters would simply be making the arguments of the Clinton supporters and the Clinton supporters would be making the arguments of the Obama supporters.

Pretty damn ridiculous. I can't wait until we have a candidate....

[aquarius dawning]

150. Identity politics= divide and conquer

[backscatter712]

154. To quote Blazing Saddles:

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."

[anonymous171]

156. Do we even get half of that demographic in the GE?